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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:15AM (1 child)
Ask Saddam how this works, he had first hand experience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:29AM
Yep, and Muammar Gaddafi.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:17AM
Stuxnet
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:20AM (11 children)
For over a year now, Iran has been breaking their agreement by attempting to buy nuclear material. Since Infallible Grand Emperor Hussein was in charge back then, reporting this would make him look stupid and ineffective. So CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC never did. Even better, the chattering class are faux-acting hysterical at Donald Trump for considering cancelling the deal, even though it's already broken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:25AM (9 children)
I wanted to include some links with my comment, but embedding them gives me a Soylent error every time.
Iran breaking deal:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/09/iran-attempted-to-buy-nuclear-technology-illegally-32-times-german-agency-says.html [foxnews.com]
Media faux outrage:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/trumps-irrational-hatred-of-the-iran-deal [newyorker.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @03:15AM (8 children)
Note: Iraq, not Iran this time.
In the early aughts, "intelligence" reports said that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake (processed uranium ore) from Niger.
The State Dept. spooks (a bunch with high veracity, despite having a much lower budget than the usual TLAs) said it was bullshit.
Colin Powell, their boss, rejected their findings.
A retired diplomat was sent to Africa to investigate. [wikipedia.org]
Upon his return, he also said that the story was crap.
USA.gov (Dubya's warmongers) wanted the story to be true, so actual facts didn't matter.
To retaliate against the truthteller, USA.gov ruined the career of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer.
Apparently, it doesn't take much to qualify for "intelligence".
You just have to craft your "truth" to support the agenda of the Reactionaries.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday October 23 2017, @07:16AM (7 children)
Iraq had yellowcake. Everybody knew about it. President Saddam Hussein made NO SECRET of his yellowcake. Very honest and open about it. Say what you want, but Saddam Hussein was not the kind of guy to beat around the bush. And he held his country together. It was deeply divided between the Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds. But he held it together. Say what you want, but that is not easy. Trust me, it's far from easy. I'm not giving him credit or not giving him credit; I'm just saying that's a very hard thing to do Everybody knew his yellowcake was there. And he had had it for a long, long time. He wasn't trying to buy more from Niger. George Bush made a mistake. And Crooked Hillary went along with him hook, line and sinker. Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.
And it's no secret that Iran is trying to buy 950 tons of yellowcake from Kazakhstan. They didn't try to hide it. What do they need 950 tons for? Believe me, it's a lot more than they need. More than they could ever need, unless it's for the WMDs. That's unacceptable. President Obama said they could do it. He said they could go ahead. They had no reason to hide it from President Obama. I'm telling them "no." Saying "no" to Iran, they call it a veto. If that doesn't work, I have other options. I'm keeping all options on the table, to put a stop to this very bad deal. But if Crooked Hillary becomes president, she'll say it's OK. If she gets her cut she'll give the OK. Like she did with Russia. When she and Obama let Russia buy 20 percent of our uranium. When 2020 comes around, ask yourself: "did we lose a nuclear war with Iran?" And then ask yourself, when that happened was it President Trump's fault? Should I blame President Trump? If you're honest you'll have to answer "no." That second question will be a "no." I inherited a mess but I'm doing my best. So that America keeps on winning, winning, WINNING. Because I always put America First. #TRUMP2020 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @12:37PM (5 children)
Uhhhh - did the UK, or did the UK not, forge those documents? The question is not so much whether Iraq had some yellow cake - the question is whether "our side" forged documents, and over hyped the situation. As for the facts - every country in the world has plenty of fissionables to worry about. At least three times, Mexico has mishandled and lost dangerous radioactive materials. In at least two of those cases, there were fatalities as a result. And, Mexico isn't even a real player in the nuclear field.
Yes, of course, Iraq had potential fissionable material. But, where were all of Iraq's physicists? I did some research during the runup to the invasion. A who's who of Iraqi physicists. Well over half of them were out of country. Almost all of the remainder had full time jobs, most of those in academia. There was no one left to run a nuclear weapons program. The senior people available to the Iraqi government were third and fourth stringers, at best. No real physicists.
US and UK intelligence were very much aware that Iraq had no viable nuclear weapons program, despite all the political bullshit being hyped on the media.
BTW - how many tons of yellow cake does it take to refine a ton of useful fissionable material? I'm not real sure, but probably more than 100 tons. Anyone?
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday October 23 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)
It's "realdonaldwhatever". He's trolling, not participating in community rhetoric.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday October 24 2017, @01:35AM (1 child)
Crooked Dems colluded to sell our uranium to Russia. Crooked Dems said Iran could buy uranium, much more uranium than they have. And all you have to say is "oh, Donald Trump is trolling." Disgraceful!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:18AM
Admittedly well played, but still.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 23 2017, @03:44PM (1 child)
over hyped the situation
Wag the dog [independent.co.uk]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:26PM
The breadth of your wisdom is truly only exceeded by its depth.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:02AM
Because they want to have their Yellow Cake and eat it too?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Geotti on Monday October 23 2017, @02:29AM
By "attempting" to buy, and these attempts that you apparently refer to (e.g. reported by German intelligence) are much less in numbers than they were before the JCPOA. Besides, the IAEA says everything is fine (i.e. because these were only attempts, they didn't actually buy anything), so US is just positioning itself to play another act as the world's policeman again. But sure, believe what you want to believe, just don't be surprised, when this stratagem backfires.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Monday October 23 2017, @02:20AM
It's a "Hello World" nuclear weapons program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @02:36AM (10 children)
Iran would be a country of morons if it didn't have one. Put yourself in Iran's shoes, sitting next to Saudi and other Gulf Sunny Arabs, Israel, and nuke-armed Pakistan next door.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday October 23 2017, @08:17AM (9 children)
[1] Not quite true: Iranian children have to shout 'Death to England' at school each morning, though from the Iranian immigrants I've met here most of them take it as seriously as English children take being forced to sing the national anthem.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday October 23 2017, @08:29AM (3 children)
I kinda think of Iran as the North Dakota of the middle/south/east/Asia. State tree is a telephone pole. Sold themselves out to oil in a double-wide trailer-home in Minot. Just like that. And just think, surrounded by the socialist hellholes of South Dakota, Canada, Montana and Minnesota! Just like Iran. Seriously. And, they already have some nukes [soylentnews.org]? Minot AFB, [wikipedia.org] sometimes they just lose them? If only the Donald would make a deal with North Dakota, before it is too late!!!!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by VLM on Monday October 23 2017, @02:05PM (2 children)
I think they're on pretty good terms already, that makes the analogy difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Dakota,_2016 [wikipedia.org]
"Republican nominee Donald Trump won North Dakota in a 36-percentage-point routing over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton,"...
Humorously, cucky Romney only got a 19% margin and hyper-cucky McCain only got a pitiful 8% margin. The R party was so cucky in those pre-Trump days that Obama nearly won North Dakota, LOL.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 23 2017, @04:32PM (1 child)
"Cuck" is not an argument, VLM. And if anyone has been cuckolded, it's rural Republican voters, as their party has made their lives worse and worse since the Civil Rights movement while promising them the moon and the stars in return for their fidelity and loyalty. If that's not cuckolding I don't know what is.
...which, ironically, makes YOU the "cuck." Hurts, doesn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:54PM
Nothing can penetrate that shield of ignorance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @09:43AM (1 child)
AND don't forget Iran has been a victim of the UK and USA's meddling (they destroyed Iran's democracy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [wikipedia.org]
I'm pretty sure many Iranians still remember that.
They may not like their government, but the majority are unlikely to approve of you overthrowing it. After all, would the US people approve of Iran overthrowing the USA just because:
1) The US Gov is obviously and provably corrupt and evil.
2) The top leader is bad for the people and a great danger to the rest of the world.
3) The majority of the people didn't vote for the current top leader.
4) There are numerous human rights violations happening.
5) There are many dangerous nuclear weapons programs.
6) The USA possesses nuclear weapons that could destroy much of the human world and there aren't any real safeguards - the top leader could launch them unilaterally, all anyone involved is supposed to do is to confirm that the launch order came from the top leader (this is by design!).
The USA has used lamer excuses and weaker justifications to overthrow other governments; AND many lies too.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:07AM
You forgot to mention that the Shah's secret police, SAVAK, who specialised in the torture and murder of anyone the Shah didn't like, were set up and trained by Mossad. Iranian's dislike of Israel isn't just generic antisemitism, they have a pretty good historical reason to be upset at Israel.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 23 2017, @04:00PM (2 children)
Uh, what? England != the USA. English children don't sing the national anthem every day, or even any normal school day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:37PM
And they spell funny.
And when they grow up, they drink warm beer.
And they beat each other up over silly soccer games.
There's no hope for that little island.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday October 23 2017, @04:56PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DECbot on Monday October 23 2017, @02:41AM
In the post-fact world, it no longer matters if our masters tell us lies or truths. It only matters that it feels good to act upon what our handlers tell us. For our own good and for the good of all those vested in wall street, our leaders have determined that we must die. In their esteemed wisdom, Iran or North Korea have been chosen to be the spear to shed our blood and calm our growing anxiety in our aging yoke that binds us together. Democracy cannot be free unless the constituents die for the beliefs that make them feel good. The greater the death toll, the freer the country will be from the happy, ignorant masses. Then the surviving constituents, in their gratitude, present their freedoms to the government so it can protect those freedoms and share them equally to all it deems trustworthy.
I'm with her, Hope in MAGA!
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Monday October 23 2017, @02:47AM (15 children)
The basis for that claim? Two assessments by US intelligence that indicate that Iran halted its program in 2007 and may not have resumed the program in 2012 (depending on whether the second report is accurate or merely reflects biases of the time). The second assessment also comes with some touchy feelie sentiment that Israeli intelligence is thought to agree with the assessment even though public statements were made to the contrary.
In contrast, we have a 2011 IAEA report which indicates that Iran probably was still running its nuclear weapons program at the time. [cfr.org]
and on the difference with the 2007 CIA report:
So why is the press suppose to ignore that?
My take is that Iran will ease up on the more provocative parts of its nuclear weapons program as long as the incentives of the current deal remain more useful to them than that aspect of weapons development.
(Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Monday October 23 2017, @06:24AM (12 children)
Any vaguely wealthy country with a functioning military and intelligence service runs all kinds of programs on as many 'what if' scenarios you can think of, it is in the national interest to prepare and plan for things even if there is no imminent intent to commission an actual operation to build or use the equipment required for it. This is done in an offensive and defensive situation, you have to examine and understand potential threats in as much detail as possible if you intend to protect yourself from them.
A country like Iran certainly has the incentive and wealth to understand as much about things beyond conventional warfare, such as nuclear weapons, biological warfare and cyber warfare if they wish to defend their sovereignty from adversaries with such capabilities.
I am certain every current member of the WMD club has plans on how they could bomb everyone (including allies) and scenarios it would be necessary. All of those countries have no real intent to use those weapons, but they're going to continue to improve the capabilities of them and think up as many scenarios as possible where they could be used just in case there is a time.
I would like to see the end of nuclear weapons, but while the big players in NATO, Pakistan, India, China, Israel and Russia are not giving up on their programs, I can certainly understand why other independent, wealthy, strategically important states would consider building their own and have continually refined plans to do so, even if they are not actively engaged in putting it together.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 23 2017, @07:52AM (5 children)
Yes, but all this does most certainly beg the question of why khallow is so abysmally ignorant about the simplest points of international relations. Is it because he his sitting on top of the Yellowstone Super-duper-Volcano, and so does not give any shits that are not incinerated as soon as they are released? Or do conservatives really, really, do not understand rationality? Why is a model of a "rational maximizer" the egotistical asshole the the rest of us off first when the shit hits the fan? Sorry, khallow. Tried to warn you about the tarbaby! And you thought it was just a kid's story, eh? We remember, the right to arm bears with nuclear weapons shall not be infringed! No Fringes on the Nukes for bears! What part of this is not making sense to you? Actually, serious question. I have a nuke under your ass right now, just for insurance. Don't make me call a "deadman's bluff". [wikipedia.org] Doesn't matter what you were holding, once the lead or plutonium begins to fly. Via con Dios, and may he have mercy on your soul.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @01:47PM (1 child)
Yes. But you already knew that. You and EF are probably my two favorite commenters here since it seems like you both really get that. (I'm convinced that EF is actually doing satire.)
Because a "rational maximizer" is a strongman who becomes a warlord. The ability to violently impose on other peoples' lives is the meter-stick by which they measure rationality. The word rational here is in fact truthy, or at least ironic.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 23 2017, @04:45PM
Modded up because it's criminal for this to sit at 0. With one small nitpick: I don't think Eth is doing satire anymore. He might have started that way, but he's been getting high on his own supply for at least 18 months now and it's beginning to show.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by NewNic on Monday October 23 2017, @04:04PM
FTFY.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:32AM (1 child)
Tarbaby? You racist puke. Read, you pedarast Greek http://newblackwoman.com/2011/08/02/why-yes-tar-baby-is-a-racial-slur/ [newblackwoman.com] And, do not attempt to pretend brotherhood with the black tarbaby community.
Why, yes. Tar baby IS a racial slur
August 2, 2011 New Black Woman
What is it with whiteness seeking to regulate what POCs determine as racially and ethnically offensive? The latest in this phenomenon can be found in the comment section of Think Progress’ story on Rep. Doug Lamborn’s racist comments about working with President Barack Obama. Lamborn made the comments on a talk radio show:
“Even if some people say, well the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that, they will hold the President responsible,” said Lamborn said Friday during an interview on a Denver radio station. “Now I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know… you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can’t get away.”
Lamborn did eventually expressed regret (no apologies, of course) for his comments.
Of course, we saw whiteness at play as people felt the need to declare if the term is racially insensitive or not. One comment from Think Progress:
“Ignorance of history is just as bad…..
And you’re correct – the Left has become hypersensitive about any comments made by the GOP – yet ignore comments made by the Left ( Remember when Obama called African-Americans “Mongrels” ?)
I’m amazed at how people get so excited over things so meaningless….”
Another from The Huffington Post:
Oh look, more dog whistle shenanigans.
The people on the right will, of course, defend it as not being racist, much as they did with the “Obama the magic negro” thing, or the bit where they photoshopped Obama, and his family’s faces on to chimpanzees, or the photoshop of watermelons on the white house lawn, or on, and on, ad nauseum.
But yeah, it’s just the left playing the race card. Every time I hear that lame @ss excuse, my eyes roll back so hard, it flings me out of my chair.
The only thing more ubiquitous, and annoying, than the left “playing the race card” is the right playing the “playing the race card” card to rationalize that they’ve thrown their lot in with a bunch of bigots.
Another comment on Balloon Juice:
(In response to a person’s asking a black professor his opinion on the term) Not exactly an unbiased authority.
TNC has this dead on. It is pretty unlikely that Lamborn has much exposure to the OED’s references or Updike or anything other than the Uncle Remus stuff, and while that’s very much in the grey zone as a whole, the Tar Baby is not a particularly racist story. It’s a 19th-century southern white writer’s rendition of an African folk story processed through American slavery, but it isn’t about race. Lamborn is an Oklahoma GOPer so the odds that he isn’t a racist are extremely low and the odds that he isn’t a waste of organic chemicals even lower, but THIS bit of rhetoric isn’t really racist. It’s just southern. If southern folk references are decreed as always racist, I think we’re done, and not in a good way.
Revisionist history at its finest…
It should be noted the above comment was referring to a 2006 article written by Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates, which he mulls whether the term is racist:
Is tar baby a racist term? Like most elements of language, that depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different than calling a person one. But sensitivity is not unwarranted. Among etymologists, a slur’s validity hangs heavily on history. The concept of tar baby goes way back, according to Words@Random from Random House: “The tar baby is a form of a character widespread in African folklore. In various folktales, gum, wax or other sticky material is used to trap a person.” The term itself was popularized by the 19th-century Uncle Remus stories by Joel Chandler Harris, in which the character Br’er Fox makes a doll out of tar to ensnare his nemesis Br’er Rabbit. The Oxford American Dictionary defines tar baby much like Romney used it, “a difficult problem, that is only aggravated by attempts to solve it.” But the term also has had racial implications. In his book Coup, John Updike says of a white woman who prefers the company of black men, “some questing chromosome within holds her sexually fast to the tar baby.” The Oxford English Dictionary (but not the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a derogatory term used for “a black or a Maori.”
In reference to that comment about the phrase being “just southern.” Is it southern like the Confederate flag? Or Jim Crow? Or de jure segregation? No, tar baby isn’t just some “southern folk reference” that white people tossed around referring to sticky situations. Let’s not hide behind geographic slang and insult the intelligence of black folks by glossing over the racial implications of referring to a black person as a tar baby.
Second, these sort of comments are a shining example of how whiteness seeks to erase and redefine what a person of color determines as offensive and derogatory. Whiteness gives white people and its practitioners the authority to feel they can decide what a person of color can and should take as offensive.
While this is nothing new, its prevalence seems to have multiplied since the Obamas moved in to the White House. This mindset among those who operate under the realm of whiteness is another form of its attempt to dominate and colonize the minds of POCs.
While they are inherently unable to determine what is or isn’t racist by their societal status, whiteness gives white people and its practitioners the belief that they, not POCs, are the authority figures on race, racism and what’s racially offensive. The experiences and opinions of POCs are essentially erased, downplayed and viewed as an exception rather than the rule.
What frustrates many POCs is how whiteness often invades safe spaces and attempts to thrusts its world view on racism and racially insensitive comments onto the minds of POCs as if that opinion is the authoritative commentary on race relations. While whiteness emboldens them to do so, white people do not have the authority to tell me or any other person of color what we should see as offensive or racially/ethnically insensitive. In a perfect world in which whiteness didn’t dominate unsafe and safe spaces, the racist nature of the term tar baby would be accepted as truth by white people and there wouldn’t be this push by whites to define for POCs what is or isn’t racist.
Unfortunately, whiteness isn’t that easy to defeat.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:51AM
PLEASSSE don't throw me in da Briar Patch, Br'er Runaway!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 23 2017, @10:29AM (3 children)
I agree with every word you've said but there's still one problem. You're looking at the situation entirely from their perspective instead of from your own. That is exceedingly unwise. Darwin would even go as far as to call it unfit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:57PM (2 children)
Lol, so it turns out your brain may not be hardwired as a sociopath, but you freely embrace concepts that make you into one anyway! Wow, just fucking wow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 23 2017, @05:40PM (1 child)
Please, show us more of your ignorance. A human mind that is unable to see things from its own perspective is no less damaged than one that is unable to see it from the perspectives of others.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 25 2017, @02:00AM
If it is unable to see things from its own perspective, that hardly is a perspective then, is it? Please, Buzzard, we know you are trying to defend the indefensible, but flat out contradiction is to be avoided.
And as for that "other perspective"? Well, if it's alt-right, it is more of a confusion and/or delusion than a proper perspective, so they do not really see much, either. Maybe this is the source of your confusion?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 23 2017, @01:55PM
This goes beyond what-if. I found the 2011 IAEA report [isis-online.org] in question. Look through appendix C. We have stuff like
It's worth noting as well that Iran was conducting uranium enrichment activities at Natanz as late as 2013 [nti.org]. And the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant [wikipedia.org] is buried inside a mountain. There's a lot of effort over the last decade by the Iranian military to protect its enriched uranium production, which wouldn't make sense for the oft claimed medical purposes (not to mention the volume of enriched uranium that would be produced).
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 23 2017, @09:25PM
Is it really in their national interest?
Iran has several deep underground secret places that attract a lot of interest, from which IAEA and some powers are banned.
The thing is, if they open these bases to world observers, and if, as claimed, they have no Nuclear Weapons program, Iran suddenly becomes as interesting as Bolivia or Iceland, and they get to go about their business of sowing revolution in their neighborhood with nobody bothering them.
Russia is building them Reactors. Countries have offered them fuel for these reactors. [reuters.com] Take the fuel, let inspectors in, and the whole problem goes away.
The US and Russia already have such mutual inspection agreements under START treaties. Even during the height of the Ukraine conflict Russian inspectors were allowed in [freebeacon.com] for regularly scheduled visits.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 23 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
In contrast, we have a 2011 IAEA report which indicates that Iran probably was still running its nuclear weapons program at the time. [cfr.org]
Thanks Obama! Your 2015 Iran deal can't even go back in time and retroactively pause their nuclear program!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 23 2017, @05:53PM
The point here is that the story claims that Iran hasn't had a nuclear program for a while based on a 2007 CIA report. However, we see a considerable effort by the Iranian military well past that date. In fact, some of the places which are part of the supposedly non-existent Iran nuclear weapons program have been active till 2013 [soylentnews.org] a couple of years before the 2015 deal. At that point, you're not speaking of a old program that's been dead for a decade, but a program that might have been suspended a couple of years ago, or it might not and we just haven't discovered the cheating yet.
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday October 23 2017, @04:14AM (2 children)
They've been enriching well beyond 3%, on military bases, with A.Q. Khan assistance. That's not what a peaceful energy program looks like.
For an honest informed list of pros and cons, check out the Federation of American Scientists report at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34544.pdf [fas.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Monday October 23 2017, @05:50AM
Nothing says honest like a Washington DC based organization with a President who previously worked at the 'highly influential' Council on Foreign Relations think-tank, his work there focused on the Iran threat and US policy 'failing to take into account' the threat of nuclear terrorism.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @08:28AM
And they've also been smuggling funny radioactive materials too from Russia .... and you know for what? Medicine.
http://nationalpost.com/news/russia-seizes-radioactive-material-bound-for-iran-at-moscow-airport [nationalpost.com]
http://www.sciencegateway.org/isotope/sodium.html [sciencegateway.org]
http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-tries-smuggle-radioactive-metal-iran-384144 [ibtimes.com]
https://thebulletin.org/highly-enriched-uranium-less-more/how-dispense-highly-enriched-uranium [thebulletin.org]
You see, HEU is important for isotope production in nuclear medicine, both for diagnostic and therapy. Without this, tens of thousands of people in Iran will die every year. Iran has uranium resources, but it cannot utilize them because of the nuclear weapons paranoia. Hey, North Korea has nuclear weapons now, and what?? It's isolated. If Iran made a nuclear weapon, it would be quickly become as isolated as North Korea. And that would kill the current Iranian regime.
So, stop with the paranoia about Iran. If Iran is considered to have fucked up government, it is directly the result of British and Americans meddling with it in the 1950s already and imposing dictatorship because they didn't like their democracy (that nationalized British Oil assets, btw). Iranian government is trying to become more liberal, but every step of the way is being fought by the idiots in US or Israel. My only hope is they will not do something stupid (yes, I'm looking at Trump's twitter feed now)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday October 23 2017, @04:16AM (5 children)
Warmongers, all of them warmongers. Wonder how many bonds they hold with defence companies.
I hope iran gets the bomb and lots of them, because thats the only way we will prevent a war with them.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:44AM
You are a stupid clown. I bet you cheer on when Rocket Man does one of his tests, too.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @05:51AM (2 children)
A "special interest" designation from China for their petrol will help as well.
I have a feeling that there's possibility opened in this direction: if Trump denounce the nuclear deal and the others in the deal want to stay on (and it looks so [washingtonpost.com]), you'll have the interesting situation in which at least one of 5 members with UN veto power (United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China - plus Germany) may be tempted to tell Trump "veto on your proposal for extra sanctions". Iran may be tempted not to escalate the issue outside the deal if the vetoer buy their petrol preferentially.
Adding to the above [mit.edu]: list of Iran exports (top on the list "crude oil") and export destinations (top on the list - China+India approx 66% of the total value in 2015, with China close to 50%).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @08:31AM (1 child)
They don't need to buy it preferentially. And it's not just about oil. Iran needs external investment and it needs trade with outside world. It has certain resources it can export beyond oil, and it needs other resources from outside to grow.
But yes, China has already been very active in all sectors of Iranian economy. The problem is European and other international businesses are weary because morons like Trump can slap *them* with sanctions if they go against US's unilateral sanctions. And US market is still much more important than anything Iran can provide.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 23 2017, @10:23AM
China's One belt one road [wikipedia.org] initiative.
Here's a map with country names on [smh.com.au]
So, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Turkey, Europe.
Now, Iran will be the gateway to the Gulf's oil - something tells me China will side with Iran the same way Russia sided with Syria**. Let's look a bit on what's happening around.
Ah, yes,Aramco [wikipedia.org] (100% owned by Saudis) plans a float in 2018 [ft.com] China may or may not buy a share into it (I bet it will), but... there are some troubles there:
Ooops. The Brexiters also have a pain with this float [qz.com] - only 5% of Aramco is planned to be floated this round, and London exchange rules want at least 25% for listing.
We'll see if China offers or not better conditions in HK exchange as the IPO launching place - if it does, I'm quite afraid that this can non-ambiguously interpreted as China courting the Saudis... which, if this happens, may slip slowly out of the traditional partnership with US; if this happens, one can ask when (not if) we'll see petro-yuans coexisting with petrodollars. Should I go ahead an explore what the notion of petro-yuans would mean?
---
** you hear the deafening silence in the news about Syria coming just about after Trump sent those rockets into that Syrian base? I wonder why, but beyond that wonder a thing is clear: US suddenly "lost interest" in Syria and Russia can have what it seeks there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:08AM
...[that's] the only way we will prevent a war with them
A writer that I like had a similar idea the other day.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @05:58AM (7 children)
I can't know, and neither can most of you. (In fact, it's pretty unlikely that any of this small community is in a position to know very much.) We have propaganda machines working hard to confuse the issue. Unless you know someone, personally, who is part of Iran's nuclear projects, you simply can't know how much of their work is arms related.
The facts we DO KNOW, include, Iran has made plenty of effort in the past to obtain nuclear arms. The "agreement" is only that - an "agreement". And, we can't know whether Iran bargained in good faith or not. The US/UK/Five Eyes isn't in a very good position to verify much of anything.
But, we can't take the word of the west, either. Forged yellow cake documents, anyone? We know our own SOB's will lie to us in a heartbeat.
You don't know, and you can't know. At most, each of us can decide to believe one propaganda machine, or another. Or, we can just take a wait and see attitude toward the whole mess. I suppose that if Iran sneaks a nuke into New York Harbor, and sets it off, we'll know. Then, we'll have the verification that we wish we had today.
And, then, we can turn Iran into a nuclear wastelant.
That will be a lot of consolation to all those dead New Yorkers, right?
(Score: 2) by n1 on Monday October 23 2017, @06:36AM (5 children)
The same with DPRK on their 'capabilities' ... What do they have to gain from actually attacking anything?
You blow your load once, then retaliation would be swift and decisive in such a situation, all that wealth and power gone, and probably before they even got to brag about it.
The defensive value of nuclear weapons is the main selling point, it's the geopolitical version of the right to bear arms. You carry a deadly, offensive weapon, for self-defense. You do not want to shoot a person, even if it was really expensive and you've spent hundreds of hours practicing using it. You want to be prepared and capable should a situation arise, primarily mostly you just want to be left alone.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday October 23 2017, @07:14AM
Why the scare quotes? North Korea has actually detonated several nuclear bombs. And in the worst case, where the NK leadership is going to die anyway (say because they're on the losing side of a revolt), it's one way to guarantee that your successors pay dearly for it (either with a direct attack by nukes or by the retaliatory strike from whoever you hit). I think aside from a few die-hard communists, there's little disagreement that the NK leadership is the most detached from reality in the world. It wouldn't make sense to treat their thinking as a normal person, particularly if they become very desperate.
It's also worth remembering that in any large-scale nuclear war, the best defense is to attack before your nuclear forces are destroyed by a first strike. At that point, false alarms, particularly from parties that have at most a few minutes to make decisions (such as Iran or Israel deciding whether they're being attacked by the other side), can be very deadly.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @12:20PM (1 child)
My reply pretty much echoes Khallow's post. The Iranians have done some stuff over the years that doesn't look especially rational to the west. But, they don't act irrationally. I hope I've distinguised between "doesn't look very rational" and batfuck crazy. NK leadership, in my books, is batfuck crazy. We could trust almost anyone from Iran to take care of your children - not so North Korean leadership. I wouldn't trust Kim or his family to care for any living thing on earth, let alone my kids.
Further, as Khallow suggests, NK has a proven history of antagonizing everyone in the region, as well as all the world powers with their detonations, missile overflights, and rhetoric. Iran may be a slow cooker, NK is the pot boiling over on the kitchen range.
There really isn't much comparison between the two.
If I had a choice in the matter - if I could play God, I would take all of NK's technical and warmaking capabilities, and give them to Iran. The world may not be a LOT better off, but it would be at least marginally better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:38PM
if I could play God, I would take all of NK's technical and warmaking capabilities, and give them to Iran.
Yeah, you're just a sucker for those big beautiful round eyes.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 23 2017, @01:55PM (1 child)
That's the bully vs bullied thing and the long term multi century history of countries and cultures thing.
So the Iranians, Germans (unified or not...), French, English, Israelis (when they had a country in the old days) have spent the last 3000 years periodically screwing over their neighbors and fighting for the sheer hell of it and generally smashing stuff up "because its there" similar to the old quote about why climb mountains. So nuclear arming those countries sounds really stupid and irresponsible from the perspective of world peace. Naturally, those are the countries we've armed with nukes LOL. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with giving such friendly and peaceful people nukes LOL?
On the other hand there's countries like Poland and Korea which have been brutalized speedbumps for large empires for most of recorded history. So you give them rifles and instead of invading Germany they kinda chill. So you give them tanks and instead of rolling thru Paris they chill out. Give them nukes and they'll sit on them until the next empire thinks it would be funny to run them over like a speed bump. I'm not really seeing a huge problem here? I mean, who are the least likely people on the planet to set off a nuke as a strategic or tactical military strike, the Poles, the Koreans, maybe Iceland or Costa Rica...
Much like American politics everyone knows sometimes whats said is the opposite of action, to appease. Likewise the norks talk a good game about how they'll kick everyones ass repeatedly every day of the week, but in practice they're one of the more peaceful countries out there, they have no bases all over the world, they haven't done an amphibious invasion of Japan, they don't even try to drive tanks up to Peking, they're like the drunk guy who can't even stand up to fight but hollers about kicking everyone's butt. I'm trying to think of the norks most impressive civilization-scale military victory... I guess they sat down during the Korean Police Action and let the Chinese retake their country for them. Or they do 007 spy stuff once in awhile.
The above was like semi-factual historical analysis. For anecdotes sake my Korean ex-coworker described the norks as hillbilly isolationists, I donno if this is universal among SK or just his political faction. The point of view expressed was if you leave the norks alone the odds are certain they'll leave you alone, kinda like the Swiss, its deeply ingrained in their temperament.
I mean, cross out the names to eliminate preconceived bias, and look at the dossier of the last couple thousand years of English foreign policy vs Korean, perhaps, and its kinda obvious which one makes the world relatively safer if they have nukes.
The hidden analogy of the Star Trek Universe isn't that the Ferengi are Jews, although that is pretty funny, its that the Klingons are Euros, not Africans. In Star Trek world the Africans are that stone age tribe from the recent action flick that were still pounding rocks together. The warlike Klingons are Prussians not Somalians. You can tell its a good SN post when the Trek analogies come out to play.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:08PM
In ST:DIS, Klingon culture has a striking resemblance to the alt-right, which dovetails nicely with the allusions to the N-word in earlier productions that take place later in the 23rd century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @08:33AM
Like much you don't know, that you share with everyone on this site, for some reason, this is just completely wrong. I could tell you, but then of course, I would have to kill you, and you are much more valuable to the, um, America, alive spouting shit on the internets, as than otherwise. America! You can't even tell I am Russian, can you?
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Monday October 23 2017, @09:04AM (6 children)
It's called propaganda. It's getting the media to report "facts" that align with a set policy in Washington. The media reports that Iran is a thread because the US government wants the population to believe it is a threat in case they ever want to take unilateral action and invade Iran. If they only reported this right before an invasion, a much larger percentage of the population would see through it for the propaganda it is. Now, I'm not saying Iran is innocent. I have no idea because with all the propaganda I have no idea what is fact or fiction.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @09:50AM
That's what they want you to think.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 23 2017, @01:00PM (4 children)
Tel Aviv, not Wash DC.
That's why its not discussed in "polite company" because even mentioning the situation is considered inherently anti-semitic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)
Tel Aviv, not Wash DC.
UK, not Tel Aviv, sets policy in D.C.
The entire mideast, including Israel, is a UK/Europe affair. The US is just playing the muscleman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)
Maybe 70 years ago, but I don't see the UK having any pull ever since they had their balls handed to them in the Suez war. The Europeans are cash cows. The US is too but also provides the muscle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @02:44AM
The framing of the narrative has changed, but the empire remains as formidable as it ever was, and so are its illusions. The purpose of the chaos it creates is to fortify, not diminish its power. The people will demand it. They already are.
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:32PM
You're not wrong. I'm not anti-semitic but, I am anti-zionist.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @12:51PM
Why?
Because the alternative is even worse - for the people in charge, that is.
Iran is building nuclear weapons - this is something they can deal with. Sanctions, preemptive strikes, Stuxnet, etc...
but
Iran is building nuclear reactors because it doesn't have enough oil left for both export and domestic use, and only export gives them the money the need. They can't export nuclear power, other countries have their own power plants, so the option they have is exporting whatever oil is left.
Of course the current US administration cannot admit this, because that would destroy everything they argue about oil, global warming, etc. What use is it to pretend that global warming is a hoax, if even Iran doesn't have enough oil anymore?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @11:23PM
The problem is you can use a nuclear plant program for a weapons program as well. Of course Iran doesn't claim they have a weapons program. If you just take their word for it, its just for power. The fact is, given Iran's own statements, such as their comments on Israel, its pretty obvious that they are after weapons. So, these people are just taking Irans word for it. They are telling us that we should just trust Iran and that its honest and trustworthy. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Whats really going on here is leftists who think that the USA and Israel is pure evil, and that anything that would undermine either by making other contries much more powerful is a good thing. A leftist is a statist so they admire all of these totalitarian countries.
(Score: 1) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:30PM
It is far easier to imply that Iran does have a program and move on than to examine the subtle nuances that Iran might not have a program but the incentive deals keep them from moving forward and when Trump removes the protections he re-enables the possibility that they can now begin one? Or just that any nation aiming for first-world power status does go towards nuclear weapons as a natural consequence?
The truth is larger than sound bites. But we want a sound bite world. I think that's the best explanation.
This sig for rent.