'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

Ah, "surfing the web". I.E., typing in your bedroom. And still managing to miss the boat. Which is by way of saying, Helena, the 7th cavalry came over the horizon two threads down!

Superb "big picture" backgrounder at www.counterpunch.org by Paul Craig Roberts, the former Reagan Ass't Secretary of Treasury. Here's how he winds it up:

Americans today are no longer enthralled by debate.

They just want to hear what they want to hear. The right-wing, left-wing, and libertarians alike preach to the faithful. Democracy cannot succeed when there is no debate.

Americans need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror" to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the "war on terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule--theirs. The Bush administration is using the war to avoid accountability and evade constraints on executive powers. Arms industries, or what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," are using the war to fatten profits. Terrorism experts are using the war to gain visibility. Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte blanche to these agendas.

One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it.

"Americans today are no longer enthralled by debate. They just want to hear what they want to hear."

There is a truth to that observation imo. Americans WILL tune out a presidential candidate who doesn't reassure them on a very gut level that she/he understands that we live in a very dangerous world (e.g., the potential nuclear threats posed by North Korea and Iran) and a president cannot blanch from taking forceful steps when necessary. Without this visceral reassurance, there will be little audience for all the nuances...like civil liberties, Islamophobia, oil profiteering, etc.

Perhaps, Hammurabi, you can give us some evidence that Iran is actually building a nuclear bomb. I am still waiting to see the evidence. The United States government, although it has a clear interest in proving the Iranian nuclear danger, has not actually come up with anything. If they don't publish the evidence, it is certainly because they don't have proof.

I would remind you that William Beeman wrote a very good article on Juan Cole's blog, pointing out that Iranian equipment is not suited to producing bomb material.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/beeman-guest-editorial-us-to-blame-for.html

It may be that the accusation is right, but we need to see the proof. Where is it, Hammurabi?

Obstructionism by Ahmedinejad and his cronies is no proof, as we saw with Saddam and WMD.

Otherwise we are into the Iraq scenario all over again. Vague accusations, never proved, used to justify another maniac military adventure, and one that the US certainly cannot win.

Instead of talking about American fears, why not do something about it, and publicly act to calm fake fears?

I would remind you that William Beeman wrote a very good article on Juan Cole's blog, pointing out that Iranian equipment is not suited to producing bomb material.

Strange piece. William Beeman is an anthropologist if I'm not mistaken? Not one to offer an informed professional opinion on uranium enrichment. But in any case it contains a glaring factual ommission.

"As the late Tom Stauffer and I wrote in June, 2003, the Bushire (Bushehr) reactor--a "light water" reactor--does not produce weapons grade Plutonium"

The object of IAEA concern (noted in the last IAEA resolution dated 2/4) is the uranium enrichment facility at Isfahan, not the Bushehr reactor.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf

Do I think Iran is building a bomb?

YES

Do I think there is a viable policy option to forestall it?

NO

Do I think Iran is building a bomb?

YES

We flooded with this guessing Hammorabi, we got sick of lies in Iraq case, now your ‎position like Ahmad Al-Jalabi, or that guy Dr. Khidhir Hamza‎ who went far in stating ‎all lies around in reality he was worked for few months or one year in Iraq reach ‎program.‎

Whatever Iran doing its should be taken in a quite and more diplomatic ways and ‎avoiding any new war for the best of both nations not the leaders of course they are ‎the saviours in the end as we saw in the Saddam regime that most of those around him ‎and his family enjoying billons of dollars that stolen through 35 years of the regime ‎life, leaving Iraq just a chaos because of their stupidity and carelessness.‎

I prefer the European stance of the Germans in
http://www.spiritofentebbe.blogspot.com/

Vadim, I am still waiting for you to produce some real evidence. The link to the IAEA you gave doesn't contain any evidence at all, nor any details. The concerns it talks about are those raised by the Americans, who to say the least have a specific agenda.

Accusing Beeman of being an anthropologist is an ad hominem argument. Do you personally have better knowledge? At least Beeman has thirty years experience of Iran, which I suspect is more than you have (and more than I have).

As for Hammurabi's statement:

"Do I think Iran is building a bomb?

YES

Do I think there is a viable policy option to forestall it?

NO"

That is just absurd. He expresses his opinion like that, precisely because he doesn't have any evidence. If he had any, he would have told us.

"I prefer the European stance of the Germans in
http://www.spiritofentebbe.blogspot.com/"

Calling a blog Spirit of Entebbe is hardly a balanced approach (nor typical of Germany, as far as I know), and not surprisingly one of its links is Little Green Footballs. Even more not surprisingly, there no substantial expressions of opinion, at least in the latest posts. so why quote it?

Alastair,

That is just absurd. He expresses his opinion like that, precisely because he doesn't have any evidence. If he had any, he would have told us.

What evidence he can give us? Even though we saw in Iraq case those who put their evidences its just lies, whom clams they are the FATHER, SON, and BACKBONE of Iraqi Nuclear Programs.

The best of presenting evidences is (IAEA) its thier job to declare that no one should be believed in such a case that for sake will start a another war.

Accusing Beeman of being an anthropologist is an ad hominem argument.

Ad hominem arguments aren't fallacious in every case Alastair. They're appropriate when professional judgment is invoked. In this case, Juan Cole invited Dr. Beeman (an anthropologist with no training in nuclear science) to comment on Iran's nuclear capability in a professional capacity as an academic, ["from Brown University"] on a blog called "informed comment," adevrtising the professional authority of the host.

But Dr. Beeman's embarrassing error would be obvious to anyone slightly familiar with Iran's nuclear program and its history with the IAEA. I'm sorry that this doesn't include you or Dr. Cole. Contra your remark, Beeman doesn't show "that Iranian equipment is not suited to producing bomb material." He's either unfamiliar with Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak and uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz himself, or he's deliberately trying to mislead ignorant readers. I'm not sure which is worse.

I will leave the task of "proving" Iran's ambitions to Dr. El Baradei, and can only advise you to read the IAEA source material in greater care, rather than relying on sloppy digests such as Cole's haphazard weblog.

Accusing Beeman of being an anthropologist is an ad hominem argument. Do you personally have better knowledge? At least Beeman has thirty years experience of Iran, which I suspect is more than you have (and more than I have).

People here have a strange definition of what constitutes ad hominem, or so it seems.

First of all, I don't think anyone "accused" Mr. Beeman of being an anthropologist. Vadim merely stated a fact that is quite relevant to his apparent ability to determine whether or not installations - with which he may, or may not actually be familiar - are appropriate for producing weapons. That's not ad hominem, any more than is questioning Vadim's ability to question Beeman's credentials based on how much time either has spent in Iran (which, in my opinion, is simply not relevant to the issue of one's ability or lack of ability evaluate Iran's weapons-grade Plutonium production capabilities).

Beeman himself backs up his assertions in the article by citing his partner, the late Thomas Stauffer who is sometimes listed as a "former nuclear engineer", which is, in my understanding, a pretty broad category that may or may not have relevance to one's ability to ascertain what the Iranians are capable of producing. (I believe that the last person I recall designating himself as a "nuclear engineer" was Jimma Carter.)

Stauffer, however, received his Ph.D, not in "nuclear engineering", but rather in economics, and his field of expertise (at least according to his own bio) was in energy economics, with emphasis on petroleum and the Middle East.

Stauffer, however, received his Ph.D, not in "nuclear engineering", but rather in economics, and his field of expertise (at least according to his own bio) was in energy economics, with emphasis on petroleum and the Middle East.

Unsurprisingly the article to which Beeman refers ("Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysis" - dated 2003) addresses Iran's economic motivation to develop nuclear energy. It doesn't address its physical capability (beyond Bushehr) AT ALL. It actually describes reports of centrifuges and plutonium reprocessing "not especially credible" -- that have since 2003 been acknowledged by Iran's own government.

Off-topic, guys! Majorly!

How about we have a friendly, forward-looking discussion on how the sensitivities and fears between the Muslim world and the "west" might most appropriately be addressed and defused, and understanding among the world's great cultures be addressed... sort of in line with what Erdogan and Zapatero are urging?

Helena,

I agree, and did realise from the beginning, that a discussion of Iranian nuclear policy was off-topic from your post. However the point as to whether there is any proof that the Iranians are building nuclear bombs is an important one, and you haven't posted on the subject recently. After all, we may be facing a new war, and we should know whether there is any basis for it.

I was interested in provoking a debate in order to see whether my opposition had good arguments. I will compliment the commenters by saying that at least on this blog one can expect a justified point of view.

However, nobody has come up with anything that justifies a US or Israeli attack on Iran, though most of your regular commenters have visited the discussion.

It's a very remarkable failure,and one that should make us reflect upon the future of US policy towards Iran. Are we into another round of fake accusations, as in the case of Iraq?

A weel researched article is at
http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/Iran/petrodollars_and_nuclear_weapons.htm

It seems to me that the motivation behind the imminent attack on Iran is to prevent the establishment of the Iranian Oil Bourse. Further details are available at http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html or http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html.

It would appear that the same rationale was behind the invasion of Iraq - the article at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html provides an in-depth analysis of the REAL reason for the Iraq War – to overturn Iraq’s decision (in late 2000) to use the Euro to sell its oil (see http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ )

The Iran Nuclear issue appears to be a smokescreen.