Iran imports 210,000 barrels of oil and oil products each day and almost as much natural gas as it exports, according to our CIA. It also exports electrical power. I suspect the Russians have more confidence in their deterrent and Iranian pragmatism than some here profess to have although our last NIE indicates Iran dropped its plans for a weapon years ago.
This seems to imply that you bought into the idea that their nuke program was for peaceful energy purposes and not for weapons.
Yet:
President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France accused Iran on Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years.
Please clarify your position on the intent of the Iranian nuclear program.
Posts
1 comments:
I'd be happy to, FLG. (BTW, are coming out for beers, tonight?)
First, let me cite a reference for my views on Iran's nuclear weapons, and one you might not expect from me. But, when Fox News begins a report with "The new National Intelligence Estimate — which says Iran had a nuclear weapons development program, but halted it in 2003 — made President Bush's week play out like a sad country song," I have to use that. The story was titled "Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report" and ran on, of all things, Pearl Harbor Day in 2007. While President Bush cast doubt on the NIE conclusions, he offered no contrary evidence. Since the NIE contains the views of the entire US intelligence community, I accept that verdict and cannot fathom what other sources Bush might have consulted. (His gut?)
In the winter of 2002-2003, an earnest intelligence officer showed me a satellite picture of a canvas-covered trailer. He told me it was a mobile biological weapons lab. Of course, it was nothing more than a satellite picture of a canvas-covered trailer, and when the actual trailers were examined, they proved not to be weapons labs at all.
Epistemology Matters! We know a great deal about Iran's nuclear program, and there is likely a great deal more that we do not know. One of the things we certainly do not know--a thing our intelligence agencies seemingly do not suspect--is that there is an active nuclear weapons program. Should we continue trying to turn up one? Yes. Should we ensure Iran has monitors in place to guard against their illegal pursuit of a program? Absolutely. Should we ignore the NIE and jump to unfounded conclusions (as we did with Iraq's WMD programs)? Never again.
Finally, the arguments that Iran will make and then use nuclear weapons assumes the regime is suicidal. I find that assumption rather dubious as it runs counter to the human will to survive. Frankly, the Iranians could forgo the inspections and launch a conventional attack if that was truly their goal, that is, if they coveted a murder/suicide. Given the current regime's efforts to remain in power over the wishes of their domestic foes, I see no real evidence that they are ready to go out in a big bang. Therefore, I argued and still insist that the Russian see their ability, and ours, to remove Iran from existence as a credible strategy if Iran does develop nuclear weapons.
But all that may still be unnecessary as an AP story on MSNBC.com indicates the Iranians are hinting the site near Qom may be opened to IAEA inspections like the rest of their program--not a signal the facility houses a clandestine weapons program.
Post a Comment