US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have been on a roll since Friday defending Iran's assertions that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
You heard right.
In response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent claims that Iran had enriched uranium to the 20% level required for medical isotopes at the Natanz enrichment facility, Gibbs declared:
"The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching."If that is the case, then how on God's earth can the Iranians enrich uranium to the 90% level required for a nuclear bomb?
Natanz, where the alleged enrichment took place - or according to US officials, didn't - is the site that Israel most threatens to bomb. The Jewish state claims that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Or maybe not. Last June, Israel's Mossad Chief Meir Dagan extended the date for when Iran could produce weapons grade uranium or have "breakout capacity" to 2014.
While the US media rallied to cover Ahmadinejad's declaration on Thursday that Iran was now a "nuclear state," Gibbs dismissed those assertions, responding that "Iran has made a series of statements that are far more political than they are. They're based on politics, not on physics."
So which is it? Is Iran working on a nuclear bomb or not? Let's look at the evidence most recently cited by US officials.
Speaking on Sunday at a US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar where the US secretary of state is conducting a three-day tour - in part to persuade Persian Gulf allies to support Obama's initiatives to contain a nuclear Iran - Clinton said there was mounting evidence that the Islamic Republic was pursuing a nuclear weapon.
"The evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do...Iran has consistently failed to live up to its responsibilities. It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful," she said.
When asked to point to evidence of a nuclear program, US State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying:
"Given the current trajectory that Iran is on - the fact that it still has centrifuges spinning, and the fact that it is unwilling to constructively engage the international community - we have to assume that Iran is pursuing a nuclear programme."
He continued: "Given all the steps that Iran has taken and all the actions that Iran refuses to take, we can only begin to draw the conclusion that Iran's intentions are less than peaceful."
If that is the basis on which the US is assembling a multi-national alliance to apply economic sanctions on the Iranian government, then it is deeply flawed premise. For one, it is virtually impossible to assess "intentions" when there is no real communication with the Islamic Republic, and therefore no way to anticipate or know its psyche.
A hostile stance toward US foreign policy is not a compelling barometer for assessing a country's preparedness to engage in risky belligerent actions - neither is negative rhetoric or political posturing as Gibbs suggests. If that were the case, we would need to act on the perceived "intentions" of half the world's nations.
Secondly, for every one of the handful of allies who have bought in to our "intentions" theory, there are ten nations who do not see an Iran of harmful intentions. And it isn't just China and Russia that are hesitant. It is Brazil, Turkey, India, Qatar - important US allies - and the vast majority of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement.
A Rand report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force Directorate of Operational Plans and Joint Matters to take a fresh look at Iran's military, economic and religious strengths and limitations, last spring cautioned the administration to differentiate between Iran's rhetoric and its actions, an important factor in assessing intentions:
"Its revolutionary ideology has certainly featured prominently in the rhetoric of its officials," the report says. "However, the record of Iranian actions suggests that these views should be more accurately regarded as the vocabulary of Iranian foreign policy rather than its determinant."
The Report concludes that, in spite of its rhetoric and the concerns of neighboring states, Tehran does not seek territorial expansion or ideological exportation of its Islamic revolution. Instead, the report cautions that "the ideology and bravado of Iran's President Ahmadinejad and its religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei mask a preference for opportunism and realpolitik -- the qualities that define 'normal' state behavior."
The reading of events in the world is a major driver of US foreign policy formulation. Which is why these determinations should be taken out of the hands of elected officials and political appointees and placed squarely in the laps of area specialists of the non-ideological variety. There could be no better example of this than the Iraq WMD debacle, where American political ideologues pursued an agenda based on their "perceptions" and skewed world view rather than on reality and accumulated intelligence data.
And now we face more of the same erroneous logic regarding Iran's nuclear program, where "evidence" is based on perceived "intentions" rather than on indisputable fact. Which is why the number of nations willing to participate in rigorous sanctions against the Islamic Republic is miniscule compared to those against.
Worse yet, Gibbs and Kouchners statements last Friday reveal that we know there is no real evidence of a growing Iranian nuclear capability. If they can't even enrich uranium to 20%, then they can't make a bomb - period.
Follow Sharmine Narwani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/snarwani
"If that is the case, then how on God’s earth can the Iranians enrich uranium to the 90% level required for a nuclear bomb?" She then concludes that "If they can’t even enrich uranium to 20%, then they can’t make a bomb — period."
Since Sharmine wrote this on 16 February, she is now in a position to reformulate her assessment based on the latest IAEA report on Iran's implementation of the Safeguards Agreement, published two days after this post. According to the report, "On 14 February 2010, Iran, in the presence of Agency inspectors, moved approximately 1950 kg of low enriched UF6 from FEP to the PFEP feed station. The Agency inspectors sealed the cylinder containing the material to the feed station. Iran provided the Agency with mass spectrometry results which indicate that enrichment levels of up to 19.8% U-235 were obtained at PFEP between 9 and 11 February 2010."
Iran can enrich to 20 percent after all. They did it, they told the agency, the agency confirms. Perhaps Sharmine may wish to update her analysis.
The fact that two days after publication of this article - and a few more days since the quoted administration statements - the IAEA announced that Iran has enriched to 20% as disclosed to the agency per the obligations of member states, demonstrates my point that the US either 1) does not know anything of substance about Iran's capabilities, or 2) bluffed, to try and minimize Iran's perceived scientific capabilities, to suit the US's agenda for the day.
Finally, let's agree that enriching uranium to 20% is far from enriching to 90+% to make a bomb. Yet US and Israeli accusations continue regarding the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I do not think there is any such imminent threat based on 1) IAEA data and reporting and 2) US/Israeli wishful interpretations of Iranian intentions. They were wrong about Iraq's WMDs and are likely wrong about this - particularly as many other nations privy to the same information like China, Russia, Brazil, India and Turkey have concluded otherwise.
Ottolenghi has authored several booklets for European and British politicians that advocate a closer relationship with Israel, regardless of how this affects peace prospects. He is also a longstanding supporter of linking anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel - a horrific new tool to try to stifle debate around Israel's human rights crimes.
Your drivel, Ottolenghi, is classic Hasbara in action. Take it elsewhere. We value freedom of speech on the HuffPo as you can see by the comments below. But nobody likes a paid professional disseminating their propaganda.
Thanks for your many thought-provoking comments, Macready.
In this article, Sharmine Narwani (2010) claims, “Gibbs and Kouchner’s statements last Friday reveal that we know there is no real evidence of a growing Iranian nuclear capability.” If this report and subsequent reports prove true, than we must not be afraid to admit error and downgrade possible economic sanctions. If Iran is still monitored from a nuclear-threat standpoint and reports still deem them as incapable of producing nuclear weapons, than sanctions should be lifted. It is important for us not to build hate for America inside a country whose government maintains such a fragile grip on its own citizens.
In the coming years of possible economic struggle, America must save face in matters of global politics. When evidence proves that things have changed, our country must have the wisdom and righteousness to reevaluate our policies and do what is best for our country and its citizens.
Mr. Ehud Olmert said Sunday he had appointed Israel's justice minister, Daniel Friedman, to chair a committee to offer a coordinated defense against what he called "self-righteous people" who might want to sue Israeli soldiers.
This past week, a United Nations human rights expert, Richard Falk, accused Israel of violating humanitarian law by conducting an offensive against, in his words, "an essentially defenseless population."
while the world has Iran under a microscope Israel slaughter its nieghbors with virtual impunity
hopefully saner heads will prevail and another disaster like iraq will be prevented...
"The evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do... Iran has consistently failed to live up to its responsibilities. It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful,"
Will someone please explain to be why Iran has to demonstrate that it's program is peaceful? Logically the burden of proof is on the accuser, Ms Clinton.
Furthermore, how does Iran demonstrate that it's program is peaceful? What arbitrary standard will you set, Ms Clinton?
And again, why is the international community relegated to the United States and whomever it can bully onto its side?
If Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, please show some evidence. Surely the combined reach of all the intelligence services can come up with something. A document, a recorded conversation? Seriously, spies in WW2 Germany were able to consistently retrieve information in a state of Total War. Have you gone that soft?
There is a level of doubt that has risen purely from the foreign policy of the mullahs, and their sense of world order. In the time of the Shah, the US did not mind even if Iran had the bomb. So it is the type of people that are running the country that matters. We have a lot of intelligent people in Iran and outside, who can represent Iran, and do not have wacko 7th Century ideas.
The question you need to be asking is, why did a modern state in 1979 get derailed by Carter. What was he worried about when he said Iran is an Island of Stability. Obviously that is exactly what he did not want. Just think what Iran would be now. Quo Bene?
It is very simple.
Now Gibbs is trying to buy a year another way: We do not believe [Iraninans] have the capability to enrich to [one fifth the way to weapon grade]. Hence Iran is not pserious proliferation risk for a tear or so.
Seeing as they set the artificial deadlines themselves, and then proceed to argue with themselves why the deadline should not be taken seriously, you wonder if they, the west, are playing with a full deck.
It could be the classic blandishment trick. Getting Iran to indignantly show its wares to prove it is very capable after all. Gibbs should be advised he is dealing with the t'aarof/chess country and not to keep his hopes too high on tripping Iran that easily.
5
She's the pin up gal for all the hawks. All of them too shortsighted and endowed with immense self importance to see the real picture. If Iraq is a mess then Iran has the potential to impact on the rest of the world in an unimaginable fashion.
She's loving this.
She wants to be President.
She is not presidential material.
Hillary, which country in the region are you talking about not demonstrating to the international community its "entirely peaceful" intentions, whether about nukes or anything else on the agenda? Which country has failed to live up to its responsibilities in the region? Israel or Iran? Who actually DOES have a nuclear weapons program? Whose army has attacked its neighbors causing a huge number of civilian deaths & widespread destruction? Who has used horrible weapons, leaving thousand of clusters in its wake as well as dropping white phosphorus on families with elders & kids? Who carries on a program of building settlements on unresolved real estate; who evicts one set of families from their homes & farms for the benefit of another group in the society, perpetuating decades of conflict, frustration & misery in the region? Hillary, can you really imagine that the world does not see the hypocrisy in US policy?
It seems that the EU is, more and more, being willing to break with US policy. (Look at their policy towards Israel's occupied territories for example)