Just read an interesting article by Dennis Ross concerning the choices the next President will have to make regarding Iran. It is estimated that, sometime next year, Iran will have refined enough uranium to the 20% level that they could, quite quickly, enrich it to weapons grade and deploy it on a weapon.
The problem with this, of course, is that Iran has no weapon system suitable for, or capable of, carrying a nuclear warhead. Nor do they have the highly technical expertise necessary to create a nuclear warhead, even if they had the weapons grade uranium. Could they build a dirty bomb and give it to terrorists? Sure, but they don't need weapons-grade uranium for that. The 20% they have would do just fine.
For either a deterrent or an offensive weapon, Iran will first need the technical expertise to create a warhead, and then they will need to create the delivery system, something that will not become possible next year. In fact, according to Reuters, Shannon Kile of the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium estimates it will be at least several years before Iran could develop this technology.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has steadily built its own arms industry, declaring itself in recent years to be "self-sufficient" militarily. They build their own missiles, tanks, ships, and even fighter jets. For a list of Iranian weapon systems, see here. It's an impressive list, really, and I'm sure it is rather daunting to Iran's regional nemesis Saudi Arabia. But what you won't find in that list, and isn't even under development, is a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Despite what they evidently want the American public to believe, you can't just cram some uranium powder into a conventional warhead and call it a nuke. The warhead itself must be developed using inert ingredients to simulate the uranium gas, fitted to a missile designed for a heavier warhead, and tested strenously. Otherwise, you end up with a nuclear explosion inside your warhead assembly plant, or in midair shortly after launch.
Don't expect this fact to keep President Mittens (or a re-elected Obama) from attacking Iran based on the nuclear enrichment level. The military-industrial complex is hungry, and must be fed more American blood. Our only hope is that men and women of good character will somehow put a stop to the madness before the bombs begin to drop.
Comments
welcome!
Nice post. IRan would only be rational to pursue such a weapon. It would be the only way to prevent an invasion, which otherwise is inevitable, and a suicide run for an empire.
thanks
It may, indeed, be inevitable that we invade Iran on one pretext or another. From a purely Islamic standpoint, however, nuclear weapons are the exact opposite of rational, which is why Khamanei has issued fatwa against them...not only in Iran, but everywhere. Don't get me wrong...I don't believe for a moment that Iran doesn't, at some level, desire the capability. But attaining an actual weapon now, after the fatwa, would severely erode the credibility of the Supreme Leader in the eyes of Iranians, and, therefore, the Revolution itself.
It is my belief that the true intention of Iran is to attain the capability, but not pursue actual construction or even testing of weapon systems. That would satisfy the fatwa, while still being seen as a victory for Iran over the instense pressure brought to bear by the West and the UN. It would show the Iranian government as strong, and vastly increase the popularity of the Ayatollahs and their system of governance.
Why would they do this if they expected an invasion? Because right now, the immediate threat to them is what remains of the Green Revolution, or more specifically the widespread dissatisfaction that led to the Green Revolution. The Persians have always been more concerned with the threats from inside than outside. Succeed with their plan, and the Iranian people will fight any invasion that may come tooth and nail, laying down their very lives for the Ayatollahs and their "Islamic Republic".
yes.
I don't think Iran will actually make a nuke, understand, but given the 30 some bases we have staged around their country, it would make sense to have a deterrent. Funny that they can block the straight of Hormuz and that isn't stopping us. All war game scenarios show an invasion would be stupid, but the neocons run things. And stupid never stops them.
Exactly my thought, nemesis
which invites consideration of why "we" don't use this minimum time that we know we have before the ancient civilization of Iran possesses nuclear weapons issuing our own fatwas against our own bloodthirsty, domineering behavior. We have plenty of time to develop civil connections with one of the few me countries who by and large like americans. Or at least used to. I don't know now.
We could begin our own dissembling of our own nuclear weapons. We could apologize for the coup of 1953. We could begin to create cultural connections and occasionally show americans an accurate picture of what Iran actually is, as well as letting Iranians get to know citizens. Easy, actually. Not hard at all.
Who will stop a president hell-bent on bombing Iran?
Nobody wants to stand up to the military industrial complex. Most politicians want to be big, brave bad asses, fuck the consequences.
We're screwed no matter who wins.
Unfortunately...
I tend to agree with your final sentence.
Welcome, Downsouth.
Excellent post. Thank you.
I wholeheartedly agree with you
Thanks, Glinda.
I can't tell you how glad I am that such a place as VOTS exists. I hope to spend much time here.
We hope you do, too.
We all don't agree on everything which is the way it should be, how else would we learn. We don't stifle voices here.
great post! and you're right... i've been kind of...
following it and i think we should listen a whole lot more to the experts and not the MIC... i think the IAEA has said that it's years away and watch we should, but there is no need to gin up the war drums anytime in the near future... (or anytime really imo...)
we desperately need statesmen/women who can talk down the rah rah club at this point or i worry that we're almost to a point of no return....
Thanks, poligirl
And I agree that we are in desperate need of statesmen/women. I just don't see many of those out there, especially not in government service. I had, at one time, hoped that Obama would be that statesman. Its one of the reasons he got my vote/money/effort in 2008. I now, of course, see the truth, and it is an ugly truth indeed. I just don't know where the person we really need is going to come from, if he/she comes at all.
This all sounds so familiar...
"Weapons of mass destruction"... "yellow cake uranium"... and all those misleading (read: flat out lying) catchphrases of - geez, was it just ten years ago?
It used to be that people forgot stuff after a century or so had passed. Then it seemed like it only took a generation. Now, apparently, it only takes until the next commercial break.
Just for the record, Ross is a bonafide Neocon,
part of the PNAC crowd, a Zionist, and anything he says about Iran is a lie. Of course they'll keep up with the false narrative that Iran is a key part of the axis of evil and a danger to the world if they even get close to thinking about building a nuke. Again, not the reason they want Iran and it's government taken down.
Ross starts his propaganda out typically,
"Iran’s nuclear program is going to be one of the most important challenges the next U.S. president is going to have to confront. Unless Iran’s leaders shift course and suddenly decide to suspend their ongoing enrichment of uranium, the continuing progress of the Iranian nuclear program will require additional moves by the United States and the international community."
Pure bullshit. The Obama sanctions are now killing the common people in Iran. Ross wants additional moves to kill even more.
They are not going to be able to justify a war based on Iran building a nuke. Not without lying and they got caught at that once. What they're good at is false flags, somehow providing an emergency pretext. Or go at them like Libya and Syria, by flooding the country with Al Qaeda and other mercenaries.
The framework appears in place,
Israel and the GCC,and always, western intelligence agencies, appear to be stoking the sectarian fires ala Libya and Syria.
"Iran’s Sunnis demand greater religious freedom. As minority’s religious leader calls for political acknowledgement, Tehran blames Israel for Sunni terror attacks.""
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=289615
Exactly right on Mr. Ross.
Thats why I chose to highlight his propaganda. He is part of the Washington Institute, which makes some effort to appear "non-partisan". Many Americans look at such articles and swallow it whole, based simply on his association with that think tank. Such propaganda needs to be loudly and publicly challenged at every opportunity.
I figured you were fully aware, so I just wanted to elaborate
for others. I'm glad you brought this up, something I know a little about. I researched about Ross three years ago, actually did a diary about his plan to go to war with Iran. He outlined the sanctions and the feigned attempts at diplomacy, etc., as checkmarks that had to be done before they could justify war. Looking at his present article he stated this,
"But there is one other thing both are likely to do. Each is likely to try a more dramatic diplomatic initiative or end-game proposal with the Iranians. They will do it not just to test the possibility that Iran may yet be prepared to accept an outcome that provides them civil nuclear power but with restrictions that would prevent them from having a break-out capability to nuclear weapons. They will do it not just to expose the Iranians before the world and their own public if they turn down such a proposal. They will do it also to show the American public that we went the extra mile if force proves necessary."
That's exactly what he and the Brookings Institute outlined as steps before their wet dream of actual war. They figured none of this shit is really going to work, but they have to take each successive step to make the end result of war more legit.
Glad to see you here btw. They told me I can say what I want, so I'm trying to do that. :)
It's a nice change.
A thot. Many of us have been warning about a war with Iran
for years. I remember being ridiculed by the Obots when bringing up what appeared to be ramped up efforts in the MSM in early 2011.
But now things seem different because of the sanctions, the election and a new four year presidential period, some of the things the Zionist thinktanks have been saying, such as calling for a false flag or a new Pearl Harbor, again.
With the impact of the sanctions on Iran, something's got to give.
heh
Nice change, indeed! And I most definitely want you (and everyone) to say what they want, or more precisely what they truly think. And thanks, its great to be here.
Ross is probably right about what the next President will do, as far as the "end-game proposal". Both Obama and Romney have bought in to this inevitability of war with Iran, so they are, indeed, likely to follow that formula. Experts like Mr. Kile (cited in my diary) need to step up to the world stage and inform the public as loudly as possible of the deviousness of the neo-con/MIC argument for this war, but I hold out little hope for that.
Does that diary still exist? I'd be very interested in reading it.
Can't seem to identify it by title,
pretty sure I wrote something back in 2009. Here's an article from that period that outlines probably what I said. Ross has been after Iran for a long time.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22397.htm
Welcome downsouth
Wow, we're going to have to tighten up around here, if this is the new standard for postings. Excellent, making me want to write something up. Thank you for this.
I couldn't hold myself back, already commented upthread on the essay. It's just so good to "see" you here. If I remember you, you have a measure of concern for the working man and woman, not an often discussed topic in many major venues.
It is sad to watch this unfold, and feel how weak the truth seems against the veil of delusion. I can only hope that the truth will one day set us free.
Thank you so much for writing this. It needed to be said.
Thanks, geomoo
Whenever I see your name, my mind reads it as "Geronimo". heh. Anyway, yes, I do indeed have a special place in my heart for the working man and woman. Before I became disabled, I was one of them, making not enough money and trying to buy too expensive basic necessities, with little left over for lifes little pleasures...like a decent home, or insurance.
I love your phrase "the veil of delusion". Very apt description of this drive to war. And thanks for the kind words.
As long as
every American politician feels the need to bow to the opinions of every right wing Netanyahu type figure in search of votes we will always be on the verge of war. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it doesn't matter what the UN says and it doesn't matter what is borne out by facts. As long as America believes that the road to heaven/political victory runs through Isreal we will beat the drum and feed the beast.
Well said.
And all too accurate, I fear.
Here's an article by Phil Giraldi,
"How to Bomb Iran"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32884.htmBasically he states that Israel can't much damage, i.e., maybe delaying the nuclear project by a year or two and the costs would be too great for Israel.
"On balance, all of the above suggests that the frequently repeated threat by the Israeli leadership to attack Iran is not a serious plan to take out Iran’s nuclear sites. It is more likely a
long running disinformation operation to somehow convince the United States to do the job or a deliberate conditioning of the Israeli and US publics to be supportive if some incident can be arranged to trigger an armed conflict. If one believes the two presidential candidates based on what they said in Monday’s debate, both have more-or-less conceded the point, agreeing that they would
support militarily any Israeli attack on Iran. Whether Romney or Obama is actually willing to start a major new war in the Middle East is, of course,impossible to discern."
Another factor is the imperialists and their partners have other ways to destroy countries with sanctions and proxy wars such as in Libya and Syria, both going on inside Iran right now. I'm sure many don't feel they need to attack Iran. Many, like Ross, have been itching to do it for years.
Very good article
Thanks for that. What his detailed takedown of Israeli threats to attack Iran shows is that there is only one path by which Israel can hope to succeed: by getting the United States to attack Iran for them. None of the limitations listed by Giraldi would apply to the US, with the exception of the need to supress ground defenses. That is something, of course, that our superior technology will make much easier for us than it would be for the Israelis.
Whoever wins Nov. 6, they will face immense pressure from Netanyahu to take action against Iran. That pressure must be resisted, but I hold little hope that either candidate will do so. The false narrative pushed by Netanyahu et al, that Iran will have nuclear capability once they reach a certain enrichment threshold, must be countered by the experts at IAEA and within our own government, and it must be countered publicly, or we will likely be at war by this time next year.
The rise in drone warfare,
The rise in drone warfare, and the related decline in US casualties, will make building peace movements a much more onerous task in the years ahead.
Very true.
When war is made easy, peace is made more difficult.
Re: Iran Nuclear Weapon and US invasion
I have not ready any credible intelligence reports that indicate that the US would either be willing or able to successfully invade Iran. Remember, the amount of military infrastructure that would be required to launch an invasion of Iran is not currently in place. Any move of the amount of military hardware needed for a successful invasion would be telegraphed to the entire world months before the invasion could actually occur. It would literally require the positioning of hundreds of thousands of service personnel, tanks, artillery, aircraft, ships and sundry other considerations. Iran, and the rest of the world, would have months to prepare for any such an invasion. Therefore, it seems rather unlikely that any such invasion would be contemplated, much less attempted. Additionally, the cost of such an invasion would be in the hundreds of billions (initially) and easily soar to the trillions. That would make such a military expedition of the sort being discussed cost prohibitive.
Now, I could envision scenarios in which the US leadership would support a bombing campaign. However, the sort of bombing campaign necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program is quite unlikely to take place. The Iranians have wisely located their program in facilities that would be immune to conventional bombs. The types of non-nuclear bombs that would be necessary to take out Iran's nuclear facilities simply do not exist.
I would not overestimate the strength of the Iranian military. Remember, this is a country that was unable to defeat Iraq in their disastrous 8 year war. Iran lost well over 500 thousand 'soldiers' (thousands of child soldiers were used by Iran) and the actual number is probably in excess of 750 thousand. Their military 'power' resembles Iraq's military 'power', prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Simply wearing a uniform does not a soldier make. While an American invasion would probably be successful, the ability of Iran to strike back at American targets all around the world is probably Iran's most effective deterrent to any threat of an invasion. Iran is in bed with Hamas and Iran has no qualms whatsoever about using terrorism as a military weapon.
It is most likely that Iran will have nuclear capability within 2 years. Remember that nearly a year ago, the UN IAEA said that has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Tests of this nature would not take place unless the intent of their program was to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran is being helped by the Russians and there is simply nothing which indicates that their program will not succeed. It is quite obvious that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon, and it is quite obvious that they will have one soon. Just as North Korea was able to acquire their nuclear weapons, so will Iran. This is nearly certain, and it is absolutely not worth sacrificing American lives to prevent.
I'm interested in why you think Iran have will have nuclear
capability within 2 years. Assuming by nuclear capability you mean the 90 percent plus enrichment and whatever else it takes to make a nuclear bomb. I haven't seen that evidence, We've been hearing that Iran is close for a couple decades and I'm not sure what has changed.
The existing intelligence available to the public
My estimate of 2 years is based on the 2011 IAEA report and other intelligence that has been made available to the public. I'm not a soothsayer of any merit, that's just my estimate. The US was wildly off in our prediction of North Korea's ability to produce a nuclear weapon and I think we are wildly off in this situation. And by nuclear I mean a working nuclear weapon.
Inspectors Confirm New Work by Iran at Secure Nuclear Site
Iran is taking their program very seriously. Their economy is in shambles but they have made funding this program a priority. Just as North Korea achieved their goals with the help of Pakistan, there is little reason to believe that Iran will not achieve their goals with the assistance of Russia. Could be sooner than 2 years, could be a little later, but it certainly is not years and years away. Iran is simply more capable than North Korea and it does not make sense that a country as screwed up as North Korea could achieve a nuclear weapon but not Iran.
I still don't see it and to me it plays right into the neocons
and zionists hands stating that Iran will have bomb making capabillity within two years, because that's exactly what they're saying, some of them, so they can go to war. Iran may be taking their nuclear program seriously but there is no solid evidence that I'm aware of that they are doing it to make a nuclear weapon. The Ayatollah issued a fatwa. They've achieved 20 percent enrichment but that's a long way to go for 90%, even if that's what they intend to do, which we simply don't know.
What would you consider solid evidence of their intentions?
Why do you think North Korea, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Israel and all the other members of the nuclear club developed nuclear capacity? Based on what actions in Iran's past makes you believe their assertions that their program is meant only as a source of cheap energy? It is possible that is what they are doing, however, if that were the case there would be absolutely no need for the facilities they built deep underground. What possible scenario would require an underground facility, if not one that involves the production of a weapon?
I'm not an expert in weapons of mass destruction but
considering the consequences, the evidence should be real. Those that want war are trying to convince everyone else that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and they're getting close. Netanyahu, the neocons, the Zionists, etc. So to me, spreading the meme that Iran is within two years of developing a bomb without actual real evidence is playing right into their hands. There is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, it's all conjecture and propaganda for war purposes, and that's a dangerous game. The public is easily manipulated. .
I'm antiwar, I need 100% proof.
the evidence does exist
As I said, what possible reason would Iran have in building underground facilities? If their program is only intended for peaceful purposes then it would not make sense to build it so deep underground. However, I do find it strange that you say that I am spreading a meme that feeds into public manipulation. It appears that you have read my comments, however, it appears that you did not notice that I said this is my opinion based on the evidence that I have read. I'm not spreading a meme and I resent that implication.
I also find it strange that you say you're anti war and need 100% proof. The implication of your statement is that if presented with 100% proof you would support military action against Iran. I am anti war and would never support preemptive military action against Iran. The only circumstance in which I would support military action against Iran is if they first launched a military attack on America. I am not a supporter of preemptive military action. The Bush Doctrine was hardly a progressive idea.
I think we are at an impasse in this discussion. Have a great day, Al.
Just for the record, no I certainly wouldn't be for a war
if Iran did reach capability. I thought that was a given.
You've presented zero evidence that Iran is within two years of reaching the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, yet you say it will happen within two years, maybe sooner. Like I said, considering the implications of the war machine's use of "weapons of mass destruction" as the boogeyman for justifying war, spreading such information without proof is dangerous.
as long as you cite a conspiracy website as your source
For the record, Al, your continue reference to a conspiracy website as your source of information indicates either a lack of willingness to take this subject seriously, or a complete reliance on agenda driven newsource. It appears that I need to repeat one more time what I said earlier, this is my opinion. I will continue to share my opinions in discussions on this website. Have a great evening, Al.
Oh, you're bringing Daily Kos here are ya.
I mean the conspiracy website dig..
All righty, you win. I was thinking VOTS would come to this.
no hard feelings, I like my thoughts being called dangerous
You take care and keep thinking those safe thoughts and I will keep thinking my dangerous ones. All in a day's work, Big Al, all in a day's work.
Come on, nobody wins.
Debate and discuss, agree to disagree. Yes? I say yes.
in complete agreement
I completely agree. It's unfortunate that some discussions quickly devolve into the land of accusations. Unforunate, but generally expected.
Actually...
in light of the attack on the Osirak reactor and the fairly recent strike on a Syrian reactor, it makes perfect sense to move your nuclear program underground, inside bunkers. Regardless of the true intent of the program, Israel and, by extension, the United States, would call it an attempt to build a bomb. The NPT gives Iran the right to pursue peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the Iranians cannot count on the international community to back that right in the face of Israeli and American aggression.
As I've said, it is my belief that the regime does intend on gaining the capability to create a nuclear weapon. And who can blame them, seeing the threat posed to their nation by Israel and the US.
I don't see an invasion
At least not in the near future. What the Israelis want is for the US to attack these sites with GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" bombs and other advanced munitions, which may or may not be sufficient to penetrate these particular bunkers. That is the big unknown factor...whether the United States could even succeed in destroying these facilities to an adequate degree.
Your comparison of the Iranian military to the Iraqi military in 2003 is pretty accurate, though the Iranians are better supplied and trained than their Iraqi counterparts were. There is a core Revolutionary Guard force that is very competent and well supplied, within a much larger military that is poorly trained but minimally competent. Then you have the Basij, the hometown militias made up mostly of Islamic zealots (the word Basij means "mobilization of the oppressed"). These would play havoc on supply lines and rear-echelon personnel, provide suicide bombers, and form the nucleus of the inevitable insurgency should an invasion occur.
Much of the research cited by the IAEA occured prior to and just after the US invasion of Iraq. The more recent research involved computer modelling of what experts say are nuclear triggers, an essential component in a nuclear weapon. Such computer simulations, though, are a long way from actual production and testing of the components. This research still fits within my broader thesis that Iran intends to develop the capability to build a nuclear weapon without actually building it. The computer modelling bombshell, which came from information provided by Iran itself, is a necessary part of convincing the world that they could, if necessary, construct such a weapon.
But lets assume for a moment that I am entirely wrong. That Khamenei fully intends to build a nuclear weapon. What will he do with it? Netanyahu and the LIkudniks wish you to believe that they would strike Israel. But Jerusalem is home to the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third most holy site in Islam, along with other sites important to Muslims. A nuclear attack would destroy that heritage, and kill millions of Muslims also. Such an attack would not be acceptable to Muslims, including Iranians, and would result in a mass uprising against the regime and likely the execution of its leaders. Not the result Khamenei wants here. So the most Iran can do with a nuclear weapon is use it as a deterrent against a US invasion. Push comes to shove, I can live with that.
Assuming rational U.S. policy is soothing
But recent history is not encouraging in this matter.
This discussion is interesting and well-informed, but of course we're all just guessing. I won't take a side, but I do want to respond to assumptions that the U.S. is a rational actor. While we did "lose" in Iraq, seeing it as anything less than a successful attempt to bring democracy and human rights to a terrorist-infected land is a minory opinion in the extreme. I won't go down the list of U.S. foreign policy over the last decades which turned out to be bad ideas. It's almost as though the ability of defense contractors to make money is the driving force that trumps all reason. But I don't want to get too specific here; we don't know what will happen. We do know how the U.S. has behaved recently, and that is not encouraging. We also know that most mainstream dicussion of this issue is based on tpropaganda and little else, which is what makes this discussion such an interesting departure from the usual.