Skip to main content

Ok, so let's look at what all this fuss is about, and I'm going to offer my opinion on this whole affair, which is in direct opposition to another much more popular, learned and informed diarest than myself, and his diary which is currently on the Rec'd. List.

And just because my dear departed father was very high in our intelligence community, who wore two hats, holding and retiring at the rank of Lt. General and also very high in our nation's covert intelligence activities, doesn't necessarily mean that I'm privy to any special qualifications, or that I know what I'm talking about to a dead certainty, does it? But I'm going to take a stab at it, anyway.

More of my counter-proposal, explanation to what I think's really going on here or theory, if you will, under the fold...

The New York Times reported today that "American intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program."

These "notes" showed conversations in which "military officials complained bitterly about what they termed a decision by their superiors in late 2003 to shut down a complex engineering effort to design nuclear weapons."

So strictly on the basis of "obtained notes", from whom? Iranian "military officials". Who did what?

They "complained bitterly" about what? A "decision by their superiors".

Which "superiors", Ahmadinejad? Doesn't say.

When? "In late 2003". To do what now? "To shut down a complex engineering effort to design nuclear weapons."

Which "complex engineering effort" and among how many? Surely there's a back-up or redundant plan, right? Doesn't say.

Does it say anywhere that the facilities were actually shut down? NO.

Does it give any details whatsover conclusively proving that Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons program? NO.

It says only that the military officials, who are un-named, had "complained bitterly", not that they had actually shut anything down at all!

So how is Bush lying, again? So Bush is a liar based on notes? Anyone who knows me, knows how much I detest Bush, but am I supposed to accept flimsy evidence--at best? Well, I don't.

Well, let's look at a few facts we DO know about Iran's nuclear program, then I'm going to give my opinion about what I think is really going on here.

First, let's look at what the UN's own nuclear weapons watch dog agency, the IAEA has to say about Iran's program starting with Iran's president's comment.

These are the FACTS we do know for a certainty:
November 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will have "completed its fuel cycle" by February-March of 2007, and brags about bringing thousands of centrifuges online. And then goes on to say the world accepts an nuclear Iran. 29 .
The IAEA report lists several issues with the Iranian program, specificallyo the enrichment facilities at Natanz:
>>>no response to request for more information on its enrichment program
>>>no access to suspicious equipment/military personnel possibly involved in nuclear activities;
denial of a request for a copy of the uranium metal diagrams;
>>>no information on apparent experiments linking nuclear and ballistic missile research. 30

So Iran's own president, freely admits: "Iran will have "completed its fuel cycle" by February-March of 2007, and brags about bringing thousands of centrifuges online"!

So are we to pooh pooh what Ahmadinejad bragged about, or are we to take him at his word? Is he merely a braggart with a death wish, knowing how badly Bush and Cheney are chomping at the bit to annihalate him?

For all of his false macho bravado, it would appear Ahmadinejad does know just a little bit more about his own program than we do, even if he's the world's biggest fool to publicly admit the details of it. Strange, foolish man!

The IAEA further reports: "Iran also stated that once the hall reaches 500 machines, all monitoring will cease". But if it doesn't have a uraniun enrichment program, why would they even mention reaching 500 machines? Very strange. Almost looks like some certain POTUS hasn't been lying afterall, doesn't it? Let's move on:
February-March 2007

The IAEA reported that the Iranian Centrifuge facitlity at Natanz has completed the 164 unit cascade, adding to the 10 and 24 unit cascades in the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant that already existed. The 164 unit cascade is at the production EFP and in which the first 18 will be tested shortly.

The current enrichment quality is at 4.2% U-235 proving the design efficiency of the facility. Iran continues to deny remote monitoring of the 3000 machine hall but pledges to allow frequent inspector visits. Iran also stated that once the hall reaches 500 machines, all monitoring will cease. 34, 35

Ok,Let's move on to the IAEA's next reporting period. Read it very carefully folks. It says, and I quote, "Iran has refused to cease their Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant experiments and continued with building the production EFP facility".

Doesn't sound like they stopped it at all, and especially not at any time remotely close 2003 as reported by the NY Times, does it? Moving right along, we see:
March 2007

Iran has refused to cease their Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant experiments and continued with building the production EFP facility. The U.N., on March 23, 2007, approved new, tougher sanctions against Iran, despite Iran's warning that such sanctions would be illegal and therefore they would be forced themselves to go "illegal", which implies they will begin to defy the terms of the NPT and cease cooperation with the IAEA. 35, 36, 37, 38

So if they don't have a program, why did they warn the IAEA and world community they "they would be forced themselves to go "illegal", which implies they will begin to defy the terms of the NPT and cease cooperation with the IAEA"?

If they didn't still have a program, why would they put themselves in grave danger by making such a foolish statement, and thereby moving themselves closer to the WWIII Bush already warned them about a few weeks ago? Enter the next IAEA reporting period:
April 2007

The IAEA reports that Iran's publicly visible (as inspected by the IAEA) uranium enrichment capacity has doubled since their last look in March, now operating some 164 separation centrifuges in the gallery they hope to have 3000 such devices in operation. 39

So the UN's IAEA totally contradicts our own U.S. intelligence report, and according to them, the Iranians not only still have a nuclear weapons program, but their "uranium enrichment capacity has doubled since their last look in March"! So who or whom are we to believe, and who is lying, if anyone, and why?

Let's examine some more evidence, some aerial space photography and see if we can make any sense out of any of this:


There are two sites covered. Isfahan is where uranium is first processed and where a storage facility is being built underneath a mountain.

Here is what it looks like in Google Earth, from a few years ago:
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

And as of March 23, 2006, courtesy of ISIS and DigitalGlobe:
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Once the uranium is processed into UF6, it is ready to be enriched at Natanz, 130km to the north. Here, two "cascade halls" have been progressively buried under successive layers of concrete and earth. These facilities are where the thousands of centrifuges are expected to be located that will increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope, which is the component needed for both nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. (A concentration of 3.5% is sufficient for nuclear energy. 80% is required for a nuclear bomb.)

Here are the facilities in Google Earth, from a few years ago:
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

And here they are, on February 25, 2006:
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Do these photos conclusively prove--or disprove that Iran's building a bomb? Of course not, but why all the new facilities? Why the continuing progression of war  rhetoric on both sides? It is all just fantasy?

It is a fact that Bush/Cheney have threatened to attack Iran on several occasions, which is treasonous and impeachable not only if they knew Iran was an imminent threat and failed to protect us, it's also treasonous and an impeachable offense to attack them on flimsey evidence, too!

But no one has proven that they are an imminent threat, or that Bush lied on the basis of someone else's at best shabby "notes".

They could, however, possibly be playing at their continuing game of deception and subterfuge in executing the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption, like the one they played in attacking Iraq.

This is how I think Mister Bush is playing-out his hand:

Everyone knows that Bush wants to strike Iran a severe blow and overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime. The question is how to get them to lower their guard, seeing how they have a very formidable army, that would be at least an equal match to ours, in its current stretched to the limit state, as everyone agrees.

Here's my best guess. None of these people just got dropped off the back of a turnip truck, and Bush may just barely have a degree in History from Yale, but he's been at his job of POTUS for awhile now, and probably knows the ropes better than the rest of us. In short, only a fool would underestimate his ambitions, his will, and his ability to carry-out the neo-con agenda.

Now, during WWII prior to the liberation of Europe and the Normandy invasion, a lot of "double agent" stuff was going on, like deliberately feeding the Nazis false intellignce, in order to keep Ike's Operation Overlord from turning into the greatest defeat in history, instead of it's greatest triumph.

Well, Hitler bought the big diversion, or LIE, that the main attack was coming at Calais, France, instead of  at Normandy!

And so, I'm basing my opinion, that Bush could also be feeding the whole world false intelligence so he can get the Iranians to lower their guard just long enough for Bush to surprise attack them, and just in time for the U.S. elections.

If he could pull it off, it is possible that we may be stuck with Mister Bush for "the duration of the national emergency", as clearly provided for in current law.

Not saying he would do it, or that he even wants the job as dictator for life, but that possibility isn't just a theory anymore, it's a real stark mathematical probability or possiblity that we need to consider, and NOT dismiss completely out of hand.

My personal opinion is that Bush will attack Iran before he is due to leave office, no matter what anybody's intelligence reveals. This is why it is paramount that he be immediately IMPEACHED!

DISCLAIMER: This is in no way a CT diary, just one man's opinion based on the facts presented herein.

Originally posted to ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:12 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips/Flames. I don't believe... (15+ / 0-)

    ...any intelligence gathered by anyone will stop Bush's mad rush to war with Iran. My money says he will attack them, and he scares me to death. We should immediately impeach this whole war criminal cabal before he can do it.

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:14:41 PM PST

  •  Sounds possible. (3+ / 0-)

    Of course, the natural interpretation of all the stuff Iran has been doing is that they're interested in building lots of nuclear reactors and supplying them with their own uranium in order to be energy self-sufficient without depending on oil.

    Which also happens to be Iran's official position.

    I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the diary.

    -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

    by neroden on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:25:49 PM PST

    •  How many underground nuclear power plants... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...have we ever heard of? Are there any currently in existence? This is self-refuting because why do they or why else would they feel the need to build one underground? It's baffling and downright mindboggling to me why they or anyone wouldn't just come straight out and announce a reactor to the whole world. I don't know. It just stinks!

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:31:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)

    First, a few false premises above - centerfugres and enrichment are necessary to produce the fuel for nuclear reactors, the process is similar, but the enrichment levels are much higher for weapons grade material. So Iran's bragging about ceterfuges does not equal an admission of a nuclear program. Iran has been consistent in its denials of a nuclear weapons program. The undreground site you analize could be used for many things, such as simple military uses. If a nation with total air superiority was threatening me, I would be building bunkers as quick as I could.

    Iran does not have a formibable army by western standards. Iran's army was fought to a standstill by Iraq's army which was routed in 1991 at the height of its power, and again in 2003 after it had been weakened. An army without air cover is not a functional army by modern warfare standards, and the US can expect to have total air superiority within days in case of a war with Iran.

    Second, and this is most significant in my opinion -the US cannot attack Iran given its present disposition of forces.  Only air strikes are possible without a large scale buildup of forces. The forces currently in Afghanistan and Iran may be used as reserves and supply route protection, but they cannot simply be turned on Iran. It would take months of preparation, which is not taking place.

    Air strikes are an option, but air strikes at what? That facility you described? A nuclear program cannot be wiped otu by air strikes, and the US command has to know that. Infrastructure can be rebuilt, and the knowledge cannot be wiped out.

    Finally, just because Bush attacked Iraq doesn't mean that he will attack every country he threatens. He has cultivated this image of a belligerent madman to get the world community to do what he wants, like put pressure on Iran, or else risk unilitaral US action. I's an effective strategy, given that he lacks any other forms of persuasion to form international coaltions. I think Bush himself was worried that the belief in America is that he will go to war, so he releassed the NiE to calm down the population and reduce their expectations.

    A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.

    by Marcion on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32:51 PM PST

    •  What you said is somewhat reassuring but... (0+ / 0-)

      ...remember, it's not the first time Bush has told us(actually Rummy said it), "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want". I hope you're right, Marcion. We just bought two new Toyotas! I'd like to drive them for awhile without the threat of yet another one of Bush's stunts! He's really way out there, and should seek counseling!

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:48:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's a whole group of people that he is the figurehead for, they are not all mad. They are political hacks, terrible at geopolitics and awful at wars, but they are not "mad." That's just a front. Not even Hitler, who is the only leader I can think of that was a genuine madman, would throw his army at something without any preparation. His preparations for his wars were elaborate. A leader who would be mad enough to give his troops orders that could not be carried out is not going to be obeyed. And America isn't far enough on the road to dictatorship that people would obey out of sheer fear. I'm just not buying it. The Iraq war was badly planned, it wasn't completely unplanned, and preparations on the ground went on for 6 months as I recall.  If the US Army can work out a plan of assault that doesn't require any buildup, they will go down in history.

        A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.

        by Marcion on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:43:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for your comment Marcion... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and my hope against hope is that you are correct. I'm so tired of war. I'm tired of someone in our WH who thinks our constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper, that his main purpose in life seems to me to be the emperor of the world, and that the opinion of our people can be dismissed by his own will, indeed flushed down the toilet. Hitler was indeed a madman in every tru sense of the word, blinded by his hatred of the jew, and his warped sense of reality(which I guess defines Bush's loose grasp on it, too, to a "T") that Germany was the master race.

          But the difference between America and Nazi Germany, between Bush and Hitler, is that we have checks and balances in place to hold Bush accountable to the rule of law. We just seem to lack the collective will to stop him. And that's what gives me panic attacks every day, wondering and worrying myself to death, which country is next on Bush's hit list. I don't want to live in fear of my own government anymore. Peace.

          "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:01:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I concur about Bush Attacks, but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, tigerdog, ImpeachKingBushII

    there probably was much more intelligence than just one overheard conversation.  I'm surprised that the publicly released NIE contained ANY mention of the "sources and methods" by which the conclusions were reached.  This mention suggests that we either had a successful bug in place or that we're intercepting and scanning Iranian phone conversations.

    At any rate, I'd be surprised if 16 intelligence services went up against Cheney/Addington/Hadley for nearly a year based on a single phone conversation.

  •  Big Talk leads to high... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Oil prices and who does that benefit? Texas Oil men and a whole bunch of Bushies...

  •  Power Generation != Weapon development (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, ImpeachKingBushII

    They can be completely consistent saying they are continuing enrichment while saying they are not building a weapon.

    Generating power via nuclear energy requires enrichment.

    As I read your diary, the implication is that enrichment activities indicate weapon development.  Just because someone enriches the material does not mean they are making a weapon.

    Just because I am buying an explosive liquid does not mean I am going to blow something up. I might just be filling up my gas tank.

    •  Just remember most of us here on Dkos... (0+ / 0-)

      ...are peaceloving Dems who abhor war, and most of us don't think one should wage war for fun and oil profits, or murder for hire, or conquest and subjugation, either. And most of us here don't believe America is the world's emperor and we should go around forcing democracy down peoples' throats at the point of a gun. That's the difference between "us and "them". Bush believes the world is his oyster and our military his own personal Praetorian guard! One cannot reason with a fool or a megalomaniacal sociopath hell-bent on world hegemony. He must be impeached!

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:54:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very good diary. thanks. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site