Iran's illegal Nuclear Weapons Program

"The day after Reagan's inauguration, Secretary of State Alexander Haig, believing that Moscow had tried to assassinate him in Europe where he served as Supreme Allied Commander, linked the Soviet Union to all acts of international terrorism," wrote Melvin Goodman, then-chief of the CIA's office for Soviet analysis. "There was no evidence to support such a charge but Casey had read … Claire Sterling's The Terror Network and, like Haig, was convinced that a Soviet conspiracy was behind global terrorism." [Foreign Policy, Summer 1997]

CIA analysts had a secret reason for doubting Sterling's theories, however. "Specialists at CIA dismissed the book, knowing that much of it was based on CIA 'black propaganda,' anticommunist allegations planted in the European press," Goodman wrote. "But Casey contemptuously told CIA analysts that he had learned more from Sterling than from all of them."

Israel moved quickly yesterday to question the US intelligence report that concluded Iran's nuclear weapons programme was frozen, and called for intensified international pressure on the country.

The Israeli Prime Minster, Ehud Olmert, who said the conclusions in the National Intelligence Estimate had already been discussed with Washington, echoed US officials by declaring: "It is vital to pursue efforts to prevent Iran from developing a capability like this." He added: "We will continue doing so along with our friends the United States."

The Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, went further, saying that Iran had probably restarted its nuclear programme. He told Army Radio: "It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear programme but as far as we know it has probably since revived it."

Apparently hinting that the Israelis were privy to intelligence not available to the US, Mr Barak, the Labour leader and former prime minister, added: "We are talking about a specific track connected with their weapons-building programme to which the American [intelligence] connection, and maybe that of others, was severed."

I remember Steissd, and liked him very well. Actually, he didn't disappear till he had gotten his visa from Australia. I fondly imagined hime meeting, and debating with, say, dlowan.

Iran. Well, if they are not well on their way to developing a bomb, does that mean it's safe to bomb them?

That is Pakistan. We know Pakistan possesses the technology to produce a nuclear weapon. We have as good information as anyone could possess that they have manufactured one or more nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we know that they are the home of a particularly virulent form of Islamic fundamentalist rhetoric. The word taliban is the plural of talib (it is the Pushtun plural, in Arabic, the plural is regular, and can be rendered as tullab). Talib is Arabic for seeker, and is a cognate for student. Mullah Omar, and many of his close associates, were students in extremist madrassas in Pakistan. More than that, these madrassas were funded by Saudi Arabia, and taught the extremist form of Sunni Islam which originated in Saudi Arabia, which is to say wahhabism. Mullah Omar and his cronies called themselves the Taliban, and operated from Waziristan (the border "tribal" region between Pakistan and Afghanistan) in their successful 1995 drive to take Kabul and to take control of Afghanistan. They continue to receive support in and to operate from Waziristan, and the Pakistani army continues to demonstrate no willingness to deal with the situation.

Benazir Bhutto, before the 1999 coup which put Pervez Musharraf in power, publicly expressed her support for, and Pakistan's recognition of and support for the Taliban. A week after the September 11th attacks, Pervez Musharraf himself addressed the Pakistani people (you can find it online, i've already linked it in another thread, and am not going to go look for it again) and expressed his support for the Taliban, which support he had already publicly voiced before the September 11th attacks. Musharraf is on the public record as saying that Pakistan was coerced into cooperating with the United States, and would otherwise have been "overwhelmed."

But we don't have conservatives in the United States constantly calling for invasions of either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan, they are a far better candidate for the scenario in which a terrorist smuggles a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb" into the United States--we know they have nuclear weapons technology, and we know they have nuclear waste products.

But, as i said, on the topic of Pakistan, the silence of American conservatives is deafening.

A great deal has been made the last few days over an intelligence assessment that Iran does not currently have an active nuclear weapons program. It appears to be a complete reversal of opinion and indictment of long standing policies to forestall Iranian nuclear dreams... Ah yes, clear evidence that President Bush manipulates facts to justify his evil ambitions. We are not allowed to forget, as if anyone could, that Intelligence assessments that Saddam had WMD and was pursuing nuclear weapons was never proven.

What is a body to think? Is the American President a cynical egomaniac that makes these things up as he goes along? Is the US Intelligence Community no more competent than a Ouija Board?

You are quite right to highlight the dangers originating in Pakistan. Since A Q Khan stole the centrifuge design from Europe in the late '70s, he and his network supported by the ISI the Pakistan Intelligence Service (why oh why isnt it called PIS?) have made themselves extemely wealthy by selling nuclear weapons secrets to anyone who can pay. Musharaff is in an almost impossible position. Whilst the west hypocritcally demands an end to his military dictatorship, we back him against the militants. The problem is those radical islamists have friends in high places within the Pakistan government, particularly in the ISI itself. The nightmare scenario is this crackpot nuclear weapons state is only another coup away from having a Taliban/Wahhabist/Osama bin Laden supporting government. You can bet your bottom dollar that OBL is far more interested in what goes on in Pakistan than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Asherman wrote:

A great deal has been made the last few days over an intelligence assessment that Iran does not currently have an active nuclear weapons program. It appears to be a complete reversal of opinion and indictment of long standing policies to forestall Iranian nuclear dreams... Ah yes, clear evidence that President Bush manipulates facts to justify his evil ambitions. We are not allowed to forget, as if anyone could, that Intelligence assessments that Saddam had WMD and was pursuing nuclear weapons was never proven.

What is a body to think? Is the American President a cynical egomaniac that makes these things up as he goes along? Is the US Intelligence Community no more competent than a Ouija Board?

The issue for me is that what was presented in the NIE was not new to the President. He'd been briefed on it and has been fully aware of what was in it for months. So why didn't he start toning down the rhetoric months ago? If anything, he's been stoking the fires when in private he's been getting advice to the opposite. You mention the corrolary to Iraq. I believe we saw similar results there. Yes, we thought Iraq had chemical weapons, but the intelligence community did not think Iraq had nuclear weapons, nor did it think anti-US terrorists were operating out of Iraq. All that intelligence counter to the President's policy was ignored. I think the President has to answer the question of why he continued to beat the anti-Iran drum while the people we pay to find and interpret the data said the opposite.

For 12 years Saddam made a mockery of disarmament, and secretly continued to acquire the very weapons he was pledged to destroy. The country was filled with UN Inspectors, but they never had a clue to the secret weapons programs until defectors blew the whistle. When the UN Inspection teams began to be tougher, Saddam kicked them out of country. The only consequence was a few days of cruise missiles. Four years later, Saddam again ignored demands that he disarm and refused to permit inspections until heavily armed American troops began to gather on his borders. He grudgingly let in a small number of Inspectors, and stonewalled them. He made a large declaration that said he had no prohibited weapons, but failed to account for huge stores of prohibited weapons that were well-known and documented. He denies everything, and when caught in his web of lies, just makes a token adjustment to his existing position. That's the history of a man who has invaded two of his neighbors in recent memory, who has fired missiles into the urban centers of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This is the man who has made a life of murder and lying to achieve his personal ends. Is the a man to be trusted?

To remove the troops would entail a similar cost to putting them there in the first place. That amounts to doubling the cost, with no return on the investment. Once the credible threat of military force was removed, Saddam would claim victory and resume the same sort of tactics he used for 12 years.

At the height of UN inspection Saddam continued to produce chemical/biological and nerve agents without detection. During that same period Saddam's efforts to obtain components needed to produce nuclear weapons remained secret. After defectors blew the whistle on Saddam's secret weapons programs, he threw the inspectors our of country. He has had four years to rebuild all that was destroyed, and to refine his means of concealment. Now a small contingent of UN Inspectors are back in country, but Saddam continues to obstruct and conceal his prohibited arsenal. Periodically, usually after being caught in another lie, Saddam grudgingly tosses a few crumbs of hope on the table that things will change. This is only been made possible by the presence of our troops and the threat of imminent hostilities. Once the troops are gone, what will happen?

steissd wrote:
Those who do not want to be convinced, will not be convinced by anything: even if the CIA manages to capture the Iraqi WMD lab together with its personnel and bring it to the session of the Security Council.

On my way back from a meeting I listened to the statements of the Foreign ministers of the UK, Cameroon, Russia, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Mexico, and France that followed Powell's presentations. I believe they fully confirm the truth of Stessid's observations above.

Basically the US and the UK are saying, 'we have conclusive proof of systematic and continuing Iraqi attempts to conceal the biological and chemical weapons inventory and manufacturing capability they now have and the uranium enrichment program they are trying to develop. We conclude therefore that inspections cannot produce the required disarmament of Iraq.' Our opponents are saying that, ' these facts are troubling and should be investigated. A peaceful solution is paramount and the inspections should continue.' There is no possible reconciliation of these viewpoints.

It was interesting to note that Bulgaria's statement supported the US view directly (new Europe), Pakistan and Mexico were carefully ambiguous, but more or less with us, Cameroon utterly ambiguous, and France & Russia quite unreconcilable.

Which of these nations has large in place contracts with the present Iraqi government for the development of her oil fields?

This discussion, that is, the discussion on WHY the present US administration is directing it's attention at Iraq has become confused by events of 9-11. The two are not causally linked. The administration has been busy suggesting such, but that has been simple policy oportunism.

As early as 1992, policy formulations to remove Sadaam (or ANY power which might rise up to threaten US dominance in the world) have been floating around Washington. The authors of these plans and rationales were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others now integral parts of the administration.

The link following is to a piece from the NY Review of Books. You folks really ought to read it, if you haven't. If we don't get our history right, we all end up wasting time.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15698

Steve 41oo wrote:

You are quite right to highlight the dangers originating in Pakistan. Since A Q Khan stole the centrifuge design from Europe in the late '70s, he and his network supported by the ISI the Pakistan Intelligence Service (why oh why isnt it called PIS?) have made themselves extemely wealthy by selling nuclear weapons secrets to anyone who can pay. Musharaff is in an almost impossible position. Whilst the west hypocritcally demands an end to his military dictatorship, we back him against the militants. The problem is those radical islamists have friends in high places within the Pakistan government, particularly in the ISI itself. The nightmare scenario is this crackpot nuclear weapons state is only another coup away from having a Taliban/Wahhabist/Osama bin Laden supporting government. You can bet your bottom dollar that OBL is far more interested in what goes on in Pakistan than Iraq or Afghanistan.

It's amazing we haven't had more trouble from Pakistan than we already have. Is it because we're paying them so much to be friendly to us?

There has been a subtle shift in the conservative position with regard to the justification for military action against putative dictatorships with weapons of mass destruction.
........................

There is little of either logic or knowledge involved in the favored neo-con rhetoric to support their goofy foreign policy.

Objection! Neither my friend George OB are now, or have ever been, neocons - simply conservatives.