The RCP blog at Real Clear Politics,
Consider the following two headlines appearing today, calls our attention to the irresponsible and inaccurate reporting of Bloomberg press which ran the false headline
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says - Bloomberg.
Contrast this to the headline in the New York Times, Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away, that I analyzed extensively at www.dailykos.com in Experts Say Iran Years Away From Nuclear Bomb. Perhaps 2020. What's The Rush To War?
Bloomberg got it wrong, and unwittingly has feed into the neocon campaign to legitimize an urgent massive air strike against Iran's civilian slowly emerging civilian nuclear processing capability. But the upside is that it has encouraged this new generation post-neocon revivalists to put their cards out on the table so we can now see the bigger picture of their dangerous plans for Iran and another desperate roll of the dice to redesign the middle east.
Bloomberg ...[got it wrong. and] should be excoriated not only for running a factually false headline - Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb in sixteen days - but also for compounding the error with a grossly misleading report:
"Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.
``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
So what's the problem? The problem is that Iran only has 164 centrifuges in operation today. Rademaker was responding to a question about how quickly Iran could produce a nuclear weapon once it reached industrial scale capacity. As we learn much later down in the Bloomberg piece, experts estimate it would take more than 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon using just those 164 centrifuges.
No Legitimate US National Security Reason To Bomb Iraq Prior to November 2006. Only Bush Political Motivations.
Bloomberg needs to apologize and retract this story because one's sense of urgency plays a critical factor in deciding if any legitimate reason related to US National Security exists for a bombing campaign prior to the November 2006 elections.
The administrations failed and discredited neocons are looking for any option they can think of for a post-neocon revival. One more chance to show they were right all along. Their feeling is that the failure in Iraq was not a repudiation of neocon theory, but an incompetent implementation by Bush that did not go far enough.
If we had only taken on Iran and the whole gang of non-moderate Muslim enemies at once with massive, perhaps, even nuclear force, things might be different.
What have they got to lose. They can't be further disgraced than they already are. And caught in the syndrome of "Gambler's Ruin," they want one more chance to gamble with your assets in the delusional hopes they could win it all back and be the heroes they truly believe themselves to be.
They must be stopped.
So Bloomberg built its news report around a highly sensational, but essentially theoretical, estimate of how quickly Iran could produce a nuclear weapon if it only had 53,836 more centrifuges in operation than it does today. That's sloppy journalism, and it does a great disservice to readers trying to get a better understanding of a most important issue.
And feed post-neocon revivalist delusional fantasies.
Outlines of Next Philosophical Post-Neocon Revivalist Battleground
In my upcoming columns this next week, I will outline what I see emerging as the next philosophical battle-ground that is manifesting around the question of when and how to intervene in Iran's intentions to develop a Nuclear Weapons capability.
While reports that their capability to make a nuclear bomb is 5-13 years away may make it seem less urgent, this timeline overlooks some of the motivation of the Post-Neocon Revivalist's desire to re-legitimize their principals of preemptory war, unilateral military intervention rather than multilateral diplomacy, and their desire to break the ice on prohibition of using tactical nuclear warheads against deep bunkers. Even if these bunkers are near civilian population centers.
Iran Now A Larger Geopolitical Threat To Region, Iraq, Israel, Palestine
On reason, their longer term philosophical ambitions are more obvious in Iran than Iraq is that Iran has been transformed into a much larger geopolitical threat by US failures in Iraq.
Historically, the US propped up Saddam Hussein to offset Iranian influence in the region. The failed US intervention has handed the southern Iraqi Shia regions to Iran on a silver platter and most likely also the western Sunni, and northern Kurdish regions as well.
And now, in another example, of unintended side affects, the western worlds attempt to financially strangle the new democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine has driven them unwillingly into the arms of Iran, which is now offering financial aid.
The Need For a Regional Multi-Stakeholder, Cooperative Framework
In upcoming diaries I will argue that the better alternative to this dangerous post-neocon revivalist approach is a regional multilateral cooperative and non-violent framework.
These "battles" can only be understood and solved non-violently from a regional systemic view that includes participation of all the stakeholders.
Some of the major themes that will requires extensive work and discussion will be:
1. Unilateral interventions versus multilateral solutions
2. Endogenous vs exogenous programs.
3. Negotiated peaceful versus violence processes.
4. What are the true US Geopolitical and National Security Interests and Why?
5. What is the role of US dependence on oil, in middle east stability, and what options promote a more sustainable and less risk energy strategy.
6. What are realistic and appropriate time frames for expected progress and threats?
7. What are the merits and validity of different theory of War. For example, Pre-emptive vs Just War Theory. What are the current requirements of International Law as reflected in the 1945 UN Charter?
8. How would use of tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs in Iran, affect the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty? How does the US acceptance of Nuclear Warhead capability by Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, affect our credibility as an honest broker in the eyes of Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians with regard to the legitimacy of Iran's intentions?
9. What are the impact of not take every effort to minimize civilian causalities when purported aiming at military targets?
10. How does you answer to the questions above determine how different populations in the system will define you opposition forces as terrorists or freedom fighters?
These are just a few of the questions I hope to stimulate discussion on in this and future diaries over the next week.
In the spirit of open disclosure as a peace loving moderate who believes in violence only as an absolute last resort after all conditions of Just War Theory have truly been exhausted, I am going to be offering not just an alternative strategy for achieving peace and stability in the middle east, but an alternative process involving all the players.
I an look forward to any help fellow peace loving fellow travelers can offer.
Thanks and Cheers,
HoundDog
Peace Now Candle