Why wouldn't Iran be pursuing nuclear weapons? It's a strategic power in the heart of the world's oil resources. It is at the crossroads of civilizations and continents. It is both potentially strong and potentially vulnerable to great powers. In fact, it has been threatened by the strongest power of all. It has a long history. It is a proud people. If we were Iranians, you can bet that we would be pursuing nuclear weapons.

We treat this nation like it is a banana republic or a bunch of nutty North Koreans. That's not likely to work.

LOL. Wise move on your part given recent events @ teh cafe.

Bruce,

This report seems to take flight from the deck of the aircraft carrier Conventional Wisdom without pausing first to determine whether that carrier ought to be launched in the first place, or if it is even seaworthy. There is much about the "how" of sanctions and nothing about the "whether" of sanctions.

You say:

But while other factors are in play, it is clear that sanctions are part of the mix. So while acknowledging this broader context, the sanctions issue still needs to be addressed.

Is this supposed to be a normative point or a descriptive point? Obviously, as a purely descriptive matter, it is true that the US and other governments are involved, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, in the pursuit of sanctions against Iran. But is this something we should be doing? Is this a wise and necessary policy?

You don't make the case that it is. The first of the "main points" you list is this:

UN-mandated sanctions are a crucial element in a successful multilateral strategy for a peaceful and cooperative resolution of the crisis that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Their importance is as much for their political credibility of manifesting multilateral solidarity as for their economic impact.

So I scanned the report for the support for this point. But as far as I can tell, in the remainder of the report you neither argue for that point nor even so much as make it again.

So it's just an assumption - one assumption among many. If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in a serious way, and if that nuclear weapons program poses a significant threat to us, and if sanctions are are essential to reducing that threat, then here is how we ought to organize those sanctions.

Now while this might be a perfectly acceptable way to handle the academic division of labor, you can understand that those of us who are concerned about this issue, which appears to be pressing down upon us with some urgency, aren't so comfortable with a policy based on a long prefixed string of "ifs".

My own assumption is that if our Secretary of State would simply phone her counterpart in Iran, and propose without preconditions that they meet in Paris on March 1st, to begin a discussion on the Iranian nuclear program, the chaos in Iraq, and related matters of Middle East and global security, then we would be well on our way toward the establishment of a new cooperative regional security framework which would do more to satisfy our security concerns than years of sanctions, gunboat diplomacy or even perhaps war. Now maybe I'm wrong. But the popular, hand-waving arguments against exploring this channel are weak. Even the normally ultra-restrained Lee Hamilton couldn't hide his exasperation last Tuesday in having to rebut the strange pre-emptive arguments offered against even the potential success of face-to-face diplomacy. Why is so much of Washington so determined to avoid dealing with Iran in any way that would require actually dealing with Iran?

To me there's only one side to the Iran debate at this time - "No War on Iran".

Tom

Correction Mr Jentleson - you don't "think" that Iran is pursuing weapons. You "believe" it.

See, "thinking" implies a rational process of elucidation and factual consideration, which can be objectively presented for analysis by others. You've done nothing of the sort.You haven't presented any evidence to back up your statement. Indeed, the best minds in the nuke weapons business including the CIA and the IAEA have said they don't have any evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and I am sure that you don't have access to any factual information that they lack.

Belief, on the other hand, isn't hampered by facts or the process of rational consideration. You can just assert a belief out of the blue, and no one can question it. What you believe is largely simply a matter of choice, and no one can prove or disprove it, but if repeated enough it becomes conventional wisdom - which is why "pundits" love it. This is exactly what happened in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Some people choose to "believe" in space aliens and Bigfoot too, and it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of Bigfoot and aliens, as it was impossible to prove the non-existence of WMDs in Iraq. And thus far, an Iranian nuclear weapons program is about as believable.

It is specifically because of the absence of evidence of a nuclear weapons program that the US and EU have resorted to all sorts of mendacious spin and rhetoric about Iran.

The case put forth by the Bush administration and its neoconservative coterie for an attack on Iran has striking rhetorical parallels to the now totally discredited case for attacking Iraq, employing a series of identifiable logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that are ultimately intended to create a narrative which legitimizes a so-called "pre-emptive" use of force against the Islamic Republic...

and

The EU and the US are seeking to prevent Iran having a uranium enrichment programme, even though there is no evidence that it is being used for weapons production...

Furthermore, the suggestion that Iran is fueling regional proliferation is completely baseless, and ignores the fact that countries such as Egypt already have been pursuing nuclear programs, as are several other countries including Argentina and Brazil. And:

It is highly ironic that Iran's mere capability to build nuclear weapons can supposedly spark this uncontrollable cascade of nuclear proliferation, and yet Israel's existing nuclear weapons are not believed to have this effect. Indeed, if we are to accept, as the fallacious argument assumes, that if one country's nuclear capability will force other countries to acquire their own nuclear deterrent, then the real regional culprit for proliferation must be the original nuclear power in the region: Israel. Note also that similar predictions of regional arms races have not been made when, for example, Brazil recently acquired the same nuclear technology that Iran is seeking to develop.

25 years of predictions of an Iranian nuclear weapons have thus far failed to materialize:

"The Iranians may have an atom bomb within two years, the authoritative Jane's Defense Weekly warned. That was in 1984, two decades ago.
Four years later, the world was again put on notice, this time by Iraq, that Tehran was at the nuclear threshold, and in 1992 the CIA foresaw atomic arms in Iranian hands by 2000. Then U.S. officials pushed that back to 2003. And in 1997 the Israelis confidently predicted a new date: 2005...."

Nor is Iran's "defiance" hard to explain: Nuclear power is the energy source of the future; is it any wonder that nations don't want to give it up?

"Although 187 countries have signed the [NPT] treaty, some developing nations are skeptical of the intentions of the five original nuclear states and are reluctant to give up the option of enriching uranium, leaving the door cracked to nuclear weapons capability...Developing nations say they don't want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don't trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants."

I'm musing a bit here...

My own assumption is that if our Secretary of State would simply phone her counterpart in Iran, and propose without preconditions that they meet in Paris on March 1st, to begin a discussion on the Iranian nuclear program, the chaos in Iraq, and related matters of Middle East and global security, then we would be well on our way toward the establishment of a new cooperative regional security framework which would do more to satisfy our security concerns than years of sanctions, gunboat diplomacy or even perhaps war.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We're getting to the "so's your old man" stage.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Well, W's "old man" was a lousy president also, although compared to 43 George H.W. Bush seems like a genius.

Tom

Commercial nuclear uranium fuel is enriched to 3 to 5 percent of the fissionable U-235* isotope, with some designs using lower enrichment. In general, weapons grade is considered around 85% enriched, with some higher and some lower.

The one exception for power reactors is that US naval reactors, intended for extremely high power under size and weight constraints, are enriched to a classified percentage that is generally accepted to be bomb grade.

There have been reports, without real confirmation, that when both India and Pakistan tried tritium boosting, not full thermonuclear fusion, they had failures -- "fizzle yields". Tritium boosting appears to be relatively simple, but, apparently, there is a very large distance between understanding the principle and making it work in a real bomb. As an aside, Israel is sometimes reputed to have full thermonuclear weapons, although that strikes me as surprising given they apparently have not done any live weapons tests, the mystery detonation in the ocean off South Africa notwithstanding.

Other than full thermonuclear, the problem in miniaturization is extremely complex high explosive systems that compress the nuclear material (i.e., explosive implosion). The US has very large test facilities that can image a full-scale model using nonfissionable material** with real implosion systems, using extremely high speed X-ray cameras in two axes. The presence of such a "hydrodynamic test facility" is indicative of little other than a bomb program, and its technology is both sensitive and difficult.



*For the nuclear purist, U-233 is outside the scope of this discussion.
**for the even more rigorous purist, finding metals that simulate the problems of the different metallic phases of plutonium, or plutonium-gallium alloys, is really outside the scope of this discussion.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Did we ever REALLY get to hear what happened with Specters little trip?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06361/749189-82.stm

a small piece comes out about Israel, but regional peace...

Specter ahhh Specter..

Both Ahmadinejad and Bush saw disappointing results at the polls recently. That in and of itself shows that the lay public of Iran and the United States are not necessarily in concert with their respective governments (it would be interesting to see which government is less popular among its people).

The possibility for peaceful negotiations is there, but not with either Ahmadinejad or Bush as head of state.

It would be nice if the newly elected Democratic Congress had the balls to take on the adminstration head-on as this would make it very difficult for Bush to start a war during his remaining time in office, but with the 2008 presidential election already making front-page news, it's hard to believe the left would take that large of a risk at this stage.

Mr. Greenbaum, your allegiance to Israel is second to none. However I am not sure the Israelis appreciate the ill-informed and aggressive support of right wing American Jews that keeps them in a state of permanent war. The bottom line is your AIPAC/neocon/ right wing loonie politics does create chaos and death, but it does not solve the problems facing the people in the Middle East.
Let me remind you that during the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict you were all over these columns attacking the anti-semitic left and Jews like me who criticize some Israeli over-reach and over-reaction. You insisted throughout those posts, that the kidnap of the Israeli soldiers meant that "Israel had no choice" but to respond as it did with massive force. Well, as far as I can tell your military genius has not freed the kidnapped soldiers, there is to my knowledge a continuing stalemate. Israel revealed the limits of its power in today's world. Many lives were lost on both sides, much destruction. But no doubt you are satisfied. (But you are not the only American Jew with relatives in Israel, and, thank God, you do not speak for all American Jews or all Israelis. You just parrot the right-wing Israeli-American nexus which is causing misery everywhere.) If peace will ever come to the Middle East there has to be some give on both sides. (By the way, for the record, the Kadima give on the West Bank seems to be designed so that the likes of you can claim Israel is always the victim. Let me hear that all the West bank settlements are to be removed and I will begin to agree with you).

If it's any help, granite is slightly radioactive.

Seriously, and as one both involved in improving healthcare efficiency and who has railed against the employer-based healthcare system, I don't think it's a question of trading healthcare against weapons. There are sufficient entrenched interests in the artificial market for health insurance and managing of healthcare delivery that unfortunately effective lobbying interferes with meaningful reforms.

I am not, incidentally, yet convinced that a multi-payor system, with due regard for efficiencies and avoiding excessive profit, might not be more flexible. The shining example of such a system is the Federal Employees' Healthcare Plan, which has the enormous difference that the purchasing negotiators that work with benefits providers do so in the interest of the healthcare consumers, rather than minimizing cost to employers. The latter goal is completely broken from classic market theory, where value is set between actual buyer and actual seller.

I am also open to single payor programs, with a phased cutover, perhaps state by state, which might reveal any unexpected problems. There should continue to exist the ability to buy care outside the plan, as such provides an opportunity for experiments that sometimes turn out well, such as free-standing surgical centers for appropriate patients and procedures. Surgical centers largely were introduced by the fee-for-service, unreimbursed cosmetic surgery sector.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

As far as I can tell through this thread, the only way for me and my wife, both self employed, to find health insurance is to join the U.S. military, but even then that is not guaranteed. So even if we sign a contract to give our own bodies and souls and guts to the US military and survive, we still might not get health care.

Anyone wish to respond ???

The IAEA says there is no corroborating allegations of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program in Iran.

The Bush administration has a long record of triggering crises, without much success in crisis prevention. The latter is clearly discernible in the cold shoulder the White House has given the call for a "time out" in the Iran nuclear crisis by Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

ElBaradei has asked for the simultaneous suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment activities and the UN sanctions on Iran. Whereas Iran has given the call serious consideration, the United States has all but rejected it.

According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, ElBaradei regards the regional situation as "potentially explosive" and wants to avert the escalation of a crisis that, if added to the present crises, could turn the situation "catastrophic".

In reaction to ElBaradei's proposal, Iran has put on hold its plan to install 3,000 centrifuges, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has stated that Tehran will seriously "review" the proposal...

But that is precisely what may be wrong with the US approach, which involves upping the ante against Iran in Iraq, in spite of scant evidence of Iranian wrongdoing. The US is also fixated on the idea of a permanent suspension of Iran's enrichment and reprocessing program, even though the program is sanctioned by articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no legal basis for the United States' request, given the absence of any "smoking gun" corroborating allegations of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program in Iran.

Source: AsiaTimesOnline

If Bush merely asked Americans to avoid unnecessary driving and take other easy conservation measures, none of which would harm our economy, we would put so much downward pressure on oil prices that Ahmediajad would find himself in big trouble at home.

I once visited the office of a friend in the Psych dept at Harvard. He instructed the rat he'd trained to leave his cage and sit in my lap (which didn't thrill me)then go back and resume exercising on the running wheel.

Bill's comment was that you can use punishment to eliminate an undesirable behavior but that if you want to foster
desirable ones you have to use rewards.

Of course that may only work with rats.

Convert to Judaism and move to Israel. The Israelis are proud of their first-rate universal health care system financed by the US taxpayer.

make some effort at diplomatic options,

I must've missed this. All I hear is bluster.

Of course that may only work with rats.

1. In general, the excess lawyer population is more damaging than a plague of rats.
2. Lab rats can be cute. Laboratory personnel are much less likely to become emotionally attached to rats.
3. There are some things, for experiments, that a rat just won't do.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And not getting the reward is a form of punishment. At least for homo sapiens who are aware of the reward.

I forgot to add to the NATO club idea, if a country is not a member of the NATO club, they *would not* get any protection from NATO if they were attacked. (one form of punishment by lack of reward.)

It makes simple sense to me that it would work. I guess I'm outside the box of foreign policy thought though, and it may be that those inside the box think it wouldn't work.

I've been on the planet for 75 years and for about 60 I've really thought universal health care in this country was going to happen. Truman wanted it as did Eisenhower and Kennedy - even tricky-dicky Nixon talked about it.

Then down the road Reagan hit Washington and no more talk of a government working with the American people. Government was the enemy, according to Reagan Republicans which meant, of course, that not only was it our enemy, we were its enemy. (It does take two to do the enemy-tango.)

The good news is that should some Dem get some balls and take on the issue - no bandages please - at least the Repubs can't trot out the old we-have-the-best-healthcare-in-the-world red herring because today we stand 39th in the world in the quality of our healthcare. Hang in there, Howard

comprehensive rebuttal...is needed. sorry

There are some state programs that are a start, but don't do everything. At the moment, Massachusetts is good for me until my income improves too much. I understand Hawaii is doing well. Tennessee and Oregon are known for experiments.

Both Bush and Kerry, during the campaign, agreed that there could be some sort of small business buy-in to the Federal Employees Health Plan, the best example of non-employer based multiple payor. Somehow, I haven't heard anything about that proposal after the election.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Rarely mentioned in these whatifs about preventing nuclear states and future Stalins is that they are only proposed for easy targets. Or more accurately, what seem to be easy targets.

For example, we knew Russia was working on nuclear weapons but only a few crazies like Curtis LeMay wanted to preemptively attack.

N. Korea is another example. Publicly displayed nuclear weapons capability but we won't touch them.

If a job is only worth doing because it's easy, does that make it justified? And of course it is not easy to attack Iran, merely appears so since they currently lack a deterrent.

Sanctions are the easy way out for those who believe there is a threat but know we can't take the risk of attacking it. I would prefer honest consideration of attack (in all its insanity) to the sly discussion of sanctions.

If there are strong strategic reasons for Iran to pursue a weapons program sanctions will have no effect beyond stiffening their spine. Shall we remember how easy it was to pump up war fever here? And topping off this issue is the complete lack of evidence of a weapons program in Iran.

Ironic that some people here are promoting increasing our dependence on nuclear energy as a non-carbon power source, while Iran is supposed to pump carbon.

J. McCutchen

From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
Craig Unger, Vanity Fair

I suspect there is a pretty large constituency that will be quite angry when it realizes that Bush's budget is proposing to cut their Medicare benefits in order to fund whatever the hell he's doing in Iraq.

I think the Democrats need to continually point out the actual cost--and the opportunity cost--of this war. This war is siphoning an extraordinary amount of our tax dollars away from other projects--whether those projects be domestic programs or military development or simply balancing the budget. We are footing a gigantic bill for Bush's incompetence. Helping the average tax-paying voter understand how the cost of this war is translating into reductions in government benefits and greater national debt is crucial.

I think you are spot on there. Democrats have done a miserable job of articulating trade offs. People do understand elementary budgeting. They don't believe the pie in the sky promises from either party. That feeds distrust of any and all programs. Republicans have resorted to highly emotional fear based appeals to pump up support for the war, but that really is not convincing people in middle America. They can see the cost to individual families when a guy is called up from the National Guard. They don't have trouble extrapolating the cost from there, but Democrats have to give them alternatives not just sound bites.

Self-employed, he said.

Health plans are not gold-plated. (They are either comprehensive, or not.) That's a pejorative term to make health coverage seem like a luxury. It needs no help seeming such when it is so expensive.

I'll probably stay at my job, precluding an opening for a young player starting out, simply so I can afford health coverage.

Good questions.

My general position has always been that the opening of talks should be mutually unconditional, but all the items you raise, and more, are perfectly legitimate subjects for negotiating in the talks. Realistically, I see no reason, from Iran's perspective, why it should give up its nuclear program as a precondition for mere talks with the US, especially when the stated reason for those talks is stabilizing Iraq, a US mess.

"Regime change" is an interesting term that really doesn't mean anything. On one extreme, it could involve trying to destroy the Iranian government by military force. Not far less than that, given the history of the US-led 1953 coup against Mossadegh, is the US actively destabilizing the Iranian government and supporting a coup, as opposed to such things as a parliamentary vote of confidence. These are not unreasonable things for Iran to request.

On the other extreme, Iran, from a US perspective, cannot reasonably claim "regime change" extends to overt US broadcast and other government-sponsored communications, much less by independent media. It is not inconceivable that the mullahs might have their power reduced through the Iranian political system, or a true popular revolt. I don't believe the US should guarantee to support the existing government in the face of such a revolt, but it can remain neutral and potentially recognize a new government. Obviously, the mullahs would blame the CIA even if the overthrow were truly indigenous.

Iran giving up nuclear weapons, and giving up support at least for Hamas generally and Hizbollah outside Lebanon seems principally of benefit to Israel rather than the United States. The immediate priority for the United States is getting Iran involved in stabilizing Iraq.

Assume the US agrees to place a nuclear umbrella over Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran is not the only possible nuclear power that might attack those countries. What would be the US responsibility if Israel, for any reason, hit these countries with nuclear weapons?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It may be fanciful, but if it isn't addressed, it will be extremely difficult to force on the "street" and could result, even in dictatorships, in further instability and attacks on perceived bad leaders. Egyptians remember what happened to Sadat, who did it, and that it was over a matter of perception.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Don't assume Iran is that primitive. They appear to have some quite competent people in microelectronics, as one area.

Perhaps putting some of this as exchange study might be even better, given Persian history and self-image. It might be interesting to ask an Iranian university to come up with an area studies, given the linguistic relations to Kurdistan and Afghanistan. When I was doing a study of radio broadcasts in Afghanistan, I was surprised by how essentially apolitical the Dari service of Iranian state radio was; it mostly concentrated on common cultural heritage.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

As an aside, the huge electrical power needs of uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing generally lead to finding such facilities near hydroelectric facilities. It would be interesting to see if geothermal could power such a plant; geothermal possibly could lend itself to concealment and hardening.

It's worth noting that commercial reactor grade uranium needs to be enriched to 3-5%. US naval power reactors appear to run at, or close to, bomb grade, mostly for reasons of physical size in submarines--the Navy is absolutely compulsive about reactor safety. Bomb grade generally starts at 85%, although some might go as low as 50%. Getting to these higher grades needs much larger enrichment facilities, with the enrichment stages in series rather than parallel. Parallel cascades are more what one would expect to see for a nuclear reactor program, with due regard that material could be manually moved from the end of one parallel cascade to the start of another.

Nevertheless, if the IAEA monitored the enrichment facilities, tracked the materials to reactors, and evaluated the fuel requirements of reactors, a power program could be documented -- or diversion reasonably predicted.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Putin of Russia just gave the go ahead to his military to protect their 'assets' in Iran against US or Israeli attacks.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=28985

That's from a South African news source, and its headline is currently rare out there, although it's certainly not implausible.

Russia, China, India, Venezuela, etc. will all certainly get involved, as this is the global equivalent of the invasion of Poland.

We can't expect that governments are going to sit there like potted plants while madman Bush attacks everybody everywhere and our Senate debates if they will debate Iraq.

Tom

I'm reminded, somehow, of how Soviet scientists leaked information on their thermonuclear programs. A journal article would speak of a particular pressure-over-time or energy flux "in the heart of a star", which would get by the censor. Any competent physicist looking at it, however, would realize those conditions only occur during the explosion of a thermonuclear weapon.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Hmmm. Fascism generally subordinates religion to a Hegelian leader model, glorifies the military (although the military may have limited actual power inside the state), and admits to no check and balance on the Leader. There's room to argue either way if the Assembly of Experts is a check and balance on the Supreme Leader; clearly, the Majlis (Parliament) is not. The President clearly does not control the major aspects of state power.

Still, the classical Fascist states of Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, and Germany under Hitler did not admit to any serious checks on the Leader. While the Soviet Union called itself Marxist-Leninist under Stalin, the resemblance to Fascist structure was still striking.

Are you using Fascist as an epithet or as a rigorous descriptor? I don't argue that Iran has many totalitarian aspects, as well as a surprising number of freedoms. No simple label, IMHO, really fits its system of government.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

...and the point of this is?

Tom

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/05/fascism_isnt_ju.html

You may be interested in learning more about our Foreign Policy Index, which, in sum, says that the public's anxiety is rising. Overwhelmingly, the public embraces diplomatic measures, with 44% of those surveyed favoring diplomacy with Iran and an addition 28% backing economic sanctions. Favor for military action is in the single digits. Our anxiety indicator is currently at 137 on a 200-point scale, edging toward the 150 point mark that we would consider a crisis of confidence in government policy. Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to check out the fourth edition of our “Foreign Policy Index.”

I am sure there was as much concern in days gone by about the spread of gunpowder as there is nowadays about the spread of nuclear weapons.

---World Citizen---

Your argument that Iran does not yet have the technology to make bombs and probably won't for some time is more or less accurate.

However, Iran probably doesn't need nuclear power, with access to pretty good sources of most fossil fuels either domestically or from nearby trading partners.

Further, this:

"Number two, nukes are actually pretty lousy weapons, unless you are totally reckless or totally desperate. Iran seems to be neither. Perfecting rocket/bunker combination capable of closing Strait of Hormuz can give them larger deterrent power than nukes."

is completely inaccurate. Nukes are not good weapons for surgical use. However can be used to destroy large urban centers and hardened military sites with great effect. This is their deterrent power. It is precisely because only a desperate person would use nukes in today's world that they are good deterrents. We won't invade North Korea, because, God forbid, if Kim Jong Il had a true nuclear weapon (which he probably doesn't; the previous test proved he could make a nuclear reaction, not that he had a viable weapon), and he were desperate, he could nuke Japan or South Korea (I am conveniently ignoring his million-man conventional force and huge artillery force within range of Seoul solely for the sake of argument). Nukes are great deterrents from invasion. They are not great bargaining chips as threats, but no country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded by an external power, not a bad track record.