--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Thanks to Rick Archer, I've now been able to see the video.
>
> I have several impressions that I'd like to convey, but I'll only
> give one:
>
> Do the exact same exercise for Iran and Nuclear Weapons.
>
> See what course of action you come up with.
==============================================
Prior to the Iraq war, International Atomic Energy Agency chairman
Mohammed ElBaradei warned there was "no evidence of ongoing prohibited
nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." He was subsequently
smeared by the administration, but ultimately vindicated as the
recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right.
Today on CNN, ElBaradei sounded alarms about the Bush administration's
increasingly hawkish rhetoric in regards to Iran's alleged nuclear
ambitions. "We have the time" to use diplomacy, ElBaradei urged. There
is "no military solution" with Iran:
I very much have concern about confrontation, building
confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster.
I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through
negotiations and inspections. ... My fear is that we continue to
escalate from both sides from both sides that we would end up into a
precipice, we would end up into an abyss.
ElBaradei poured water over Vice President Cheney's confident
declaration last week that "Iran is pursuing technology that could be
used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this." While
ElBaradei did not rule out Iran having an "intent" to obtain nuclear
weapons, he explained that there is no evidence that Iran is currently
pursuing such a program right now:
I have not received any information that there is a concrete,
active nuclear weapon program going on right now.
We have
information that there have been maybe some studies about possible
weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran
right now.
But have we seen having the nuclear material that can be
readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization
program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify
these concerns.
ElBaradei also urged the U.S. to halt its fiery rhetoric and directly
engage Iran in talks: "The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier
we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody."
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LXlkfezIW4
-----------------------------------------------------
Yesterday ... I flagged Sy Hersh's new New Yorker article on the
Cheneyite push for war with Iran -- an article as depressing as it is
unsurprising. I want to focus in one passage from the piece about
arch-Iran hawk Norman Podhoretz ...
Many of those who support the President's policy argue that Iran
poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman
Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, "like
Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international
system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . .
. The plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from
developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual
use of military force." Podhoretz concluded, "I pray with all my
heart" that President Bush "will find it possible to take the only
action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil
intentions both toward us and toward Israel."
So this is the threat. Iran overturns the current unipolar world order
and replaces it with a new world order dominated by Iran. It's really
quite astonishing that people even write this garbage with a straight
face. And yet there it is. Lost in all of this is that Iran is, what?,
a third rate military power? Maybe?
Let's see if we can line up this comparison: Hitler/Germany, head of
industrial superpower in the heart of Europe, engaged in massive
rearmament putting it back in place as the dominant land military
power in the world. Ahmadinejad, head of country with an economy
roughly the size of Alabama, a sizable but largely outmoded military.
Notice any differences?
--Josh Marshall
Relevant links here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054690.php
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality.
Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has
consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler
a revolutionary whose objective is to
overturn the going international system and to replace it in the
fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the
religio-political culture of Islamofascism."
For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of
evidence.
Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget
of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late
18th century.
The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense
expenditures that are 110 times greater.
Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or
actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is
about to overturn the international system and replace it with an
Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
NEWSWEEK: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iran would need 3-8 yrs to produce bomb - IAEA chief
PARIS (Reuters) - Iran would need another three to eight years to make
a nuclear bomb, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in an
interview published on Monday, warning against any rush to use force
to curb its nuclear ambitions.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), told France's Le Monde newspaper there was plenty of time for
diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.
Reuters: http://tinyurl.com/3dlg4g
A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in
petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom
think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military
action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the
Bush administration.
The small amount of excess oil production capacity worldwide would
provide an insufficient cushion if armed conflict disrupted supplies,
oil experts say, and petroleum prices would skyrocket. Moreover, a
wounded or angry Iran could easily retaliate against oil facilities
from southern Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz.
Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/37bazo
=========================================================
