evidence??? they don't need no stinking evidence.
Posted by T2 at October 25, 2007 08:04 AMActually, T2, this time around, they will need evidence, lots of it. This announcement is just a smokescreen to disguise the fact that the IAEA is in Tehran right now, working with Iran to clear up all the proliferation issues that are outstanding, while the nuke negotiators are in Rome working with EU negotiators. The bushies are trying to rush the process with this silly ass bluster, but they have no takers this time, despite the mumbling from France's new guy. If you recall, the UN has decided to delay negotiations on sanctions until November - prolly after they find out how much cooperation Iran gives to the IAEA right now.
Unfortunately, Iran is not an innocent bystander, or a paper tiger like Saddam. There are real proliferation issues to be investigated and resolved. This idiotic admin has made the problem ten times worse with the disaster in Iraq.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 25, 2007 09:30 AMI'm sure Khamenei is shaking in his boots(or whatever he wears). This is really tough stuff. As coyote indicates this is not a paper tiger. Also the Russians have to be factored in since they are erecting the reactor and might retaliate if a strike is launched.
Posted by JohnT at October 25, 2007 09:54 AMIgnorant question: do you need to enrich uranium in order to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes? Condi said she's meet with her Iranian counterpart if they stopped enriching uranium and then said the US has no beef with the Iranian people or their desire to have nuclear energy. Don't they need to enrich uranium to have nuclear energy, or is it a different process? And how come no one's really talking about the 3-8 years it'll take for them to make a bomb?
Posted by CG at October 25, 2007 10:11 AMWhat if the chimp throws a "Iran's a big poopy party" and nobody comes?
Posted by TIKI AL at October 25, 2007 10:33 AMJohnT's right about the Russian reactor at Bushehr, which may be back on the table. Once again, Russia is offering to enrich uranium for Iran, to sidestep the weapon issue.
And CG, yes, uranium does need to be enriched for nuke energy, but it takes even more refinement to make it into a bomb. And El Baradei is talking about the time it'll take to get to the point where Iran has the capacity to do that. Once the IAEA has finished the first round of the new cooperative work plan they just started yesterday, we'll better know how far along Iran is with their enrichment capacity.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 25, 2007 10:51 AMCG,
Uranium needs to be enriched to operate a nuclear reactor OR to create a nuclear bomb. Raw uranium is not sufficient to do either. The difference is in the degree of enrichment. The US does not want the Iranians to have the ability to enrich uranium themselves because if you can produce uranium suitable for operating a reactor it's not a huge jump to being able to produce bomb grade material. What the US wants the Iranians to do is to agree to import all the fuel for their reactors already enriched to reactor grade. No in country enrichment. This would, of course, leave the Iranians nuclear program at the mercy of foreign governments. Something which they understandably resist.
Posted by snark at October 25, 2007 10:54 AMAh, thanks snark and coyote.
You can't prove a negative though, just like with WMD and Iraq. So we'll go to war because we can't prove they've stopped enriching (if they someday claim they have) and can't prove they don't *want* to make a bomb. If we go to war, it should be because something happened, not because something might not have not happened. Sheesh.
Posted by CG at October 25, 2007 01:40 PMAs Bushco lies through its teeth that these sanctions are part of a "diplomatic track" (fucking jargon), they constitute more evidence that an attack will be forthcoming.
These sanctions specifically target Iran's military forces and international procurements, and the goal is to start the process of degrading them and stop any new purchases of weapons to defend against the US air strike that is coming. It also shows that the US military must be somewhat concerned with Iran's defenses and is seeking to degrade them any way it can.
Of course, the decision to attack has been made, just as the decision to attack Iraq was irrevocable as of July 2002, 8 months prior to the invasion.
Posted by euzoius at October 25, 2007 02:58 PM