It's Déjà Vu All Over Again: the latest report on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, is just like the reports on Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Nov 12, 2011 10:36 PM GMT
    Déjà Vu Over Iran A-Bomb Charges
    November 10, 2011

    Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. news media is again ratcheting up tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program by hailing a new report on the topic. But the press is once more falling down on its duty to examine the allegations carefully, writes Robert Parry.


    By Robert Parry

    The New York Times is trotting out some of its favorite words – like “meticulous” – to praise the new report by United Nations weapons inspectors citing Iran’s supposed work
    on a nuclear bomb, and the Washington Post says the findings “ought to end serious debate” about Tehran’s nefarious intentions.

    So, rather than undertake a careful examination of the report’s claims, America’s preeminent newspapers are once more putting on display their deep-seated biases regarding the Middle East. Any claim against a Muslim adversary must be true.

    In the words of New York Yankees great Yogi Berra, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”

    It seems every time an allegation is made against a “designated enemy” in the Middle East, the Post and Times editors cast aside professional skepticism, a pattern that has included Iraq’s WMD (oops!); a U.N.-sponsored report on Syria’s guilt in the Hariri assassination (“meticulous,” the Times said, though the report later fell apart); and the flat-fact claim of Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing (highly dubious in terms of evidence, but useful in justifying Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster and murder).



    The Washington Post’s neocon editors, in an editorial entitled “Running out of time,” were similarly enthusiastic about the report, writing: “The IAEA’s evidence, which includes 1,000 pages of documents, interviews with renegade scientists who helped Iran and material from 10 governments, ought to end serious debate about whether Tehran’s program is for peaceful purposes.”

    It might be noted that on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his infamous speech to the United Nations detailing Iraq’s WMD arsenal, the Post editors deemed Powell’s case “irrefutable” and added: “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

    Yet, instead of having learned any lessons and applying a skeptical eye to the IAEA report, the editors at the Post and the Times returned to their usual role as boosters for anything that puts adversaries of the United States and Israel in a negative light, regardless of how thin the evidence.

    ‘May Still Be Ongoing’

    If an objective observer did examine the IAEA report – and particularly its annex entitled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Programme” – he or she would encounter a curious document that offers very little verifiable proof for its murky conclusion that Iran’s weapon project “may still be ongoing.”

    Indeed, based on what’s been released to the public, it’s impossible to evaluate any of the allegations because the supporting details are not provided.
    ...

    Full story: http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/10/deja-vu-over-iran-a-bomb-charges
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Nov 12, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    tokugawa saidDéjà Vu Over Iran A-Bomb Charges
    November 10, 2011

    Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. news media is again ratcheting up tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program by hailing a new report on the topic. But the press is once more falling down on its duty to examine the allegations carefully, writes Robert Parry.


    By Robert Parry

    The New York Times is trotting out some of its favorite words – like “meticulous” – to praise the new report by United Nations weapons inspectors citing Iran’s supposed work
    on a nuclear bomb, and the Washington Post says the findings “ought to end serious debate” about Tehran’s nefarious intentions.

    So, rather than undertake a careful examination of the report’s claims, America’s preeminent newspapers are once more putting on display their deep-seated biases regarding the Middle East. Any claim against a Muslim adversary must be true.

    In the words of New York Yankees great Yogi Berra, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”

    It seems every time an allegation is made against a “designated enemy” in the Middle East, the Post and Times editors cast aside professional skepticism, a pattern that has included Iraq’s WMD (oops!); a U.N.-sponsored report on Syria’s guilt in the Hariri assassination (“meticulous,” the Times said, though the report later fell apart); and the flat-fact claim of Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing (highly dubious in terms of evidence, but useful in justifying Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster and murder).



    The Washington Post’s neocon editors, in an editorial entitled “Running out of time,” were similarly enthusiastic about the report, writing: “The IAEA’s evidence, which includes 1,000 pages of documents, interviews with renegade scientists who helped Iran and material from 10 governments, ought to end serious debate about whether Tehran’s program is for peaceful purposes.”

    It might be noted that on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his infamous speech to the United Nations detailing Iraq’s WMD arsenal, the Post editors deemed Powell’s case “irrefutable” and added: “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

    Yet, instead of having learned any lessons and applying a skeptical eye to the IAEA report, the editors at the Post and the Times returned to their usual role as boosters for anything that puts adversaries of the United States and Israel in a negative light, regardless of how thin the evidence.

    ‘May Still Be Ongoing’

    If an objective observer did examine the IAEA report – and particularly its annex entitled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Programme” – he or she would encounter a curious document that offers very little verifiable proof for its murky conclusion that Iran’s weapon project “may still be ongoing.”

    Indeed, based on what’s been released to the public, it’s impossible to evaluate any of the allegations because the supporting details are not provided.
    ...

    Full story: http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/10/deja-vu-over-iran-a-bomb-charges


    The problem of nuclear weapon proliferation is the direct result of a serious mistake we made decades ago, i.e., that of choosing to use uranium to generate electricity. Uranium, and one of its derivatives, i.e., plutonium, are the only elements that are practical to use for nuclear weapons. To eliminate nuclear weapon proliferation, and for other reasons as well, we should, as quickly as possible, migrate away from using uranium for nuclear power.

    The following links are to material describing a superior energy source, one which is safer and cannot be used to make material for nuclear weapons:

    http://rt.com/usa/news/nuclear-energy-thorium-source-225/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U&feature=player_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSzEjWz5T44&feature=player_embedded#at=16

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9133b4906a1905%2C0

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010090111506/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/thorium-cures-the-free-market.html

    http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/962512/response_dont_dismiss_the_potential_of_thorium_nuclear_power.html

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/52d7bde6-e401-11e0-bc4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YsnndyMZ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 3:09 PM GMT
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060213/Google-releases-satellite-images-Iranian-cities-UN-says-used-nuclear-weaponisation.html

    High time for Israel with our help to take care of business.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Nov 13, 2011 9:39 PM GMT
    Mit Romney, a Republican candidate for president, asserted that if he is elected president, Iran will not get nuclear weapons but if Obama is re-elected, Iran will get nuclear weapons. Whether that's actually true is questionable. My fear is that if Romney is actually elected, Iran could become another Iraq.

    As I pointed out in a previous post, we wouldn't be having these problems with nuclear weapon proliferation if we had chosen a better nuclear energy technology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2011 10:32 PM GMT
    While I can understand the frustration and skepticism many Americans have towards another IAEA report alleging yet another weapons program in the Middle East, let us put Iranian nuclear capability into perspective. First, it can be argued that Iraq would have been a rational actor, even with nuclear capabilities. Iran should not be considered a rational actor if it obtains a nuclear weapon. Radical religious figures govern Iran currently. That is not to say that all Iranians are religious radicals. If Iran did indeed obtain a nuclear weapon, it would have a higher probability of being used in order to fulfill the religious vision of the current government. The real question is how to deal with the problem. We cannot haphazardly send in an invasion force, nor can we allow Iran to become a nuclear state. So, I guess the current focus should be on how we will deal with it, either preventatively, or after the fact.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Nov 14, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
    If Iran is producing U235 or plutonium for nuclear weapons, producing enough for a weapon would take some time regardless of the technology used. It would not suddenly have a large number of nuclear weapons since producing more weapons requires more time. It is unlikely that Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it had only one or a few.

    Of course we cannot count on Iran to be rational; it is governed by religious fanatics who are not rational. But that does not mean that it is totally irrational. Iran must realize that if it ever actually used a nuclear weapon that it would be risking almost instantaneous retaliation from multiple sources via air strikes. It is unlikely that it would take that risk.

    The cost of a preemptive strike against Iran probably could not be justified.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidOf course we cannot count on Iran to be rational; it is governed by religious fanatics who are not rational. But that does not mean that it is totally irrational. Iran must realize that if it ever actually used a nuclear weapon that it would be risking almost instantaneous retaliation from multiple sources via air strikes. It is unlikely that it would take that risk.

    The cost of a preemptive strike against Iran probably could not be justified.



    Iran, in its current state, should not be considered rational on any plane. Their religious fanaticism focuses on creating war and violence in order to hasten the return of the 12th Imam. Islamic fundamentalist leaders, present in Iran's government, would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon because they do not fear retaliation, they want it. It is the chaos that would be created by a nuclear deployment in that region that is their ultimate end. A case can be made for a preemptive strike against a facility, but not a full scale invasion. There is no appeasing Iran's government and sanctions only serve to harm the people as we have seen in North Korea. Let us not forget what happened when Europe turned a blind eye to German ambitions, which ultimately led to the Second World War.