Bush Legacy Watch: Iran Acquires Enough Uranium For Single Nuclear Bomb
Bush Legacy Watch: Iran Acquires Enough Uranium For Single Nuclear Bomb
Our guest blogger is Andy Grotto, a Senior National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
According to data in a new IAEA report, Iran appears to have acquired enough enriched uranium for a single crude nuclear bomb on the Bush administratrion’s watch.
Here’s the back-of-the-envelope math for all you geeks out there:
– Iran possesses an estimated 630 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) containing 3-5% of the fissile isotope U-235. Uranium enriched at this level of U-235 purity is suitable for use in energy reactors. But uranium enriched to 90% U-235 (or greater) is considered weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU).
– Iran could acquire weapons-grade HEU by further enriching its existing LEU stockpile, which contains somewhere between roughly 19 and 30 kg of U-235. This translates to around 21 to 33 kg of weapons-grade HEU.
– Both the IAEA and the U.S. DOE say 25 kg of weapons-grade HEU is enough for one bomb; many experts believe the threshold is much lower, perhaps even half that.
Thus, with its existing stockpile of LEU, Iran is well within range of having sufficient feed for one nuke.
This is more of a political milestone than a technical one — there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has an actual bomb or the highly-enriched uranium needed to make one just yet. Iran would still need to further enrich its LEU, and there’s a good chance that the IAEA would eventually notice this if it took place in Iran’s known enrichment facilities. Moreover, Iran would still need to make the actual warhead and develop a suitable delivery mechanism. Finally, having a single bomb is a long way from having a credible arsenal.
But make no mistake: Iran achieved this milestone on President Bush’s watch.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And the list of things that George W. Bush hasn’t completely fu(ked up during his presidency keeps getting smaller.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pmNonsense, it was either Bill Clinton’s fault or Barrack Obama’s fault…Nothing is Bushes fault..Greatest President ever?…I’ll let history decide that after we are all dead
November 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pmIf Dick Cheney could only find a way to turn a quick buck on this before January, our missiles would be sailing into Iran in an electronic spastic heartbeat.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pmNice legacy, Chimpy.
Thanks for totally effing up America, you dumb barstid.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pmThe situation in the Mid East requires some new thinking in American foreign policy ! Our past in overthrowing the Iranian gov’t ,our support of Saddam in a war that took a million lives and our support of the most hawkish Israeli actions as well as our shielding Israel from international sanctions in the UN has made it difficult for the Iranians to trust us .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
November 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pmCan anyone name just one thing that Bush has done properly? I mean with regard to his country and it’s citizens. I know he has enriched his friends and his own family, but what has he done right for the rest of us?
I guess if I think about it, the only thing he will do well is when he leaves office. The sooner the better.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pmIsrael will boycot the UN’s gathering on Racism and tolerance , as a nobel piece prize winner recommends that Israel should be suspended from the UN.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pmhttp://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-11-19-israel-to-boycott-un-forum-on-racism
It boggles the mind to think of all the harm W. has done. I am so glad he is almost gone. However, you can be sure he will make as much mischief as he possibly can before he leaves.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pmhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404792074&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
November 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pmNo one could have predicted!
And no one could have predicted Bush’s refusal to talk to North Korea would have ended in an equal flameout!
No one could have predicted that Condi Rice’s most influential and powerful action would have been to STALL the END of the Lebanon War, saying not ENOUGH people had been killed yet!
No one!
November 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pmHey, Stratrat: He declared an UNDERWATER National Park off the shore of Hawaii.
This was after six long years of deliberation and exploration confirming the fact that there was NO OIL THERE.
Heckuva job.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pmJust another lovely F**king problem that the Bushistas are handing off to President Obama.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pmFirst: I’m absolutely not a Bush supporter
November 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pmSecond: This is BS. It is not suitable to build any kind of nuclear bomb.
Ahhhh… substantiated “proof” that the capability exists, and thus sufficinet “proof” that a pre-emptive war is necessary to prevent… ummm… war…..
Neocon propaganda spin machine is revving up…..
wait for it…..
November 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pmJim Wolf359 Says:
Just another lovely F**king problem that the Bushistas are handing off to President Obama.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
_________
THANK
F@*KING
GOD!
Can you just imagine the state the greater Middle East would be in if Bush HADN’T handed this off to Obama?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:37 pmBut it’s not handed off yet — Bush is still in the WH.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pmLets not mention that Israel has enough nuclear weapons to wipe Iran off the map , that could be viewed as anti semitic .US hippocrisy is staggering .
November 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pmhttp://www.ifamericansknew.org/index.html
Yeah, I agree HT. But man, that plate of his is beginning to overflow. And CC, I know. I’m praying that Bush doesn’t do anything stupid at this point. Unless, its his intention to make life as difficult as he possibly can for Obama. Oh….wait.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pmEqual justice under law !
November 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pmThe holocaust must never happen again …..TO ANYONE ANYWHERE !
Now Cheney and the rest of the super-criminal PNAC cabal can do something with this before Obama takes office. Just remember these terms; false-flag event and martial law. And Iran will be directly held accountable. Get the picture?
In the real world what would Iran have to gain by having, much less using, one small nuclear weapon? Absolutely nothing. I just cannot believe they are that stupid. Remember Iraq’s stockpile of WMD?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pmWhen will people see past skin color and ethnicity and live in peace ?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pmI don’t see how this, even if were absolutely true as a statistic, alters anything about the politics with Iran (and the rest of the middle east). It is meaningless. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. They are not threatening any other country with a nuclear strike (and one nuke, while a devestating thing, is not sufficinet armament to commit to a nuclear war — Japan surrendered after the US’s heinous act only because no one else in the world had such weaponry… today?… lots of nukes out there).
However, Bush and his apologists have bombarded us for most of the last 7 years with a “Bush admin kept the world safer” line of BS. So, this is certainly a “hoist by your own petard” moment, and one to pass on to all the Bushie apologists. This event, for whatever it is worth, DID happen “on Bushes watch”. So I suppose that, aside from all the other things we can easily point to, this is another huge Bush Administration failed, certainly by THEIR OWN STANDARDS in this matter.
Republicans are the cancer of American politics.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pmWhat about that other country in the region that has nuclear weapons? The one that the USA media never talks about? The one that isn’t a signatory member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but still gets a free pass from the USA?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pmfreeman Says:
When will people see past skin color and ethnicity and live in peace ?
When we get rid of the neocons and their corporate sponsors.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pmSee, this is why we should have elected another Republican. Only Republicans are qualified to deal with the security threats caused by Republicans.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pmSorry freeman, didn’t see your post before I started writing mine…
November 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pmMr evil ,
November 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pmhttp://www.alternet.org/audits/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks%2C_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/
No Luis, it is a point that bears repeating !
November 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm… But ARE they? Why people refuse to address this issue is beyond me. This smells like classic fear mongering. According to the IAEA report, they aren’t headed in that direction but instead, appear to be maintain their promise to NOT further enrichment. Are people forgetting that Iran is seeking to maintain an alternate energy program?
The point of this article is what, exactly? We already knew that Iran has has a nuclear energy program under Bush…
.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pmgeorge should just get ‘9-11 – Mission Accomplished’ tattooed right above his little pee-hole-in-the-snow eyes.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pmWait a friggin minute!!!! What are we thinking?!?!?!!!! We are proceeding without having the sage counsel of the greatest minds in American politics…. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT JOE THE PLUMBER THINKS OF THIS!!!!!!!! We also need Sarah’s vast foreign policy exerience to guide us!!!!
November 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pmDon’t worry shoeless ,
November 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pmthere seems to be a great likelihood there will be plenty of neocons in Obama’s cabinet !
War is money .
November 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmNeocons… cancer…. cockroaches…. it’s all the same.
Yep, a good dose of neocon cockroaches in the cabinet. You have to exterminate to get them all out of the woodwork.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pmthis is BS. iran is entitled to enrich uranium, under international treaty, for energy production. besides, if they wanted nukes they could easily obtain them from the nuclear black market.
this is nothing but fear mongering, plain and simple… moreover, this is likely the beginning of an obama administration build up to an outright shock & awe attack against a sovereign nation, followed by invasion and another long, bloody war that could launch the world into WW3… it may also be an indication that a new false flag, state-sponsored terror event involving a “dirty bomb” is scheduled for … sometime soon. it’s been predicted.
syria, iraq, and iran comprise the most oil-rich tract of land in the world. we live in the time of peak oil. oil is required to grow food and distribute food.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pmEveryone on this site used to be up in arms when ever there was talk about getting tough with Iran, to include possible military strikes. Now that they are getting closer to the bomb, everyone is piling on Bush. You can’t have it both ways. Either we get tough or don’t complain when someone who was identified as a threat SIX YEARS AGO!!!!! continues to develop thier nuclear capabilities. Hopefully this is a lesson for the President-elect that we need to keep our collect foot on the throats of potential threats.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmbullshit
November 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmMaybe Israel will attack Iran , and the 3rd world war will begin just in time to save us from the next great depression .
November 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pmRead the link fred at # 28 and then get back to me .
November 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pmthis sounds like freeman’s fearmongering…….
You guys really think Obama is going to attack Iran? Seriously, Really????!!!!
No, I mean it, seriously?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pmSo… where are the “Iran is the devil and wants to destroy israel and needs to be destroyed” people?
This is setting the stage. I would be incredibly surprised to hear Obama wanting to go to war with Iran without Iran acting first. I would NOT be surprised to see Bush and his cabal of criminals try to start another pre-emptive war with Iran (on Israel’s behalf — make no mistake about it). I see no reason that we are not having civil talks with Iran. Diplomacy is the ONLY civilized method of communication. War is as primitive and barbaric as one can get. Any society that lives on war is uncivilized (yep — thanks to Bush/Cheney that IS America right now — we ARE the barbarians that we have been often characterized as, and until our society stops running on the foundation of the war machine, we will remain immoral uncivilized barabrians).
Gotta go.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pmAnother Chris Says:
——————————————————————————–
Everyone on this site used to be up in arms when ever there was talk about getting tough with Iran, to include possible military strikes. Now that they are getting closer to the bomb, everyone is piling on Bush. You can’t have it both ways. Either we get tough or don’t complain when someone who was identified as a threat SIX YEARS AGO!!!!! continues to develop thier nuclear capabilities. Hopefully this is a lesson for the President-elect that we need to keep our collect foot on the throats of potential threats.
########
Iran is not a threat. They have lots of LEU nuclear material. So what? There is no proof that they are trying to create a nuclear weapon. Nuclear material has many uses. Maybe if they is less oil for power, they can sell more of it. And if Iran is such a threat, why did we completely hand them over the government of Iraq as a gift? There is not a single political party currently serving in the Iraqi government that did not originate from Iran. They have a nuclear energy production program – that is all. And that is perfectly legal under international law.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pmLook freeman, a neocon is by definition a new conservative……..
November 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm.
… O.K. I’m confused.
When Bush was in office and he saber rattled at Iran, people cried “How dare you!”
Now that Obama is coming into office, sabre rattling at Iran seems to be acceptable…?
When Bush was in office and he saber rattled at Iran, people cried, “But Iran is allowed to pursue a nuclear energy program and is staying at their agreed LEU levels.”
Now that Obama is coming into office, sabres are rattling again, “… – Iran could acquire weapons-grade HEU by further enriching its existing LEU stockpile…” Isn’t that what BushCo was saying a few years back when we cried BULL SH!T!!!?
.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pmfred, scenario two:
is more likely, with scenario one happening as our response.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pmIran is not a threat. They have lots of LEU nuclear material. So what? There is no proof that they are trying to create a nuclear weapon. Nuclear material has many uses. Maybe if they is less oil for power, they can sell more of it. And if Iran is such a threat, why did we completely hand them over the government of Iraq as a gift? There is not a single political party currently serving in the Iraqi government that did not originate from Iran. They have a nuclear energy production program – that is all. And that is perfectly legal under international law.
Ok if that was all true then why does the headline on this post say “Iran aquires enough Uranium for Single Nuclear Bomb.” Instead of “Iran aquires Uranium for many uses.” The tone is that Iran is a threat and that Bush failed to stop them?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pmAbility to do something and available resources to do it, do not mean that it is going to happen. Every intelligence agency we have has said that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon. So unless you know something that the CIA doesn’t …
Just because I have a gun in my house does not mean I am going to go shoot my neighbor. Pakistan has numerous nukes, and hasn’t done anything with them. Israel has a ton of nukes, and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Iran has 0 nukes. They have the ability to possibly maybe make one someday -but all of our intelligence says they aren’t doing that.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:12 pmOh, one more:
Another Chris Says:
Iran is NOT a nuclear threat. Nor are they on the cusp of having that (1) nuke that they MIGHT have enough material for. There is no wanting it two ways: by your apologist standards Bush kept us safe since 9/11 (ignoring all the other points where that is untrue), and here we have a matter that, by YOUR apologist standards, we are NOT “safer”, since iran who is a threat in general (again by your standards) NOW has enough material to possibly make a nuke. This happened on Bushes watch — so, by the arguments and standards you all have been throwing at us for these many years, YOUR GLORIOUS LEADER FAILED TO KEEP US “SAFER”.
That’s o.k. — you like to live in fear. Buy adult diapers in bulk: they’re cheaper that way.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pmAnother Chris Says:
Ok if that was all true then why does the headline on this post say “Iran aquires enough Uranium for Single Nuclear Bomb.” Instead of “Iran aquires Uranium for many uses.” The tone is that Iran is a threat and that Bush failed to stop them?
#####
It is just a sensational headline from TP trying to stir things up. Who do you think has a better handle on Iran’s nuclear situation – Think Progress, or 16 different intelligence agencies?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pmCageyCretin Says
My point is simple, if Iran is not a threat, and they have aquired enough material for one bomb, how is this a failure of bush? Iran is not a threat to delivery a nuke the convential way at least to the US, but they could strike our allies (yes even Israel) or possibly the nearly 200,000 troops we have in the region. Just cause your safe in your bed at night doesn’t mean other people are.
And I completely agree with you Chris L. It’s just a headline to stir things up, and a poor one at that.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pmyou guys need to adjust your tin foil hats. Obama is not bush
November 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pmBut make no mistake: Iran achieved this milestone on President Bush’s watch.
George W. and Ehud Olmert may take care of it in their final months. They have no public approval to risk.
All the Israeli airforce chief needs is diplomatic approval.
Such an article, run around the world, could move the diplomatic wheels.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:26 pmAnother Chris,
The headline is purposefully misleading as in the article it clearly states that Iraq possesses ZERO amounts of HEU…
It’s a kin to me claiming that I have enough 16K gold to now qualify as possessing enough 24K gold. Rumpelstiltskin, anyone?
This article is classic FEAR MONGERING as it does not address Iran’s compliance to the IAEA enrichment limits.
THE SKY COULD BE FALLING
THE SKY COULD BE FALLING
.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pmThe point is the same as the point about North korea having nukes. When bush took office the nuclear facilities in North Korea were locked and monitored by the UN.
bush reniged on treaties with them so they proceeded to producing nuclear weapons.
diplomacy and dialog with Iran can still prevent them from producing weapons….that is the point. If we proceed down bush’s road then Iran will feel the need to have nukes to defend themselves……
Obama will reopen those dialogs…….where do you guys get this crap that Obama is like bush on forign policy?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pmThere’s a loooong way to go between uranium currently enriched to 4% (where Iran is) and uranium enriched to 90% (weapon grade). And they are doing the enrichment under the noses of the IAEA. Did anyone mention that. Surely the IAEA will mention it if uranium turns up missing (which it has not), or Iran enriches beyond what they require for their power reactor. But don’t let that get in the way of fear mongering.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pmI disagree, I think it points out that bush’s forign policy is a failure, which it is. That Iran would not be where they are today as far a nuclear capability if bush had taken a different approach to forign policy……..same with North Korea….
doesn’t matter whether they currently plan to use it for weapons or not. bush pushed them into defiance.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pmfreeman Says: #28
I have been wary of some of his potential appointees but, this is over the top. More proof that the president is not the leader of the free world. The presidency has just become another avenue of facilitation.
Time to start the revolution. And lets not forget to call Jesse Ventura.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pmFred Says
The point is the same as the point about North korea having nukes. When bush took office the nuclear facilities in North Korea were locked and monitored by the UN.
Well they must not have been monitoring them very closely (surprise) cause it was discovered in late 2002 that North Korea was enriching uranium and then they admitted in 2003 that they had nuclear weapons. Also in 2003 North Korea pullout of the non-proliferation treaty.
bush reniged on treaties with them so they proceeded to producing nuclear weapons.
So who really reniged on the treaties?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pmI suggest the Iranians put the uranium in a gift box, wrap it up with a nice bow and send it to Bill O’Reilly –
November 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pmwith a big Merry Christmas!
flys in the face of reality…….this guy is just an alarmist, nothing more……just as many of you on this thread are…..
November 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pmread your own dates…….bush took office in 2000, one of the first things he did was reject the treaty with North Korea…….
comon guys……please
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pmDumb Question: Has the beligerent attitude of the Bush admin towards the middle east not only allowed Iran to get the bomb but also provided impetus for Iran to get the bomb ??????
That is, did Iran, looking at potential invasion from the USA decide that it better bulk up its muscle in self defense from the bully on the beach ?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:50 pmFred ,
November 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pmby taking 1 line you disprove everything the man has to say ? Try thinking critically with an open mind and read the WHOLE article .
There is nothing troubling in any of it ? I respectfully submit you have already decided the issue before even looking at it . I do not agree with everything in the article .
I am open to being wrong , actually I want to be wrong !
tinfoil hat? fred, until obama can demonstrably walk on water, i think you could do with a reality check.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pmFred ,
November 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pmpre Nov.4th you and others here spurned hillary supporters . Now that most of Obama’s appointees are Clinton aides and advisers you are all in support of them and their ideas ?
freeman Says:
Maybe Israel will attack Iran , and the 3rd world war will begin just in time to save us from the next great depression .
Maybe freeman should have his doctor check the dosage of his meds.
Your constant fearmongering about Israel and of what Obama might do is getting a little weird, dude.
And your posts are waaaaay off topic.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pmAnother Chris Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pmWell they must not have been monitoring them very closely (surprise) cause it was discovered in late 2002 that North Korea was enriching uranium and then they admitted in 2003 that they had nuclear weapons. Also in 2003 North Korea pullout of the non-proliferation treaty.
____
They may or may not have been enriching uranium. So far as I know NK still hasn’t become transparent on that issue even with the new deal with Bush admn. That’s in part because there’s little evidence that NK was enriching, or at least sufficiently to produce a weapon. The primary point of both Bush’s and Clinton’s agreement with NK was to halt activity of the Yongbyong reactor from which they were extracting plutonium, a far way easier way to make a weapon. Plutonium, not uranium was the source of the weapons that NK currently stockpiles. And BTW, a member of the NPT is supposed to be allowed to enrich uranium to fuel a power reactor under supervision of IAEA.
With freeman doing all this fearmongering, what do we need neocons for?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pmAnother Chris Says:
My point is simple, if Iran is not a threat, and they have aquired enough material for one bomb, how is this a failure of bush? Iran is not a threat to delivery a nuke the convential way at least to the US, but they could strike our allies (yes even Israel) or possibly the nearly 200,000 troops we have in the region. Just cause your safe in your bed at night doesn’t mean other people are.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
____________
First of all, it is a failure of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy. In May 2003, Iran offered us, through back-channels, the works. Recognition of Israel, cutting support to Hamas and Hezballah, and submitting their nuclear program to strict inspections by the IAEA.
We told them to take a hike.
That said, this headline is extremely deceptive. It would take years to enrich that 30kg of U-235 out of Iran’s current low-grade uranium and it’d be impossible for them to do it without anyone in the IAEA noticing. Not to mention the fact that they’ve made no attempts to manufacture any other necessary components to build a functioning weapon.
And even if they were building a weapon, they’ve got to test it. It’s not a nuclear weapon unless you’re sure it’s going to actually set off a chain reaction when you explode it, or else you’ve blown your entire defense budget on a really expensive firecracker. And with Iran’s economy in the shitter and oil no longer at $100/barrel, diverting their fissile material from nuclear power to nuclear weapons would be political suicide for Iran’s leaders.
And even if Iran manages to scrape together enough 235 for a tester and a floor model, what would they do with it?
They can’t use it on anyone. Israel? Ha! Saudi Arabia? No. Iraq? No. Turkey? Nah. Turkmenistan? Nobody would notice.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pmFred democracy now..
November 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pmhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites
If we don’t want them to pursue nuclear enrichment for energy purposes because we don’t trust them not to make bombs out of it, then maybe we should, I don’t know… talk to them about it?
Bush’s refusal to conduct diplomacy constitutes dereliction of duty. Conducting diplomacy is a key responsibility of the President.
North Korea is another prime example. You can cite all the articles you want, freeper but I remember every time Bush called off talks, the North Koreans marched straight to their reactors and broke the seals. This has happened like three times. At each time there was a direct correlation between the U.S. refusing talks and NK turning on its reactors. If you refuse to remain diplomatically engaged with another sovereign nation, then you hardly get to complain about what they do.
Oddly enough, NK’s actions are surprisingly rational in this regard. If we don’t want them to run the reactors, then their position is that we should pay them so they can have some energy. If we don’t pay them to not produce their own energy, then they’re going to turn on the reactors so they can have it. I recall an article from an outgoing Madeleine Albright in 2001 that laid this out quite clearly. Apparently Bush didn’t read it.
In Iran’s case, I think they really want a bomb, or at least the capability to produce one, at least as a feather in the cap of their anti-Israel hawks. They should have enough oil that the energy need isn’t really a pressing issue.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pmFred Says:
freeman, from your link….an article by:
Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come
flys in the face of reality…….this guy is just an alarmist, nothing more……just as many of you on this thread are…..
November 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
__________
Jeremy Scahill is no alarmist. He’s a well-known and highly-respected expert on private military contractors. The man knows what he’s talking about. And the fact is that Obama has stated publically that he will not ban the use of PMCs in Iraq or elsewhere.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pmFred,
When the headline states: Iran Acquires Enough Uranium For Single Nuclear Bomb yet goes on to explain how Iran does not have ANY HEU needed to make even a simple Nuclear Bomb… the headline then is disingenuous and misleading!
Am I wrong?
Further, the article continues on, quoting from the IAEA report that suggests: Iran could acquire weapons-grade HEU by further enriching its existing LEU stockpile as it’s underlying premise that not only this threat of Nuclear Bombs COULD BE achieved, but that this is a direct result of a poor policy of Bush’s.
The IAEA operates separate from the Bush Administration, last time I checked… NO? Seems to me, we should be pointing to the unstable Pakistan, who, BTW, HAS deliverable nuclear weapons!!! A destabilization that highlights the success of the Bush foreign policy(/snark on the last jab at the success).
THE SKY COULD BE FALLING
THE SKY COULD BE FALLING
And Rumplestilsken could spin straw into gold!
.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:13 pmHe doesn’t have to walk on water to please me. He is already much more of what I want in a leader than bush ever was………your standards are pretty high…..
You won’t find a thread like that posted by me……I supported Hillary’s effort to get us health care in the 90’s and would have supported her in a bid for president, she was just my second choice…….I would gladly trade the last 8 years for another 8 like the Clintons gave us.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pmOk toasterhead…..so you really think that Obamas Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come……
that’s what the guy said…….you tell me.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pmWayne, I hope you noticed the first two words of TP’s news summary.
Be sure to write them a nasty note.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pmWhat this thread points out is that bush’s policies have been a dismal failure….
he has kept neither North Korea or Iran from pushing forward with thier nuclear aspirations…..period. bush failed.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pmfred, you miss the point. he’s no leader at all. he does not decide upon meaningful US foreign policy, it’s the “captains of industry” who do that…. like any president, he’s a puppet. albeit, his rhetoric is prettier and he might actually do something to help the middle class in this country.
unless obama can miraculously circumvent the apparatus of the corporatocracy, he — and all of us — will remain slaves to it.
there’s a very thin membrane between big business and government: one day you’re CEO of halliburton, the next you’re the vice president of the united states. with all due respect fred, don’t be so naive. the world is a business… i know the campaign’s seem like they want to affect positive change, but that’s a massive PSYOP. it’s an advertising campaign and nothing more. fred, the world is a business. the biggest sponsor buys the best promo.
these men don’t get together dressed in dark hooded robes at midnight to spill the blood of virgins at a satanic alter — they collude through financial reports and profit projections. there’s no “conspiracy”, there’s just money and power.
we want iran’s natural gas reserves… just like we wanted iraq’s oil. it’s pretty simple.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pmwearechange Says:
yeah, it’s impossible….that’s why we have social security, minimum wage laws, etc.
I don’t know, I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.
the “captains of industry” are now global……I can’t see how it could be in their best interest for the kind of war that would evolve out of attacking Iran to evolve…..
gotta go…….you guys try to get a grip and lets take this one day at a time…….
I do respect everyones fears even if I’m a little rude in how I challenge you. my wife says I have no tact……
November 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pmThe ayatollah has a long standing fatwa against nuclear weapons. Most countries simply don’t have the will to make nuclear weapons. Sanity happens.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:13 pmThe article displays a ‘me-too, please’ Dem reaction to Israeli fearmongering, reminiscent of the enthusiasms of the ‘Scoop Jackson Democrats’, who became one of the spawning grounds of the neocons. This is because the arms lobby is larger than any one party.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pmIt’s part of the psy ops move to march public opinion towards support for a preemtive strike. How this plays may determine who strikes, Israel or the U.S.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pmIran is permitted to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Also, they are a sovereign nation. How is Bush at fault for anything on this? Sure, his so-called “policy” apparently failed, but shouldn’t we be talking about the fact that this policy was unjust in the first place? This just legitimizes the rhetoric that ignores Iran’s soveriegn rights.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:53 pmThe difference between 5% enrichment which is NOT weapons grade and 90% which is weapons grade is HUGE. This is not a threat this is enrichment to fuel grade.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:13 pmThe story hit the wires just days before Israeli PM Ehud Olmert visits George W. Bush at the White House. He’ll spend time with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, members of Congress and Jewish leaders.
Iran is a prime topic for discussion.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:16 pmWhy is Think Progress suggesting that Iran seeks nuclear weapons?
November 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pmThis blog entry is possibly the BIGGEST example of liberal CHUTZPAH I’ve seen in a while.
As recently as only months ago, the President was being excoriated for suggesting that there was ANY problems with what the Iranians were doing!!! All the Bush haters were chanting that he was a WAR MONGER for suggesting that Iran NOT BE ALLOWED to acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons!
If I remember correctly, the conventional wisdom spouted by the geniuses on the left was to “…let the U.N. handle it” or some such tripe.
What hypocrites!
November 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pmAll I want to know is, will our new President have the balls to let the Israelis take out Iran’s program or not?
After all, he doesn’t have to actually show any courage… the Israelis have enough for both our countries. In fact, as a nation they have more than we do at times.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:24 pmIsraeli papers point to Bush/Olmert acting before our new President takes office. They say:
1. Israel won’t tolearte nuclear Iran
2. Obama won’t do anything
3. Therefore, Israel’s BFF Bush needs to act or Israel needs to start it and have America do clean up
At least those are the themes for the last few months.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pmTo arrive at an opinion that Iran isn’t persuing nuclear weapons requires the near total suspension of rational, thoughtful examination of all available information and intelligence on this issue.
In other words, if you believe that Iran isn’t going to build a bomb, you are simply taking their word for it, nothing more. And I think we can all agree that their “word” on anything isn’t worth a plug nickel!
The question then becomes, can the civilized world allow a country like Iran to possess such a weapon? I say, hell no! Not under any circumstances.
Basically, it would be like allowing Hitler’s Germany to have one. So why should we treat the little Hitler in Iran any differently than we treated the German one?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:10 pmtim, we don’t have to take their word for jack: we have intelligence programs which can confirm what we already know about iran… and they are pretty far away from possessing the capability (and materials) required to build nukes… they can however be picked up on the black market.
but pointing this out that doesn’t mean you’ve added anything to the conversation. in fact, based on your posting history, you’ve yet to add anything meaningful to any discussion on the blog. now why don’t you go get your foot stuck on a busy train track?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 amWell timmy, you don’t get to decide……thank god.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 amThe IAEA still subjects Iran to the usual NNPT inspection regime (the one Israel refuses to sign). The NNPT Additional Protocol, which Iran and various other countries refuse to sign, is in my view an unjustifiable, invasive ruse. All this is academic, though, since the hawks haven’t had any success at all so far in coming up with any war gimmicks that do not immediately remind the public of what they said about Iraq.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:52 amTim Vaculik Says:
Another one of your posts that is a big pile of STUPID and you not understanding, well, anything. Bush was fearmongering. A 5% enrichment only means FUEL GRADE. Bush was pushing the Iranian nuclear weapons program that ALL 16 of our intelligence agencies disagreed with. Nothing here is new or contradicts that. One of these days you MIGHT engage your brain instead of running off half cocked trying to attack the left when in your ignorance all you do is show how STUPID you are.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:02 amTim Vaculik Says:
All I want to know is, will our new President have the balls to let the Israelis take out Iran’s program or not?
After all, he doesn’t have to actually show any courage… the Israelis have enough for both our countries. In fact, as a nation they have more than we do at times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are such an ignorant and cowardly PUNK. A warmonger without a single functioning braincell. According to the nuclear non proliferation treaty Iran has every RIGHT to enrich uranium for fuel. Nothing here shows anything more than fuel grade enrichment you MORON. None of our intelligence agencies think Iran is enriching to fuel grade. This is an easy diplomatic fix. Stop whining from under your mommys bed and for once in your life get some dim idea what you are talking about fool
November 21st, 2008 at 10:05 amTim Vaculik Says:
YOU are a liar and a fool ALL 16 of our intelligence agencies disagree with your moronic BS. So what do YOU know with your vast resources as a moron sitting in your basement posting on a website that ALL OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES what with their REAL intelligence billions of dollars and vast array of intellegence resources DONT KNOW. Why do you waste your time on this website. Call up the CIA and explain how much better YOU know whats going on than THEY do. Show them the error of your ways. Then sit down, increase your medication and pour yourself a nice steaming hot cup of STFU
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 amThe TimesUK reported intelligence sources said the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities rose significantly the last few weeks. (Post U.S. election)
November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pmstateofthedivision Says:
The TimesUK reported intelligence sources said the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities rose significantly the last few weeks. (Post U.S. election)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hope that is wrong as it wont help in the least. Khameini put a fatwa on nuclear weapons a few months ago saying NO country has a right to have them. He is one of the two peopl with REAL power in Iran along with Rasfanjani. Niether are nutbags and both can be dealt with. This is an easy diplomatic fix as long as the issue isnt demogogued to the point it causes the kind of military attack Timmeh of the 101 keyboard comandoes recomends. That kind of thing will strengthen the hardliners and likely bring about the very thing they are trying to avoid.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pmEugeneDebs, I agree with you. Unfortunately, Bush & Olmert are just the pair to ignore such advice.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pmstateofthedivision Says:
Well that is certainly true
November 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pmhere’s a new robert dreyfuss article,
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 amridiculing the iran bomb scare:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/385122/that_iranian_bomb_relax