[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071210" target="_blank">Dr. Strangebush</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> December 10, 2007

The intelligence agencies of the United States government released a \"National Intelligence Estimate\" last week about the state of Iran\'s nuclear capabilities. In short, they don\'t think they exist. <br> <br>\"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program\" opens the report. That damning line has sent great shockwaves across the political establishment. <br> <br>The liberal set have predictably used the NIE to denounce the Bush Administration\'s low-level drive for war with Iran as yet another bungled crusade based on flawed intelligence, a la Iraq. The war drivers have likewise been key to downplay the NIE as much as possible, saying it says a lot of stuff, not all of which makes the Iranians look good. <br>

[Psudo]

Thank heaven! The last thing we need is another Middle Eastern war front.

[CanadianJeff]

Oh boy and here we go again. You can bet no matter what the report says Bush is going to be pushing for action...

[-Mario-]

They knew before the report was out. They knew that for sometimes. Iran could only produce a few miligrams. Plus it was of very poor quality.

I guess Bush will need another excuse to get in... if he wants in

[Murray_Smith]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Oh boy and here we go again. You can bet no matter what the report says Bush is going to be pushing for action...

Please. Bush isn't that stubborn.

Psudo wrote:

Thank heaven! The last thing we need is another Middle Eastern war front.

Technically, an occupied Iran would be less of a front than a consolidation of a sphere of influence. That phrase is accurate, yes?

[Psudo]

I'm fine with that phrase, Murray. My position remains the same: I'm willing to concede that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is worth going to war for, but I both hope and perceive war with Iran to be unnecessary thus far.

[EmperorLiam]

Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ran109.xml

"British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran."



Come on people, common sense, in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, Iran started to prepare for war. They are preparing for war. They are building a nuclear bomb, they are OBVIOUSLY keeping the operation secret now so that Bush can't rally troops to invade.

ALL COMMON SENSE.

Plus the CIA's budget for Iran was savagely cut back, you get what you pay for.


All that really means to me is I won't be visiting Israel anytime soon, not really a fan of nuclear explosions.

[CanadianJeff]

"Please. Bush isn't that stubborn. "

um...France and many other civilized nations all pushed for no war and Bush ignored it all to go in.

Nor did he check the validity of the intelligence used to go in.

Frankly the man has gone to war before without doing all that really was needed to justify the action namely gaining support with his allies or at least trying to and hearing their side of the argument and making sure the intelligence being acted on was valid.

This is not a stubborn man. Just a rash man. However I really and honesty hope your right. I hope he learned from Iraq.

But with some of the things Bush has said in public and some of the blunders he's made...well let's just say I don't think he checks to see if the house is built on solid rock before moving inside.

[Voyager]

I suppose what bugs me about all of this is, if Iran hasn't been doing anything dirty for the past 4+ years, why are they still acting as though they were playing shell games with the UN inspectors?

[Psudo]

Jeff, Bush did not invade Iraq against all reason.

The US intelligence regarding Saddam's search for illegal weapons matched that of every other major intelligence agency in the world. What was he expected to check it's validity against?

The UN's official condemnation of Saddam for violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement gives the invasion a justification in international law. France, Germany, and Russia's collective opposition to the invasion does not invalidate that justification. Australia, Spain, Japan, and the UK all supported the invasion. Why are their opinions less relevant? Though, since it's not a popularity contest, tallies of foreign nations' support or opposition aren't really relevant. Why should we expect broad international agreement before we act in our own self-interest? If the international community agreed to cut our legs out from under us, would we concede to that international agreement?

We announced intent to invade 6 months before we went in (Sep 2002 - March 2003). By the end of that period, Bush was being criticized for waiting too long to invade. How is that rash?

I'm sure you have (or can come up with) responses to each of those points, but my point is that there are reasons with a basis in reality, a basis generally supported by a majority of the country and a majority within both political parties. It's the execution that is widely criticized, not the fact of the invasion itself. Your criticisms of Bush are not demonstrated by his handling of Iraq. They're ideological rather than factual, giving opposing ideologies no reason to change their minds.

I don't want an invasion of Iran for practical reasons; they're friends with hostile Russia, our soldiers need a rest-and-recoup period, and Iran has a strong pro-American popular sentiment I don't want to destroy. I find any news that an invasion won't become necessary to be a relief to these concerns. If an invasion becomes necessary, I'll advocate the invasion and regret the necessity.

[Kjorteo]

Can someone with more practical knowledge fill me in on the difference between peaceful nuclear power (ie electric power plants) and nuclear weapons as is pertains to which one we think Iran is working on?

If I recall correctly, the big diplomatic crisis thus far has been something like this: Iran claims to want peaceful nuclear energy, the United States does not want "Iran" and "nuclear" in the same sentence under any circumstances because they suspect it to be a front for weapons development.

Let's hypothetically assume (I have my doubts, but we'll play along for the sake of the scenario) that the United States' stance on the matter is correct, and Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Can they even do that? If so, how long would it take? Most of the hysterical "We can't let Iran go nuclear" rhretoric leaves one with the impression that they could open their first peaceful nuclear power plant, then you would go to bed, and wake up the next morning to find that Israel and at least four other countries have been wiped off the map overnight. That seems...a little far-fetched to me. I'm no expert, but I would think that it would take a lot longer to further develop the program into weapons development (years?) and that someone would notice during that time.

Assuming that this is correct, my stance on the matter is to let them have peaceful nuclear power under the condition that they let us keep an eye on the program, just in case. If they're telling the truth, then they should be allowed to have an alternative energy source, what with the political and possible climate-related woes pertaining to petroleum these days. And even if they're lying, they would (if I'm not wrong) be in the blatant no-excuse "haha, we're working on weapons now, though we're not quite done yet" phase for much longer than it would take to mount a response.

Also, consider the international response: Many are sympathetic to the peaceful power claims and see preemptively striking now as yet another example of the United States as a trigger-happy loose cannon when it comes to its neighbors, but I struggle to think of anyone who would oppose action once Iran entered the blatant weapon-making phase.

And Psudo, the big problem with attempting to justify the United States' presence in Iraq is that the Bush administration did about as bad a job selling it to the American people as they did managing the country once Saddam was removed from power. Bush changed his story about why we invaded pretty much every time he opened his mouth, and a great many of the lines he used turned out later to be blatantly untrue or, at least in my opinion, not sufficient grounds to justify an invasion. If memory serves, it all started when we were still scared and stunned from 9/11 and came off the high of conquering Afghanistan in retribution, and Bush tried to say that Iraq was in on the 9/11 scheme too. (Blatantly untrue.) Then it was the whole WMD thing (blatantly untrue.) Then it was about spreading freedom and democracy and liberation and freeing the people from an oppressive dictator. (Possibly true, but is that really our business, especially after we just committed troops to Afghanistan? Besides, Saddam kept his country more or less secular and stable, which is more than I can say for the situation now, and we've certainly allied ourselves with worse figures before in the name of stability or taking down other enemies.)

[JJ]

Enriching uranium is the most complicated part of harnessing nuclear power, both for weapons and bombs, and is thus a precondition to pursue either effort.

Basically every country in the world that uses nuclear power also has nuclear weapons, has pursued a weapons program, or at the very least has the capacity to do so. So the nuclear club of nations is still very small, and very few third-world countries have either been allowed to pursue, or even sought to pursue nuclear power as a result.

It seems a bit heavy-handed, but at the end of the day there isn't really a sure-fire way to prevent Iran from pursuing a bomb without also preventing them from pursuing nuclear energy, unless their nuclear energy program is basically run by the west (which I understand is more or less what the EU's compromise position has been).

I'm thus personally a bit sympathetic to what Senator Thompson said the other day, about how if one fears a cake being baked, one should try to withhold the ingredients. The alternative is to allow the person to amass the ingredients and hope they won't be actively mixed together anytime soon.

[GonzoFish]

Whether war with Iran is inevitable or not, in light of this report war right now cannot be justified. Not for any kind of political ideological reasons, but rather simple practicality reasons. To occupy Iran would take military resources that are tied up in Iraq. One only has to look at how the Iraq/Iran war went to tell how serious a war with Iran would be.

The US is having enough trouble subduing a country where the majority of people were being repressed by the minority: a condition that one would think would garner the Americans more support than they've got. Iran in contrast is a theocracy. Think those Sudanese who wanted the teacher with the teddy bear dead, only they're the majority.

Granted, there are plenty of dissenters within Iran, but any country that is capable of using its children as a way to clear landmines is going to put up quite a resistance against an occupying force. Popularity of the cause aside, it would require enormous amount of military resources to even attempt. And without the sense of urgency caused by Nuclear weapons, it the US can't afford to spend them while still in Iraq.

[Kjorteo]

And don't forget allies. Iraq was more or less isolated. The United States didn't have to face a coalition when they invaded. They still don't have any Iraqi allies to worry about in their attempts to stabilize the region now, unless you count the reports of insurgents getting under-the-table assistance from Iran.

Now, Iran, even if it were also isolated, is much bigger and more developed than Iraq. If we're having this much trouble getting Iraq to settle down, I honestly don't believe we can win in a one-for-one contest with Iran even if war was inevitable and justified. If it were the only front we had to worry about fighting on, maybe, but....

But then, Iran has allies. No one came to Iraq's direct assistance when we invaded them, but Iran has China and Russia, which alone are enough to make war with them a much bigger deal than war with Iraq. One thing Bush was right about was that this situation could potentially lead to World War III, but I honestly don't believe we could win against that. Not right now.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Can someone with more practical knowledge fill me in on the difference between peaceful nuclear power (ie electric power plants) and nuclear weapons as is pertains to which one we think Iran is working on?

There are three relevantly common isotopes of Uranium: 234 (0.0058% of all naturally occurring Uranium), 235 (0.711%), and 238 (99.275%). U235 is the only isotope useful for nuclear weapons or power plants. For those uses, Uranium is "enriched" by removing U238 to increase the proportion of U235, making it easier to cause the nuclear fission reaction. The removed U238 is known popularly as Depleted Uranium and is only faintly radioactive (insufficient to cause cancer or other health effects sometimes attributed to it).

Anyway, getting to your point, Uranium used in power plants is usually enriched to no more than 20% U235 (as little as 3.5% can work), whereas weapons-grade Uranium is more like 85%-90% U235. However, it is still possible to make low explosive yield, high radioactive debris bombs ("Dirty Bombs") with the power-plant ready Uranium. For that reason, the mid-range enriched Uranium is known as "weapon-usable". So, yes, the different levels of enrichment can be easily detected, but, as JJ said, it's impossible to give someone the power plant ingredients without also giving them the capability to build nuclear weapons.

Iran's specific claims for Uranium enrichment have us in the west scared because they're asking for easily enough enrichment centrifuges to enrich Uranium to weapons-grade. USA Today says they want about 50,000, when 1,500 would be enough to build a nuclear weapon in a year. That, to us, sounds like radical overkill for power plant refinement, but exactly right if you plan to mass-produce nuclear warheads. It rightly scares the crap out of us to think of Iranian President Ahmadinejad in charge of that kind of weapons arsenal while his anti-Israeli rhetoric makes Bush sound like Mr. Rogers.

Kjorteo wrote:

And Psudo, the big problem with attempting to justify the United States' presence in Iraq is that the Bush administration did about as bad a job selling it to the American people as they did managing the country once Saddam was removed from power.

That statement is true. However, Bush being a lousy salesman doesn't alter the underlying realities of what he's trying to sell.

Bush claimed that Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together against American interests. This was true, they worked together on a couple of things but were unable to establish a continuing working relationship. Even when not cooperating, they were both doing everything they could to undermine the United States. They are, from a National Interest standpoint, two sides of the same coin. The fact that Saddam's regime did not help with the 9/11 bombing specifically hardly exonerated him. If you can find a quote where Bush declared Saddam was involved in 9/11 specifically, I'll concede it to be a lie. Otherwise, Bush didn't lie here.

Which part of the WMDs thing was a lie? Before we went in, every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Saddam was trying to build WMDs and that his failure to cooperate with weapons inspections demonstrated his success. After initial hostilities in Iraq, we found WMD parts Saddam was not allowed to possess (though not as many as expected, nor any built since 1998). Saddam's agents were attempting to acquire yellow-cake Uranium in Niger, though they were unsuccessful. It's like finding a scattering of shotgun shells around a shotgun killer accused of new murders; we made the obvious connection, which was only wrong in the sense that his attempts were unsuccessful. It's not a lie to claim what the evidence suggests, even if it were ultimately wrong.

The spreading of freedom and democracy is the typical goal of a reconstruction effort. Many believe it alone is reason enough to invade dictatorship nations, though I am not one of them. Reconstruction is an important process following a successful overthrow of a dictatorship, but we need not use it alone to defend the invasion of Iraq.

In addition to those reasons for invading Iraq, there are also the UN resolution violations (including the invalidation of the cease-fire from 1991), the lack of powerful allies complicating the invasion, the corruption of the Oil For Food program, and Saddam's previous attempts to have a US President assassinated to take into account. These points are not true of North Korea, Iran, Syria, or Libya. They're not even true of Afghanistan (except the "no powerful allies" one).

George W. Bush did not use lies to invade Iraq, but he certainly did fail to convince the American people of that. I'd rather have had a Lincoln or Reagan, actively and effectively persuading the people of the truth of events. But we don't get to pick our favorite personalities from the past to lead us, we pick from the present set of unknowns. And, popular opinion and lousy execution notwithstanding, George W. Bush did right by invading Iraq. I desperately plead it won't become necessary in Iran, and this latest report somewhat comforts my fears.