Free Markets, Free People

Iran: Nuke Weapons Work Continues

I‘m sure this will come as a surprise to someone out there – like our State Department and perhaps the CIA:

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

Yup, four years after the world bought off on the claim by Iran that it hadn’t been doing anything in the nuclear weapons area. “It’s for peaceful purposes”? In the future schools of foreign policy will use this particular situation as a case study in how a small state manipulates the most powerful nations of the world at will.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

A “strong indicator?!” It is weapons work, Mr. Albright! Why are these people so loathe to say that?

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

No. It doesn’t. It answers questions about Iran’s intentions! For goodness sake, the dance continues, doesn’t it?

You remember the NIA that was produced in 2007?

A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.

And it appears they were correct. So now what?

The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.

It shouldn’t just invite questions about Obama’s Iran agenda – the whole world continues to be played for a sucker by Iran. But it is ironic that this president who has made nuclear non-proliferation a priority of his administration is all but allowing Iran to develop them.

Is this a casus belli as one expert claims? Or will we see more diplomatic ring-around-the-rosy with tough talk and the usual non-action?

Given the history, I think that about covers it, don’t you?  I wonder what the over/under in months is before Iran is welcomed into the nuclear weapons club?



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to Iran: Nuke Weapons Work Continues

  • Having Obama act like national security is key, is the perfect kind of thing to use to cover over the failure of ObamaCare, so I suggest they take this opportunity before it slips away

  • Just as long as we don’t find any WMDs…

  • Is this a casus belli as one expert claims? Or will we see more diplomatic ring-around-the-rosy with tough talk and the usual non-action?


  • Remember how several years ago the CIA (who got that Iraq WMD thingy so right…) released a report that Iran had stopped marching towards a nuclear weapon years earlier, sometime about 2002? Well, according to the Times of London, the CIA got it WRONG. And who said at the time that it was wrong? Bush, of course. And the Demmies knew to come out and harp about how Bush was going to go to war unnecessarily over faked WMD evidence.

    So, who was wrong then and who was right? Once again, proof arises that if you trust a Democrat to do anything but make your life a living misery, you will always be let down.

    (Oh – and let’s not forget the general who resigned in 2007/8, saying that he could not stand by while Bush needlessly attacked poor, poor Iran. Who was that jerk, and where is he now? And what attack did Bush hit Iran with, again?)

    • Here it is: William J. Fallon, resigned March 2008, because Bush “might” attack Iran:
      “As ThinkProgress notes, Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ saber-rattling “not helpful.” Privately, he vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

      Yep, Admiral Fallon, you are one gigantic arsehole. Thanks for being as wrong as possible. If Bush had ignored you and the dimwitted Left in this country, Iran would not be on the precipice of having a nuclear weapon in 2010.

      When that day comes, sooner rather than later, that Iran does have a nuke, we can thank Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama, and William J. Fallon for their getting it. They are the ones responsible for nothing getting done.

  • The CIA is full of Ivy league democrats with elitist attitudes and are loyal not to the country but their bs ideology.  The sooner the CIA is put out of business the better.

  • A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007.

    Two problems:

    1.  People do not understand (willfully, in many cases) that intelligence work is often NOT completely accurate or completely reliable.  Because the opposition is generally not obliging enough to share all their plans, capabilities, systems, etc, with us, we have to work with what we can get.  Our info comes from a variety of sources that may not always be completely accurate, completely competent, or even remotely honest (e.g. “Curveball”, Joe Wilson).  Hence, it’s possible for the intelligence agencies, no matter how diligent they are, to get things wrong.  Trouble is, when they are wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic (“Why, no, we don’t think the Japanese could possibly attack Pearl Harbor.  That’s just crazy talk.”) This tends to undermine confidence in intelligence, leading to a “boy who cried wolf” situation.  I think that this may have happened with the NIE: in order to avoid setting themselves up as the boy who cried wolf again, the CIA deliberately chose a more (ahem) moderate view of Iran’s nuke program.

    2.  Facts are a big part of the intelligence equation, but they are only part of it.  The other part is a basic understanding of the relationship with the other side.  If the other side is known to be hostile, then it is prudent to assume that worst-case intelligence estimates are reliable and act accordingly.  We know that Iran is hostile to us (well, most of us know this).  It is therefore QUITE reasonable to assume that they are working on nuclear weapons, and we should act to stop them before it is too late.

  • What’s stupid about this is that a “neutron initiator” is utterly trivial to the operation of a nuclear weapon. Neutrons are easily generated by mixing two readily available isotopes – which I won’t mention.

  • This is a consequence of playing politics with national security.  Attempting to undermine Bush’s credibility to take any further action past Iraq.
    Now with the announcement of the number of centrifuges being sought, its starting to dawn on them that this monster may come to maturity before their beloved leader leaves office.
    I hope everyone that embraced and created the obviously politicized NIA report have to answer for the consequences of a messier solution that delayed action may likely require.

  • This is going to be laid on Bush’s doorstep.  The invasion of Iraq will be used as an excuse for Iran’s weapons program and  Iran will simply say that they were concerned for their continued sovereignty in the face of imperialistic US actions.