Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘NIE’

Desperate About Iran

Posted in Iran, Israel, USA, tagged , , , , , on August 10, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

There is no new NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by US American intelligence agencies on Iran and its nuclear program. What Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister, once again tries these days to, well, misinform the public about a new situation,  looks as usual: outright disingenuous. There is no new urgency as to the “Iranian situation” whatever his US American colleague Leon Panetta had told him in Jerusalem last week. What Reuters quotes from an interview of Barak with Israel Radio sounds rather confused and desperate.

“There probably really is such an American intelligence report – I don’t know if it is an NIE one – making its way around senior offices (in Washington).

“As far as we know it brings the American assessment much closer to ours … it makes the Iranian issue even more urgent and (shows it is) less clear and certain that we will know everything in time about their steady progress toward military nuclear capability.”

According to what US National Director of Intelligence James Clapper said in congressional testimony earlier this year, Iran has not decided yet to build a nuclear weapon, and that had not changed since the notorious NIE of 2007 which made a monkey wrench in the works of Bush and Cheney and likely prevented another war in the Middle East. As Reuters reminds us today, Clapper had concluded then,

“We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

But what does President Obama is not different from Barak’s clamor. Being aware of the above, sanctions which are aimed for completely suffocate a country’s economy such that even reasonable Iranian dissidents in the United States like Muhammad Sahimi fear tens of thousands ordinary Iranians might be killed is no diplomacy.

It is an undeclared war of campaigning Barack Obama which has little to do with Iran’s nuclear program which is by all we know peaceful in nature. Its aim is regime change. And revenge for having humiliated a superpower in 1979.

 

August 10, 2012 @ 18:29

Last modified August 10, 2012.

Read Full Post »

Rather Reading Reviews (on Decision Points)

Posted in Book Review, tagged , , , , , , , , , on January 2, 2011 | 1 Comment »

Well, I’m glad that I resisted (yet). True, reading Decision Points by George W. Bush might have been a revelation on how the former number one world politician did and still does lie. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had already rebutted Bush’s claims that he might have supported him in the Iraq adventure. Thanks to WikiLeaks, which has leaked so far (less than 1% of) diplomatic cables to the State Department since last month, one might in fact have a unique chance of comparing what these cables say and what Bush junior tries to sell in his account.

But other than Bill Clinton’s memoir, which I had read with some interest, I was honestly afraid of George W. Bush’s complete lack of intellectual brilliance and, in fact, more than boring dullness of his writing. Bush junior has been a simpleton (or better, is; wisdom would have prevented him publishing this volume right now) and jokes about him were legend. I have referred to the final joke when his book appeared in November, see here.

Reviews about Decision Points may in fact be much more entertaining. That of Eliot Weinberger which appears in London Review of Books later this week is revealing, too. Nobody had expected Bush junior to write almost 500 printed pages by himself. But one is amused when Weinberger mentions French philosopher Michel Foucault who, in the late 1960s, at the time when Bush junior who originally was born in Connecticut, not Texas, was a hopeful student of History at Yale University, considered the question, ‘What is an author?’ Unconsciously, all of us will have a certain idea about a possible answer; but Weinberger points to Foucault’s more complex conceptions:

“Foucault found his theories embodied, sometimes unconvincingly, in writers such as Proust or Flaubert. He died in 1984, while Junior was still an ageing frat boy, and didn’t live to see this far more applicable text. For the questions that he, even then, declared hopelessly obsolete are the very ones that should not be asked about Decision Points ‘by’ George W. Bush (or by ‘George W. Bush’): ‘Who really spoke? Is it really he and not someone else? With what authenticity or originality? And what part of his deepest self did he express in his discourse?’

Decision Points holds the same relation to George W. Bush as a line of fashion accessories or a perfume does to the movie star that bears its name; he no doubt served in some advisory capacity. The words themselves have been assembled by Chris Michel (the young speechwriter and devoted acolyte who went to Yale with Bush’s daughter Barbara); a freelance editor, Sean Desmond; the staff at Crown Publishing (who reportedly paid $7 million for the book); a team of a dozen researchers; and scores of ‘trusted friends’. Foucault: ‘What difference does it make who is speaking?’ ‘The mark of the writer is … nothing more than the singularity of his absence.’”

One must not forgive Bush’s decision to wage war on first Afghanistan, then Iraq (and one on Iran which ironically had most probably only been prevented by a national intelligence estimate of sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007). “Hundreds of thousands […] killed or maimed; millions [who were] made homeless in Iraq and jobless in the United States.” And Bush seems to love the idea that it was he who assumes sole responsibility. Weinberger notes complete missing of so many key players in Bush’s world and even sparseness of mentioning Donald Rumsfeld, or the real ‘puppet master’ Dick Cheney, in Bush’s narrative. “Bush is the lone hero of every page of Decision Points.”

And how did Bush junior come to these decisions, or points? According to Weinberger,

“There are no decision points in Decision Points. Despite what is claimed above, Bush never stops to consider. He is the Decider who acts impulsively and ‘crisply’, drawing on his ‘moral clarity’. In the scariest line in the book, he has been allowed to let slip that his motive for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was simple revenge, surely the least desirable emotional quality one would want in a world leader with access to nuclear weapons. About 9/11 the text says: ‘My blood was boiling. We were going to find out who did this, and kick their ass.’” (Emphasis added.)

 

Last modified January 2, 2011.

Read Full Post »

On the Road

Posted in Iran, Israel, USA, tagged , , , , , , , on July 24, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

 

 

U.S. House Resolution 1553, to which about one third of House Republicans have signed on, would in fact give Israel a green light for striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Repeating ad nauseam perceived threats by Iran and, in particular its president Ahmadinejad, of Israel and even the U.S., and certain misconceptions as regards Iran’s alleged violation of its obligations as signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) the resolution reads,

“Whereas the United States does not want or seek war with Iran, but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives –

(1) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its threats of annihilating” the United States and the State of Israel, for its continued support of international terrorism, and for its incitement of genocide of the Israeli people;

(2) supports using all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons;

(3) reaffirms the United States bond with Israel and pledges to continue to work with the Government of Israel and the people of Israel to ensure that their sovereign nation continues to receive critical economic and military assistance, including missile defense capabilities, needed to address the thread of Iran; and

(4) expresses support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.” (Emphasis added.)

This comes after the foreseeable shipwreck of the so-called ‘swap deal’ of last year’s negotiations with Iran and its revival in the Tehran Declaration angrily prohibited. After new UN, and U.S. unilateral, sanctions imposed on Iran. It comes at a time when U.S. intelligence has not been able to provide a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian ‘threat’ which purpose is to revert the controversial 2007 NIE having stated that Iran had halted its alleged military nuclear program in 2003 and not resumed in late 2007. And after an allegedly defected nuclear scientist, Shahram Amiri, has probably turned out to be a double agent and returned to Iran.

Israel is currently again entertaining possible scenarios for an attack. As Batsheva Sobelman for the Babylon & Beyond blog kindly translates:

“From Israel to Saudi Arabia and then to Iran. 1,600 km, refueling over Saudi Arabia. The only scenario that allows passing through one country’s airspace.

From Israel to Jordan and then to Iran. 1,600 km, refueling over Iraq, not far from border with Iran. Israel would have to get permission from two countries for use of airspace.

From Israel to Jordan, then Saudi Arabia, then to Iran. 2,000 km, refueling over Saudi Arabia near its borders with Iraq and Kuwait. Recent reports that Saudi Arabia granted silent permission for Israel to use its airspace were denied.

From Israel to Syria, then to Turkey, then to Iran. 1,800 km, refueling over southeast Turkey, near its borders with Iraq and Iran. Considering Israel’s nose-diving relations with Turkey, use of Turkish airspace is not taken for granted.

From Israel to Syria, then to Iraq and on to Iran. 1,500 km, refueling over north Iraq. It’s a shortcut but pretty unlikely, said the report.”

I suppose, it is clear to everyone that one way of effectively obliterating Iran’s deeply dug-in nuclear facilities would be using at least median-range missiles with nuclear warheads, for example, the Jericho II. The above scenarios are also missing the fact that Israel has already deployed submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, near the Iranian coastline.

Given Israel’s ambiguity in any nuclear matters, scenarios involving air strikes with fighter jets and airspace permissions are highly unlikely in fact misleading.

Note that the map has been posted by Michael McCullough on his blog exactly one year ago.

 

Last update July 24, 2010.

Read Full Post »

Bullying Iran

Posted in IAEA, Iran, NPT, USA, tagged , , , , , , , on April 11, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

See update below.

When recently presenting the United States’ new nuclear strategy, largely narrowing the potential use of nuclear weapons, two exceptions were explicitly named by President Obama: ‘outliers’ North Korea and Iran. The former had left the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003, the latter is assumed, at least by western powers, to be in violation of its safeguards obligations. Naming the two countries reiterates G. W. Bush’s infamous 2002 assignment to an ‘axis of evil’ [1]. Apart from “most immediate and extreme dangers”, i.e., nuclear terrorism,

“[T]oday’s other pressing threat is nuclear proliferation. Additional countries – especially those at odds with the United States, its allies and partners, and the broader international community – may acquire nuclear weapons. In pursuit of their nuclear ambitions, North Korea and Iran have violated non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council, pursued missile delivery capabilities, and resisted international efforts to resolve through diplomatic means the crises they have created. Their provocative behavior has increased instability in their regions and could generate pressures in neighboring countries for considering nuclear deterrent options of their own. Continued non-compliance with non-proliferation norms by these and other countries would seriously weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with adverse security implications for the United States and the international community.” (Emphasis added.)

Among the key conclusions of Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) are therefore:

“The United States will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.

“The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

“The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are part to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear proliferation obligations.”

So, Obama’s targets are named [2].

The long-awaited revision of the highly controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which had attested Iran of having halted a military nuclear program in 2003 and not resumed by mid-2007 (‘with confidence’) is overdue, probably due to a staffing issue. Or, due to lack of hard evidence that Iran has in fact resumed the program. Or both? Anyway, the next NIE won’t have de-classified parts, just to prevent bothersome lengthy discussions.

Iran has not been invited to next week’s Nuclear Security Summit in Washington when leaders of 46 nations will discuss pertinent issues of nuclear terrorisms and nuclear non-proliferation [3]. It may be speculated that Obama might use the conference to reveal new, so far unknown, details of Iran’s nuclear program, as he did on last September’s G20 summit in Pittsburg when he revealed the existence of a then allegedly unknown new enrichment site near Qum. Tougher sanctions on Iran are also on Obama’s agenda.

Bullying Iran might finally lead to the country’s pull-out of the NPT. Then, eventually, the new NPR would make sense, indeed.

 

Notes

[1] While Iraq has been removed from the list since March 2003 when Operation Iraqi Freedom, recently renamed as New Dawn, commenced, also North Korea has temporarily been relieved in a surprising move by former President G.W. Bush.

[2] In the meantime, Tehran has announced an official complaint to the U.N. over Obama’s nuclear ‘threat’.

[3] Iran’s own conference on nuclear disarmament next Saturday, April 17, promises to become another ridiculous charade. Yesterday’s unveiling of a new generation of enrichment centrifuges at Natanz won’t lead to confidence building either.

 

Update April 14, 2010: Iran’s ambassor to the UN Mohammad Khazaee’s letter to the Security Council has been published and can be found here.

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Iran

Posted in HEU, Iran, LEU, Qom nuclear site, USA, tagged , , , on February 3, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

The unclassified part of Director of U.S. National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair’s report for the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence does not present anything new about Iran, nothing which has not been known so far. Of course, it mentions the new enrichment facility in Qom, but whether Iran has made the political decision to manufacture nuclear weapons is still unclear. The report mentions that 8000 centrifuges are currently installed in Natanz but there seem to problems since only about half of the installed centrifuges are operating.

“Irans’s technical advancement, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthens our 2007 NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so. These advancements lead us to reaffirm our judgment from the 2007 NIE that Iran is technically capable of producing enough HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a weapon in the next few years, if it chooses to do so.”

Dennis C. Blair also points to the classified part:

“… In my classified statement for the record, I have outlined in further detail the Intelligence Community’s judgments regarding Iranian nuclear-related activities, as well as its chemical and biological-weapons activities and refer you to that assessment.”

Iranian President Ahmadinejad might have had, in particular, the classified part in mind when having mentioned in yesterday’s interview with Iranian State television his surprising turn with a new offer to actually do the swap of low-enriched uranium in order to get enriched at 20% uranium for producing medical isotopes in Tehran’s research reactor.

Last update February 6, 2010

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.