Get ready for a flurry of fuzzy satellite ''intelligence'' of generic
warehouses all across Iran frantically described as segments of a nuclear bomb
assembly line (Remember a famous ''secret nuclear facility'' in Syria not long
ago? It was a textile factory.)
Get ready for a flurry of crude diagrams depicting suspect devices, or the
containers that hide them, all capable of reaching Europe in 45 minutes.
Get ready for a flurry of ''experts'' on Fox, CNN and the BBC endlessly
dissecting all this extended black ops dressed up as ''evidence." For
instance, former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now at the Institute for
Science and International Security (ISIS), has already pulled his return of the living dead stunt,
displaying his ''bomb Iran'' credentials complete with diagrams and satellite
intel.
Forget Iraq -- it's sooo 2003. Hit the new groove; hyping overdrive for the war
on Iran.
Turning Japanese
First of all, ditch common sense.
If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, it would be diverting uranium for it.
The report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week
-- as politicized as it may be -- flatly denies it.
If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, UN inspectors working for the IAEA
would have been thrown out of the country.
Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program in 2002. And yet it was shocked and
awed. The same rationale applies to Iran.
What Tehran may have conducted -- if the compromised intel used in the IAEA
report is to be believed -- is a bunch of experiments and computer simulations.
Everybody does it -- for instance countries which have renounced the bomb, such
as Brazil and South Africa.
What the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) -- in charge of the civilian
nuclear program -- certainly wants is a deterrent.
That is, the possibility of building up a nuclear bomb in case they face an
unequivocally established threat of regime change, provoked, most likely, by a
US attack and invasion.
Doubts swirl about the competence -- or the impartiality -- of the new IAEA head,
the meek Japanese Yukya Amano. The best answer is in this WikiLeaks
cable.
As for the origin of most of the IAEA's self-described ''credible'' intel, even
the New York Times was forced to report that ''some of that information came
from the United States, Israel and Europe.'' Gareth Porter offers the
definitive debunking of the report.
Moreover, expect major pressure on the CIA to renege the crucial 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which established -- irrefutably -- that Tehran had
ditched a nuclear weapons program way back in 2003.
All this dovetails with the dogs of war already barking.
warehouses all across Iran frantically described as segments of a nuclear bomb
assembly line (Remember a famous ''secret nuclear facility'' in Syria not long
ago? It was a textile factory.)
Get ready for a flurry of crude diagrams depicting suspect devices, or the
containers that hide them, all capable of reaching Europe in 45 minutes.
Get ready for a flurry of ''experts'' on Fox, CNN and the BBC endlessly
dissecting all this extended black ops dressed up as ''evidence." For
instance, former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now at the Institute for
Science and International Security (ISIS), has already pulled his return of the living dead stunt,
displaying his ''bomb Iran'' credentials complete with diagrams and satellite
intel.
Forget Iraq -- it's sooo 2003. Hit the new groove; hyping overdrive for the war
on Iran.
First of all, ditch common sense.
If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, it would be diverting uranium for it.
The report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week
-- as politicized as it may be -- flatly denies it.
If Iran were developing a nuclear weapon, UN inspectors working for the IAEA
would have been thrown out of the country.
Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program in 2002. And yet it was shocked and
awed. The same rationale applies to Iran.
What Tehran may have conducted -- if the compromised intel used in the IAEA
report is to be believed -- is a bunch of experiments and computer simulations.
Everybody does it -- for instance countries which have renounced the bomb, such
as Brazil and South Africa.
What the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) -- in charge of the civilian
nuclear program -- certainly wants is a deterrent.
That is, the possibility of building up a nuclear bomb in case they face an
unequivocally established threat of regime change, provoked, most likely, by a
US attack and invasion.
Doubts swirl about the competence -- or the impartiality -- of the new IAEA head,
the meek Japanese Yukya Amano. The best answer is in this WikiLeaks
cable.
As for the origin of most of the IAEA's self-described ''credible'' intel, even
the New York Times was forced to report that ''some of that information came
from the United States, Israel and Europe.'' Gareth Porter offers the
definitive debunking of the report.
Moreover, expect major pressure on the CIA to renege the crucial 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which established -- irrefutably -- that Tehran had
ditched a nuclear weapons program way back in 2003.
All this dovetails with the dogs of war already barking.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
