SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the We-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia dept.
Iran Doesn't Have a Nuclear Weapons Program. Why Do Media Keep Saying It Does?
When it comes to Iran, do basic facts matter? Evidently not, since dozens and dozens of journalists keep casually reporting that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program" when it does not—a problem FAIR has reported on over the years (e.g., 9/9/15). Let's take a look at some of the outlets spreading this falsehood in just the past five days:
Business Insider (10/13/17): "The deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aims to incentivize Iran to curb its nuclear weapons program by lifting crippling international economic sanctions."
New Yorker (10/16/17): "One afternoon in late September, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called a meeting of the six countries that came together in 2015 to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program."
Washington Post (10/16/17): "The administration is also considering changing or scrapping an international agreement regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program."
CNN (10/17/17): "In reopening the nuclear agreement, [Trump] risks having Iran advance its nuclear weapons program at a time when he confronts a far worse nuclear challenge from North Korea that he can't resolve."
The problem with all of these excerpts: There is no documentation that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:00AM (6 children)
Anything Iran does with fissile materials is weapons-related. Even if it's nominally for energy, they want the infrastructure and knowledge as a stepping stone. I can't fault them for that, but it's true. They have too many fossil fuels to need nuclear energy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:22AM (2 children)
Anything Iran does with fissile materials is weapons-related
As part of the deal that Iran signed, they are allowed to produce medical-grade isotopes.
The place has UN inspectors checking this stuff.
They have [...] fossil fuels
..and are smart enough not to use them, adding to AGW in the process.
Any other ignorant opinions you'd like to spew?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:52AM
OTOH, you forgot fossil fuels are not just extracted to be burnt. Part of them is used to raw material for others things, like plastics, fertilizers, solvents, lubricants, adhesives or pharmaceuticals. And while some other resources can be used, fossil fuels is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:26PM
Yeah, parent thinks it's no coincidence that the country (Iran) that is near the top of the US invasion list works on nuclear science and infrastructure for reasons of self-defense. But you're smart enough to know that this is really economic policy, even though nuclear reactors have become money pits all over the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:38AM
They have fossil fuels so they need a way to not die while others try to get them (steal) or avoid others to do so (scorched earth against a third party). FTFY
Religion and location also counts, as nearby enemies can bury them under a lot of bombs, or ask US to do so.
Sad, but MAD policy is stronger as ever.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday October 23 2017, @07:03AM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by lx on Monday October 23 2017, @12:07PM
The oil export ban was very welcome for those wishing to keep oil prices high. I'm sure many oil producers would welcome another export ban on Iran. Maybe not Russia, keeping Iran as their largest ally in the Middle East is too important for them, but it certainly is welcome for the US and the Saudis.