News that Iran froze its nuclear arms programme in 2003 only confirms the lunacy of the hawks' paranoid belligerence
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday December 5, 2007
The Guardian
Pity the fate of Tehran's Americanologists. The ayatollahs are screaming, You told us the Great Satan was about to bomb us. Now what is going on? You told us mad Cheney was up and sane Condi was down. Tell us, is Bush his own man or not? What are your agents in Foggy Bottom saying? Who can unravel the power struggle within the Republicans' praetorian guard or among the neocon madrasas of Massachusetts Avenue?
On Monday, no fewer than 16 American intelligence agencies revealed in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that George Bush had no clothes. Iran did indeed halt its nuclear weapons programme in response to the UN's "48-day deadline" in autumn 2003. International diplomacy under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty worked and Iran has been telling the truth all along.
This says not much about present-day Iran, but volumes about present-day America. The paradigm of western policy towards the Muslim world is changing. The age of paranoid belligerence may be coming to an end. With the impending demise of the Republican ascendancy, sanity is pushing its head above the parapet. As during the McCarthy episode, America has taken the world to the brink of chaos and is now hauling it back. Bush's "third world war" is on hold.
In his investigative masterpiece, The Target Is Destroyed, Seymour Hersh traced what happened to American intelligence after the Russian shooting down in 1983 of a Korean airliner. As raw material rose up the government hierarchy it was corrupted by agency politics and ideological spin until by the time it reached cabinet level the truth was mangled. Intelligence became whatever a particular politician needed to bolster his cause. The same happened before the Iraq war.
In 2003 Washington's intelligence assessors dared not believe that Iran's supposed nuclear programme was "no immediate threat". Now they dare. A previous assertion that Iran is "determined to develop nuclear weapons" becomes studied agnosticism. "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme" - and has not restarted it. Even assuming a policy change, Iran could not achieve critical capability until 2010 and "may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015".
This is not especially enlightening. As between capability by 2010 and by 2015, a prudent strategist would assume the former. A maxim of Iranian politics is that even the predictable is impossible to predict. The outlook of this big, rich and boisterous nation is not that of a single dictator or political movement, as was the case in Iraq, but of a rambling coalition of forces, some hieratic and fanatical, some democratic and eager for rapprochement with the west. The former cannot be militarily defeated; the latter can be engaged.
Since the turn of the century, Iran's wilder heads have wanted a nuclear warhead. This is hardly surprising with nuclear powers ruling or in alliance to its east, north and west. Since the Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to have at least some control over the nuclear programme, this is no joke. To rely on "the moderates" to hold them in check would be as unwise as to rely on America's Democrats to hold Cheney in check.
Yet there is nothing beyond diplomatic pleading and bribery that the west can do about this. Military action would unleash mayhem beyond imagining. According to the NIE assessment, pleading worked in 2003 and has held since. The ayatollahs decided that the nuclear game was not worth the diplomatic hassle, and possibly the cost. Trying to build a civilian nuclear industry was progress enough.
To have nuclear weapons, which almost a dozen nations do, is not the same as threatening or proceeding to use them. The latter is clearly susceptible to constructive engagement. That is why the first nuclear powers have "hugged close" the later ones, such as Israel, India and, more bizarrely, Libya. Iran is a complex polity and one which the west should regard, like Pakistan or China, as a regional power with whom business must of necessity be conducted.
There is no realpolitik in gratuitously abusing and threatening Tehran. Such belligerence weakens moderates, emboldens extremists and, in Iran's case, renders counterproductive any sanctions as might be imposed. The CIA's hamfisted backing of Ahmadinejad's opponents in his 2005 election helped hand him victory. As in recent dealings with Russia, the west's tunnel vision cannot see that foreign hostility, however justified, strengthens the domestic standing of the victim. Ahmadinejad (like Saddam before him) appears to have been reluctant fully to admit to his country its capitulation to the 2003 UN ultimatum, even if it meant breaching the nuclear treaty inspection regime. Western intelligence did not want to read this, and so ignored it.
As a result of the west's confusion, the Iranian president has been able to present himself as champion of Iranian sovereignty without losing flexibility later to develop weapons grade uranium should he choose. Under political pressure at home, he has been given a helping hand by Bush. He has made the Americans and British appear stupid.
This affair must indicate the demise of the White House in US foreign policy, and particularly of its Rasputin, Dick Cheney, who reportedly wanted the NIE suppressed. Washington is rife with rumours that Cheney's eagerness to bomb Iran met with a resignation threat from the defence secretary, Robert Gates, and a virtual mutiny from the chiefs of staff. They did not believe any proven threat merited such aggression and they could not and would not handle the military consequences. This defeat for Cheney probably emboldened the intelligence community to break cover. Intelligence has not conceded defeat to virtue, merely felt the wind of a political climate change.
The US policy of ostracism, containment and regime change in Iran has not worked. If anything, 2003 appears to have been a rare plus for UN diplomacy. The west has no interest in creating antagonism across the Muslim world. Thanks to its interventions, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are or may soon be in the hands of fragmenting, unstable or hostile regimes. It is crazy to add Iran to that list.
Tehran's ability to cause trouble throughout the region is obvious and inexcusable. But that is why bringing it within the embrace of western engagement is crucial, not pelting it with insults and sanctions. This is not appeasement, any more than western policy to Soviet Russia or modern China was appeasement. For Britain such engagement is clear-sighted attention to its interests and security.
simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk
Comments
MartinSmith
December 5, 2007 1:05 AM
Hmmmm, quite a few assertions, omissions and false assumptions.
The least you could have done is praise the Americans for highlighting the Iranian nuclear weapons programme in the first place, back in 2002. If it wasn't for this, and the campaign of diplomacy that they lobbied for, the Iranians would likely have the bomb today - a frightening prospect given they are a state that officially believes in suicide bombings against civilians to achieve their goals. People like yourself should show some humility about this. You were dead wrong.
The argument hasn't changed substantically. Yes, we can take comfort that Bush and Blair's diplomacy - and their little invasion of Iraq that so many opposed - has forced the Iranians to be more careful; they know we have high level spies in their nuclear facilities. However, the issue has never been about whether they are building nuclear weapons right this second; it's been about whether the world wants to allow this country to have the technology to produce nuclear weapons on a whim if they wanted to. Some believe they should have capability, and have opposed every American led effort to deal with it. I totally disagree.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
moop
December 5, 2007 1:38 AM
Repeat; MartinSmith is MarkGreen0 and should be treated accordingly.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MartinSmith
December 5, 2007 1:55 AM
If you have nothing on-topic to contribute, then best not to comment.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
moop
December 5, 2007 2:24 AM
Deleted by moderator.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
theBlackHack
December 5, 2007 2:29 AM
05/11/07- "Please don't talk to me about the future! I went to the 21st century and all the women were going around in their underwear!"
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
ellis
December 5, 2007 4:30 AM
"Yes, we can take comfort that Bush and Blair's diplomacy - and their little invasion of Iraq that so many opposed - has forced the Iranians to be more careful; they know we have high level spies in their nuclear facilities."
This is worse than drivel, MartinSmith: anyone who can take comfort in what has occured in Iraq since 2003 is sitting in the bleachers of a death camp, cracking jokes, eating hot dogs, belching and cheering the deaths of, in the order of, a million people.
This is holocaust denial when it counts, not the nitpicking of historians or the naysaying of sceptics, but full blooded sniggering "couldn't care less" while babies die of cholera, men are plucked off the streets by torturers in uniform and families wiped out for being in the wrong place, their native land.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Terraxos
December 5, 2007 5:05 AM
Wow, if only we'd had intelligence like this about Iraq before we went to war there in 2003!
...Oh yeah, we did. Oops.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MartinSmith
December 5, 2007 5:13 AM
ellis,
no, I supported the surge that has reduced the killing. Glad that you did as well. But we must try to keep it on-topic; this thread is really about Iran.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bringbackzola
December 5, 2007 5:14 AM
Superb piece of journalism, and lets face it, not to many journalists fall into that category these days.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
iamnotwhattheywant
December 5, 2007 5:55 AM
ellis:-"belching and cheering the deaths of, in the order of, a million people. "
If you repeat a lie often enough does it not become the truth?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
mary1946
December 5, 2007 6:00 AM
Three questions:
1) Iran has one of the world's leading reserves in both oil and natural gas. So why would it need "peaceful" nuclear power??
2) Iran has the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Why is the regime spending so much on ballistics technology if it has no intention of outfitting them with warheads??
3) Iran has kept its nuclear program secret, leading inspectors astray and hiding its sites underground, for over a decade. If it was "peaceful" why would they go to such lengths??
Thanks in advance for any answers.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
usini
December 5, 2007 6:16 AM
an excellent article, raising the central points which concern most people.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Tintin1
December 5, 2007 7:24 AM
MartinSmith - "If it wasn't for this, and the campaign of diplomacy that they lobbied for, the Iranians would likely have the bomb today."
That just doesn't bear intellectual scrutiny of the most basic sort: how would the Iranians have been able to make a nuclear bomb by today, 5 years later, when the NIE says they wouldn't be able to make one if they began now by 2015 at the earliest or later. Jeez it's simple math, but you can't be bothered with things like facts, evidence, logic or intellectual examination - just that 'truthiness'. It's pathetic, no wonder you and your ilk are a laughing stock.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
lascoma
December 5, 2007 7:26 AM
As usual,to avoid culpability of the British, Jenkins mentions not a word about the British Intelligence have known all along that Iran has never been capable producing any nuclear weapons, let a posing any threat. Leave it to Bush and Cheney people are guilty even when dreaming or thinking private thoughts or presume to be. It is just not the paranoia of belligerence but the megalomania, compulsive-obsessive, sociopath mentality that override. In Bush's case it is complicated with his divine religious mandate and him being the messenger of his god, the same characteristic exhibited by one Condi Rice, the so called sister wife. To that matter, Tony Blair living his Catholic hypocrisy is not far from the same affliction. More to the point the world at this time in its history has one too many compulsive, obsessive, sociopath, megalomania leaders and any one one of these mad people are likely to push the wrong buttons.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
vincent48
December 5, 2007 7:48 AM
Mary1946
Answer 1,progress,economy,environment,equality.
Answer 2,USA-Israel
Answer 3,Israel-USA
Who are we to deny progress to anyone else?If you notice,just like Iraq changed from WMD to WMD PROGRAMS,when none were found,Iran can not even posess knowledge now.They may even require nuclear power in case some nasty people come and steal their oil as they are not allowed to defend themselves.It seems not having nukes is an invitation to be raped and pillaged by the leaders of the free world.Pre-emptive mass murder is not the answer to the 4th question you didnt ask,lets at least have proof.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
neoc
December 5, 2007 8:52 AM
Forget Iran. They don't want to destroy the world, they have never been that warlike, even as they've been on the receiving end of much open and covert aggression. Nukes for them is mostly a form of protection.
Is the world facing a real threat from Israel's nukes though? Should the US find itself incapable of shielding a belligerent Israel from retaliation one day, might the latter launch its nukes when faced with a rout? The historical analogy of Masada is enough to give one sleepless nights.
For a country that has been in constant conflict with its neighbours for the past 50 years, nukes in Israeli hands is a scary and life threatening issue.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
facchettiburnich
December 5, 2007 8:53 AM
This intelligence was clearly at hand for some time. The question is why the White House chose not to refer to it while all along lying to its own voters and keeping their fear level as high as possible. As for Britain, what have her agencies, intelligent or otherwise, known all along about Iran's real intentions. Could they ever be relied upon to offer a similar, independent assessment of Iran to the general public in this country? And finally, Mr Jenkins for the zinger: Do you happen to know what Mr David Miliband is actually for? I am sure he'll make a great young dad, but ...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
neversayno
December 5, 2007 9:12 AM
Because Mary1946 Iran has rationing of gasoline and diesel. Despite all that oil, there is severe shortage of refining capacity, which affects all levels of thheir economy.
Put in your search engine "Iran imports of fuel" and you too can read articles like this from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101464.html
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
billsploot
December 5, 2007 9:24 AM
And to think 472 Britsh MP's were questioned of whom 338 oppose military intervention without UN backing.
I can bet 134 who support war without UN Authority are the Tory Party, There Deputy Home Secretary was even willing to Nuclear bomb Iran , Thank god we are not going to see images of children with skin melting off them or children being vapourised by Britsh and American Nuclear Bombs , those 132 MP's are thoughtless MP's who should resign immediately, Be warned people dont vote Tory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Westminster_Committee_on_Iran
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Teacup
December 5, 2007 9:30 AM
Mary1946,
First let me say that it is a relief to read something new from you. If you are planning to "strike" all the articles on Iran, there are at least two others current so far.
Two other posters have already replied to you, allow me to add my thoughts.
1. Iran is clearly aware that its oil and gas reserves will not last for ever and needs to plan for that day. The best olive branch the West can offer is help it develop solar and wind technology. Will Mr. Bush appreciate this?
2 & 3. Mr. Bush dubbed Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil". If he were not in such a powerful position, the smart thing would have been to laugh him off, but Iraq has been destroyed for nothing. You do remember that no WMD were ever found there. North Korea loudly proclaimed that it had nuclear weapons and has been treated with kid gloves. QED.
Mary1946, I hope will not just post and run as is your habit. Please do engage with us.
You might consider reading Mr. Oliver Kamm's articles, yesterday and today. He has had to twist himself like a hairpin.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Moeran
December 5, 2007 9:32 AM
We must await patiently the verdict of Labour Friends of Israel before we learn what the British Government's response will be.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
banjolele
December 5, 2007 9:39 AM
Martinsmiths comments may be objectionable but they reflect an underlying determinism in geopolitics that transcends current national political structures and alignments.
If the twin threats of peak oil and global warming are real then there are inevitable consequences in terms of forcible hegemonies and wars. National governments, by definition, have to put the interests of their nations above global concerns and are clearly incapable of adequate multinational responses. The Neocons in america seem to have decided this ahead of time and are acting out a horribly logical agenda. As the only real superpower they see the rise of China and the ressurgence of Russia as imminent but not yet equivalent rivals. They are acting now to secure oil supplies for the US, into the future when it can only be secured by force, ahead of a scenario in which others might be able to offer real opposition. They are happy with a world view that sees a kind of post-apocalyptic decline all around them so long as they can keep the american machine in business. It may well be that in the UK longsighted government policy wonks have this in mind as a part of our slavish devotion to promoting US hegemony. Maybe the yanks, out of kindness, will show us some largesse when it all starts to come apart for all those countries who can't compete financially for dwindling supplies or who can't keep the US from dominating their resources by force.
I can see a high likelihood of worsening global instability and inevitable deterioration of living standards in the west. I fear for my daughters future and especailly for her children's.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
RichardCarter
December 5, 2007 9:49 AM
Excellent article, Simon. Only one thing to disagree with: your assertion that Ahmedinejad "has made the Americans and British appear stupid." No, no no: they've been perfectly capable of that all on their own....
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
robbo100
December 5, 2007 9:59 AM
Great article. Ahmadinejad and the hardliners have no greater friend than Bush and his fellow hawks. For all its unpleasantness, in certain aspects, Iran is not a monolithic dictatorship but recent or current US policy could drive it that way.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
5abi
December 5, 2007 10:07 AM
Mary1946:
There are a few posts answering your questions. Have you realised how stupid your questions were?
MartinSmith:
"this thread is about Iran'
Not for you mate! for you it is about america and any one who criticises the US foreign policy must be opposed no matter how ludicorous your arguments.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Dazzerg
December 5, 2007 10:08 AM
I would tend to agree with the thrust of it but the liklihood is that although Cheney maybe fallen, his will may be done by Israel unilaterally in any case. Also, all it would take would be another successful terrorist attack to revive hawkishness so there really is no room for complacency. Whatever Britain and America do themselves they need to be mindful of Israel; it's skepticism about the new report was notable.
www.swampland.wordpress.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
gucchipiggy
December 5, 2007 10:14 AM
It would be great if, as Mr. Jenkins seems to be suggesting, we could use the NIC report as a springboard to repair relations with Tehran.
The report creates a golden opportunity to jettison paranoia and panic as the basis of our relationship with the Islamic Republic, and (perhaps I'm being naieve) if the US & UK hold their hands up honestly and say they've been mistaken (which Bush's silly speech yesterday tacitly accepted) then it could be the kind of olive branch this nexus needs. Iran, so used to hearing only sable-rattling, machismo and posturing from the US- and replying in kind- could respond in kind if it was fronted with humility and rationality. Iranians are, by and large, amongst the most dignified, hospitable and modest folk I've ever encountered, and one can't help but feel that their bellicosity since 2005 is a result of the aggressive rheotric and posturing of the US.
There's no reason why, as seemed probable during Khatami's Presidency, the US and Iran can't build toward a mature and mutually beneficial relationship. Iran needs investment in its oil infrastructure, the US needs stable Gulf supplies. Iran needs security guarantees, the US needs help against radical Sunni extremism (Iran loath al Qaeda & Taliban too). The US needs, more than anything else, political stability in the Gulf; Iran is the ONLY country that can guarantee this. It's the biggest, most dynamic, politically mature country in the Persian Gulf- probably the entire ME- and if allowed to exert its natural geopolitical dominance, it will bring stability and growth to the region. The US have tried to entrust this role to Saudi Arabia, who I think most people would agree are a far more unsavioury regime than even Ahmadinejad and his ilk; they should revert to their hub-and-spoke 1970s policy of entrusting regional hegemons to guarantee the stability that underpins their hegemony. The only thing preventing a detente and the resulting peace, is common historical memory; Mossadegh, the Shah, the hostage crisis, the contra scandal, and now the nuclear white elephant- let this latest intrigue borne from paranoia be the last, and begin work on a real dialogue of civilisations.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Mumacass
December 5, 2007 10:15 AM
So, if I've understood correctly, one group of Americans has told another group of Americans who were itching to attack a sovereign state that this now won't be necessary. Let's face it, if this had been a UN report no-one would've batted an eyelid. That's the tragedy. When will the rest of us (i.e. the remaining 96% of the world's population) hold this bunch of renegades to account?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
phildav76
December 5, 2007 10:23 AM
MartinSmith:
"no, I supported the surge that has reduced the killing. Glad that you did as well. But we must try to keep it on-topic; this thread is really about Iran."
There has been more coalition deaths in Iraq so far in 2007 than in any year since 2003. If the surge was really working then why are the troop levels being reduced and not increased even further?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
leftboy
December 5, 2007 10:36 AM
A good big-up for Seymour Hersh, surely one of the finest journalists of the past 50 years.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DrJohnZoidberg
December 5, 2007 10:41 AM
robbo100- 'For all its unpleasantness, in certain aspects, Iran is not a monolithic dictatorship...'
Ah, so it's the 'monolithic' bit which makes a dictatorship bad? They prove they're not monolithic by having five internal security agencies. That says ewither of two things 'Iran is a monlithic dictatorship' or 'Iranians can't be trusted, that's why we need five services to keep tabs on them'. I would shy away from the latter. But, obviously, by not being 'monolithic' we can ignore the hangings of gays, stonings, the rape and beating to death of a foreign reporter etc. because the brave Ahmedinejad stands up to the US. What a feckin hero.
guccipiggy- 'Iranians are, by and large, amongst the most dignified, hospitable and modest folk I've ever encountered'
Strangely, (whisper it coz we're on CiF and I gather it's a stoning offence to praise the Grat Satan) I've heard the same thing said of the Americans.
Teacup- The development of peaceful nukes by Iran is absolutely nothing to be worried about? Somehow I only hear that argument from those who are 'highly concerned' about Israel having non-peaceful nukes.
Bush and the Yanks haven't destroyed Iraq. Iraqis and the brave resistance, anti-American, liberationist freedom fighters/bloodthirsty sadistic sectarian muderers have done the bulk of that, no matter which way you try to spin it. Gwan, reply with a link to Whingeymeeja or some other made up net source to prove me wrong, stating how many millions of people the US has deliberately killed and not once referring to said said sectarian butchers, except in terms of praise...you know you want to.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
easterman
December 5, 2007 10:43 AM
The yanks will do whatever it takes to get control of iran's oil . They were into jaw-jaw just 7 years ago with Albright's apology for 1953 . Then it was to be war-war . Now the 'intelligence' is to be used to justify a bit more jaw-jaw ...before regime change is arranged one way or t'other.
Same as Iraq . shake hands with saddam then hang saddam . whatever it takes to get oil-oil .
war-war , jaw-jaw , war-war , oil-oil .
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
LewisOrffe
December 5, 2007 10:44 AM
NOT SO FAST!
US spies concoct a potent Iran brew
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL05Ak01.html
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
exArmy
December 5, 2007 10:52 AM
MartinSmith
wrote
the Iranian nuclear weapons programme in the first place, back in 2002. If it wasn't for this, and the campaign of diplomacy that they lobbied for, the Iranians would likely have the bomb today.
Are you saying that diplomacy does have a place in todays modern society. Can you do us all a favour and tell that to Cheney.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Circlesonic
December 5, 2007 10:55 AM
Teacup: I'd largely agree with what you said, but with one small addition:
"North Korea loudly proclaimed that it had nuclear weapons and has been treated with kid gloves. QED."
Probably true, but arguably not the whole picture where NK is concerned. I'd suggest that the 10,000+ artillery pieces that the North has apparently had aimed at Seoul (a city of 11 million people) for much of the past half-century, have probably maintained the uneasy stalemate there more than any nuclear test (although that undoubtedly contributed). Under those circumstances, anyone sane would think twice about starting a war there, as the consequences would be catastrophic for all in the countries concerned, and for the wider region.
Which leads us neatly back to Iran... let's hope that sanity prevails.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
jsbachUSA
December 5, 2007 11:06 AM
@banjolele - One slight problem with the Neocons idea to forcibly secure the remaining oil ... It is insanely easy to disable oil infrastructure. While some of the infrastructure can be protected somewhat by being buried, much of the important stuff (like oil terminals) is too big to be underground. There are just too many places along a pipeline for sabotage to occur. As for the US controlling stuff that is halfway around the world, that is just impossible.
And remember that not only will other oil consuming nations resist the US attempt to control the oil, but so will the natives that feel that the oil belongs to them NOT the US. To effectively control a large unfriendly population, the US would need a military land force many time larger than what it currently has. It would have to recruit, train and PAY a lot of people that would be killed at a very steady rate. And while those US soldiers were dying, little oil would be removed from the ground and shipped (over very long and vulnerable distances) to the US.
So basically the US is screwed.
The US is totally dependent on cheap oil to survive. Without cheap oil, the US can not even feed its people. The biggest problem isn't the oil needed for fertilizer or to operate the farm machinery, but the fact that 100% of all US food is delivered to the stores by diesel trucks and/or diesel powered trains (none of the freight rails are electric). No diesel, no food for anyone in most of the US.
If the US population was even half way intelligent they would be investing huge sums today to rapidly invent and deploy alternative, renewable energy infrastructure so the dependency on oil is eliminated as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, most people in the US are anti-government, anti-tax and have never planned ahead for anything in their life. Note that the entire history of the US documents one avoidable crisis after another. Until the bad stuff hits the fan, Americans are extremely resistant to doing anything until they are forced to.
That good old American spirit of rugged individualism at work. The basic US motto ... "I got mine so screw you, you lazy bastard."
As for me, I am doing what I can in my life to plan for the coming energy crisis and of course when it happens I will say to everyone that is hurting ... "I got mine so screw you, you lazy bastard."
I have learned that Americans just will not think for themselves nor learn from history.
And yes, I really am an American.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
gucchipiggy
December 5, 2007 11:06 AM
@Dr. Zoidberg:
It's true, you can catalogue human rights abuses in Iran. But I can do the same in the US (Guantanamo Bay, fifth-largest user of capital punishment, highest incarceration rate in the world [1 in every 150 residents]) This argument isn't about human rights violations, and Iran- rightly- will not take any HR lectures from the US, who have quite the penchant for starting wars where millions of innocents die. Iran is, historically, one of the most peaceful large states on earth, so why should it be presented as the aggressor in this situation. Now the US' own intellignece services acknowledge that Iran is not seeking WMDs, and the Americans still insist on being portrayed as the good guys. They came withina whisker of starting a second catastrophic war with a Gulf state floating on oil, on the pretext fo weapons that did not exist, and now we're supposed to focus on Iran's human rights record? Does that sound familiar? Cause Bush pulled the exact same trick on his dosile populace after the inspectors found diddly squat in Iraq. No more pretences, no more lies, and no more moulding facts around motive.
Oh, and if you think it was Iraqis that destroyed Iraq, and the massive US invasion which occured at the same time is just a strange coincidence, then you're probably not worth arguing with.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
billsploot
December 5, 2007 11:21 AM
And to think 472 Britsh MP's were questioned of whom 338 oppose military intervention without UN backing.
I can bet 134 who support war without UN Authority are the Tory Party, There Deputy Home Secretary was even willing to Nuclear bomb Iran , Thank god we are not going to see images of children with skin melting off them or children being vapourised by Britsh and American Nuclear Bombs , those 132 MP's are thoughtless MP's who should resign immediately, Be warned people dont vote Tory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Westminster_Committee_on_Iran
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
robbo100
December 5, 2007 11:29 AM
@DrJohnZoidberg
No I'm not saying we should ignore those things. I'm the last person to make excuses for Islamic unpleasantness (look up many of my other posts on the subject - but only if you're really losing the will to live!) - I'm just saying that Iran is, at least, a semi-democracy with different forces at work within it and the ability to change. All that US policy has been doing is deflecting Iranian domestic attention away from problems at home and into aggressive national defensiveness - playing into the hands of Ahmedinejad and the hardliners. It's hard not to be cynical about what the US is really up to in all of this.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
exArmy
December 5, 2007 11:33 AM
DrJohnZoidberg
wrote
Bush and the Yanks haven't destroyed Iraq.
Yes they did, if some governor decided to cut or remove the police from a American city they may not of gone on the crime spree, but they created the conditions for it.
By Invading Iraq removing the old infrastructure allowing anarchy to reign and law and order to break down, with no post occupation plan to deal with the resualting chaos we helped create the conditions for the insurgents to operate in.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Brusselsexpats
December 5, 2007 11:44 AM
I'd feel more reassured if the CIA hadn't proved so monumentally inept in recent years (it's certainly not the same agency that functioned so well in the Cold War). On balance I would rather take the word of the Mossad about what's happening in Iran. Sorry but nothing short of arch-realism will do in that part of the world. That's not to say I'm advocating a war with Iran but it's a country that has to be monitored very closely.
However for what it's worth, I think it highly probable that we'll end up in some kind of future conflict with them.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
pike
December 5, 2007 11:54 AM
It would have been common courtesy for the American intellligence folks to inform the Iranian leadership of the fact that they dodn't have a nuke weapons program. Their evident surprise at all this is surprising.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
skiergolfer
December 5, 2007 11:58 AM
NEOC -- I never understood the world's joy in seeing Israel's enemies closing in on her. The demise of Israel seems likely to coincide with the destruction of life as we know it on this planet.
GUCCHI -- It seems to make sense for both Iran and America to figure out that both countries would be better off without all the b.s. going on right now. While I sense hatred between the respective governments, I don't sense it between the peoples of both nations, although I cannot speak from the Iranian perspective. The idea that our past conflicts prevent an accord is simply stupid. Japan sneak attacked us and we nuked them 60 years ago and now we're allies. Whats happened between us and Iran seems laughable compared to that.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bernardtrois
December 5, 2007 12:08 PM
Like so many, Jenkins is using the NIE results to rock his favorite hobby horse, but is it really justified in light of what was in the report? Jenkins, like you and I, had only this available to him to energetically put his hobby horse into high gear: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/nie20071203.pdf
In that report the NIE lists the differences between what they said in 2005 and what they say now. Consider them for a moment:
2005
"Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but
we do not assess that Iran is immovable"
2007
"...Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt
was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from
exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons"
So, what has changed is not that Iran has abandoned getting nuclear weapons but, as of now, appear not to be pursueing it because of international pressure and the presence of the US in Iraq. This indicates that Iran is responsive to pressure, pressure that the likes of Jenkins now wants to remove.
2005
"We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade."
2007
"...We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon
sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame..."
In 2005 the NIE said Iran would have a nuke in "early to mid next decade" which is 2010-2015. Now they say, with the same confidence, that they would be able to make a nuke in the "2010-2015 time frame". Did I miss something here? The estimate on when they will be capable of making nukes hasn't changed because the Iranians continue to crank out enriched uranium in their announced 3,000 centrifuges.
As I've said before, I think it is good news that Iran has demonstrated that it is responsive to pressure, pressure that has largely been imposed by Bush and Blair with luke warm support from the EU and none from China and Putinland.
It is striking that even though the NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium and is still on a same time table to make a nuke, that somehow the pressure and concern expressed by Bush and Blair was wrong and that somehow Iran has suddenly been turned into an aggrieved party to which anxious fellow travelers like Jenkins are poised to run to and hug.
In any event, I think all these early reactions will become more sober when the real significance is internalized. If not then I think the next NIE estimate will be dealing with an assessment of what impact the suddenly disclosed Iranian nuke will have.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MDELELWA
December 5, 2007 12:09 PM
When will the UN march in and disarm Israeli?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MDELELWA
December 5, 2007 12:10 PM
When will the UN march in and disarm Israeli?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
JaundicedOutlook
December 5, 2007 12:19 PM
What a ridiculous article.
The NIE report found that Iran was developing nuclear weapons up until 2003, and that it gave up its programme "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work." It also found that it will have the material for a weapon at some time between 2010 and 2015.
This report, if anything, has been a vindication of the Bush-Blair policy of containment, sanctions, pressure and diplomacy. The lesson for Mr Brown and Mr Bush's successor must be to keep up these tactics until we can arrive at a suitable compromise with Iran that would preclude the possibility of it developing nuclear weapons. That compromise will require concessions on the part of the Western powers, and we must be willing to offer them, but it also means that we need to continue backing it up with the threat of the big stick.
One other thought occurs, Simon. Seeing as you're so impressed with this NIE report - after all, it "confirms the lunacy of the hawks' paranoid belligerence" - perhaps you'd care to explain why you *didn't* lend any credence to any of the previous NIE reports which said that Iran was determined to develop a nuclear weapon? Surely this is not a case of beliving in the accuracy of intelligence only when it conforms to your pre-determined conclusions?
After all, if the *previous* NIE reports were correct, then the "hawks' paranoid belligerence" wasn't that lunatic after all - was it?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
gucchipiggy
December 5, 2007 12:20 PM
Skiergolfer:
Regarding your characterisation of this situation as a facet of 'Israel's enemies closing in on her,' I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of what's going on here. With the nuclear arsenal that Israel has, as well as the strongest military between France and India, it's pretty unlikely that any of Israel's enemies- or even a grand coalition of them- could threaten it. Iran's (it transpires, illusionary) nuclear program was always about guaranteeing its own existence in the face of much more serious threats than Israel faces (ie the world's only superpower determined to destroy you). Considering you're willing to risk regional security for Israel's territorial integrity, surely you'd extend the same courtesy to the Iranians?
Regarding the historical bitterness between Iran and the US, i agree that we need to break from this cycle of mistrust. But you can understand Iranian suspicions when it transpires that the US government have been lying about Iran in order to try excuse an attack. The US will need to make serious overtures- and indeed, they're morally obliged to now- in order to assuage Iranian doubts. But if such overtures are forthcoming, I really do invisage a future of US-Iranian cordiality. The question is, will a US government which has been characterised by arrogance and deciet take such historic steps? Not Bush and Cheney anyway, but they're yesterday's men. Obama maybe? Untainted by Iraq, and with a background in the Islamic world, he could be the US' best hope of building a bridgehead in Iran, which is in turn the US' best hope of securing oil supplies for the next couple of decades.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Finite187
December 5, 2007 12:25 PM
"However, the issue has never been about whether they are building nuclear weapons right this second; it's been about whether the world wants to allow this country to have the technology to produce nuclear weapons on a whim if they wanted to."
Ok MarkGreen, so this would be similar to Saddam's non-existent WMDs, where we took military on the possibility that he might develop these weapons in the future, and possibly hand them over to terrorist groups?
Now that whole escapade didn't work out too well, did it? Besides which you know as well as I do that the Americans were never going to attack Iran, they're bluffing.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CaptCrash
December 5, 2007 12:28 PM
It is time the whole world abandoed nuclear fission as a source of energy. Iran would not have an excuse.
However, fission is the least expensive form of nuclear energy, and has been adopted in the west. We can't throw endless money at fusion because we would rather spend it on war.
This means that we have to "let" Iran build a nuclear power station with all the risks that entails.
And this article is correct. Kepp your friends close ... your enemies closer.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MarcusR
December 5, 2007 12:30 PM
Israel is a nuclear power, and a stated enemy of Iran (rightly so, given Iran's repeated proclamations regarding Israel's destruction). If/when Iran gains nuclear capability, the balance of power will be restored and the prospects of state-level war in the region will lessen dramatically. I know it sounds horribly simple, but to be honest when all the sound and fury recedes, states are states and won't do anything which will bring the prospect of nuclear annihilation upon themselves.
It's interesting that, in all the discussions about the prospect of nuclear proliferation, nobody has looked to historical precedent. The only recorded use of nuclear weapons in anger was during an age of nuclear monopoly. As soon as there was some form of balance, and so some form of risk of retaliation, the eagerness of any side to employ nuclear weapons in anything other than a deterrent capacity lessened dramatically. In the case of both the Russia-USA Cold War and the India-Pakistan conflicts, the gaining of nuclear capacity by the second side in the dispute was, at the very least, a contributory factor in the moving away from outright armed conflict between the two parties.
In Iran's case, I think they're making a very good case for a theory which has been long rubbished by many respected academics for some years now, that of existential deterrence (popularised by the quite wonderfully named McGeorge Bundy. One wonders how the vicar kept a straight face at the christening). The theory runs that it is unnecessary to maintain a nuclear arsenal in fact, as the mere understanding that one has the know-how and materials to put one together in a relatively short space of time is sufficient to cause those who would militarily challenge your defences to be deterred, and alter their treatment of you in the international political sphere.
There are holes in this theory of course, not least that it could serve to encourage swift challenges to one's defences in the hope of beating your nuclear technicians to the punch and rendering one's deterrent ineffective, thereby actually increasing the likelihood of wars in the short to medium term, but it would appear that this is lessened when the principal prospective assailants are unable to do so, either due to overstretch or operational incapacity (i.e. America are already fighting two wars, not counting their Monroe holiday in Colombia, and Israel's forces, as demonstrated in the recent action against Hezbollah, are so slanted towards the defensive as to call into significant question their ability to mount offensive operations as far afield as Iran, a country much further from Israel than Iraq and so much harder to target in an Osirak-style cross-border strike).
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
HaidarSpider
December 5, 2007 12:32 PM
MartinSmith - 'and their little invasion of Iraq that so many opposed - has forced the Iranians to be more careful'
What utter rubbish - The Iranians lost a big enemy in Sadam and his regime and put people close to them the next to be in power in Iraq as soon as the occupiers leave. Anyway - how about you staying on topic?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CorkExaminer
December 5, 2007 12:33 PM
This article is confused on many points. Yes a military attack is insane, but why buy into all the childish demagoguery that is being used to market it.
It is *us* that have been terrorizing and screwing up the region. We have to get off our high horse and stay on the ground. It has long been very tedious to everyone else for a long time now but it is becoming an ever more delusional fantasy.
Ahmadinejad enrages us because he doesn't tailor his narrative to us the bullies, hence the need to comfort ourselves with this demagoguery.
Ahmadinejad has been saying that the whole get-up in the UN is a scam to isolate Iran as part of the aggressive policy of isolation and regime change. For anyone who cared to think about it this was obvious and the American intelligence agencies have made this plain. Yet the attempts to cling onto the wreckage of the narrative continue.
A proper diplomatic solution can only be found and the pressures that are driving us to war neutralised if the demagoguery stops. This article really only makes a half-hearted start.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CaressOfSteel
December 5, 2007 12:38 PM
Since when were American Intelligence Agencies a reliable source for data on WMDs in the Middle East?
If anything, I'm more worried that Iran's putting together a bomb now.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bellairs1
December 5, 2007 12:40 PM
In 2002 (or was it early 2003) Iran sent an 'olive branch' to the USA, a long and detailed proposal for constructive dialogue, setting out the matters which divided the two countries and making suggestions for settling them.
As the US had no diplomatic links with Iran the message was sent through the hands of the High Protecting Power, Switzerland, and delivered to the US State Dept. by a senior Swiss diplomat, all strictly in compliance with protocol.
Not only did the US reject the document out-of-hand, it actually rebuked the Swiss diplomat for doing his duty.
The timing of this Iranian peace initiative fits nicely with the latest findings of the NIE and confirms that Bush-Cheney do not really want peace with Iran any more than the Zionists do.
Guy Bellairs
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
johnflo
December 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Please refer to the McLauglin Group CNBC TV shouting match of a couple of weeks ago concerning the threat of Iran to the Gulf region.
WHATEVER THE USA MAY CLAIM, OIL IS THE ISSUE, NOT IRAQ'S WMDS OR IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS IN THEMSELVES. All this debate just clouds the true purpose of America's presence in The Gulf region.
In the late 1990's, the neocons outlined the strategic interest of the USA's dependency on the supply of oil from the region; said to be for as little as $20 per barrel. Under the guidance of Rasputin, the Bush Administration has doggedly pursued this plan to meet its objectives by the 2008 USA elections.
In the McLaughlin Group discussion, it was mentioned that the Iraqi Government in Baghdad is about to sign a treaty with the USA to cede total control to the USA of 68 out of Iraq's 83 oilfields to USA companies; including Haliburton(?). It would suggest that the purpose of "the surge" was to allow this much delayed "treaty" to be implemented. In addition, the USA is nearing completion of four major military bases in Iraq for 100,000 troops and an embassy for 1,000 staff, whose purposes are to safeguard and to administer the supply of this oil to the USA. So much for troop withdrawals! Can anybody suggest another purpose for these constructions and the surge?
The major oil supply sea route is through the Hormuz Strait that President Ahmadinejad has threatened to close in the event of an attack on Iran.
The USA has "nullified" Iraq and will similarly "nullify" Iran before Bush leaves office.
As John Bolton once answered in reply to the USA needing a UN vote to attack Iran, "you try and stop us".
