« Defining World Wars Down | Main | Lafferites and Teachers Again »

Operation Ivy

17 Oct 2007 03:31 pm

Okay, did some research and reporting into Bush's statement that Iran must be denied not nuclear weapons, but the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." This isn't an entirely new position from the White House, but it had kind of gone missing from administration rhetoric, so it's return to prominence is potentially significant. Specifically, I'm told that the crux of the matter is that there's no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is, however, a uranium enrichment program that could at some point be used as part of a weapons program.

But basically were you to want to use military force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program tomorrow, you'd run into the problem that there's nothing there. If you define the threshold down to some kind of war on knowledge, however, you put yourself in a position where maybe you can define the centrifuges Iran already has as constituting the knowledge they must be denied or at least a program to obtain the knowledge. Thus you have, on the level of rhetoric though not international law or sound diplomacy, the justification for military action.

On the other hand, perhaps Bush just screwed up and doesn't know what he's talking about and there's nothing to worry about. Alternatively, maybe he knows exactly what he's talking about and we ought to worry. Or maybe we ought to worry that he doesn't know what he's talking about. At a minimum, I'm kind of worried.

Share This

Comments (30)

Good title

Good title

I know that things are getting tougher....

"War on Knowledge"? Sounds like Bush, all right.

you're worried? how do you think the Iranian public feels? they've got the leader of the biggest military in the solar system itching to bomb the fuck out of them.

if Bush attacks Iran, what happens to us in the US? nothing. maybe some other countries will like us a little less. but nobody is going to attack and invade us. life goes on as usual, for everyone in the US. the Iranians are faced with the prospect of their country turning into another Iraq - but three times as large.

This is similar to what happened with Iraq. WMD included things like Mustard Gas which, while deadly, was not lilely to cause thousands of deaths (and may not be more deadly, depending on how it's used, than conventional explosives). So, you could point to all these not very threatening and routine chemicals and say this is the justification for invading when they weren't much of a threat at all. This, of course, removed the burden of proving an advanced nuclear weapons program existed (and allowed us to ignore the IAEA findings that no program existed).

At a minimum, I'm kind of worried.

But he was also trying to suck up to Putin in the same Q&A, so the WH is unhappy that Putin said we shouldn't attack Iran, and Bush is trying to maintain the pressure.

Whether or not they go to war, they ARE going with the hard-nosed (more likely hard-headed) diplomatic approach, because otherwise HALOCAUST HALOCAUST HALOCAUST!

The problem as always is that the hard-headed approach and preparing for war look like exactly the same thing.

I'm not cutting Bush any slack about intentions, but all the scuttlebutt says that Fallon is against, Petraus can't possibly be in favor and Bush hisownself had it put out that he wasn't actually going to go to war with Iran. So I expect it is entirely possible that Bush is too clueless to see that his 'diplomatic strategy' and actually going to war amount to the same thing.

max
['The signals are confused because we have a crisis in high command.']

i seem to recall that the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear bomb is known far and wide. my understanding is that, provided you're schooled in physics and such, the process is simple. the problem isn't *making* the bomb, it's getting the weapons grade nuclear material (hence the big deal with the whole wilson/nigeria/iraq/yellow cake thing).

supposedly the plans are all on the internet and i've always been curious to go looking for it but figure that would just get me put on a watch list. anyway, if it's on the internet and we need to prevent the knowledge from getting...uh, out there, we've got a lot of people to bomb. starting with mr. internet.

On a somewhat different note, is it just me or does the right side of Bush's face (especially the mouth) seem sort of slacked out?

MY:
"Or maybe we ought to worry that he doesn't know what he's talking about. At a minimum, I'm kind of worried."

Benito Giuliani worries you. Every other post you're worried. Relax man, go pick some apples or something.

We barely have enough troops for Iraq. Iran is a much bigger country. They know bombing Iran would be a disaster. Everything's fixed so that Hillary will win and her tenure will be much like her husband's, not very exciting. Unless there's another 9/11 and Giuliani is swept into office...

To decode this I think it would be necessary to know whether Bush made his comment as part of prepared remarks or in response to a reporter. If the latter, I think it's extremely plausible that he just jumbled the talking point. Decidedly not so if the former.

Re cleek's comment "if Bush attacks Iran, what happens to us in the US? nothing. maybe some other countries will like us a little less. but nobody is going to attack and invade us."
-----------
That's really Sept 10, 2001 thinking.

And if a few raggedly ass people could pull off Sept 11, just think what Russia, CHina, and the nuclear-armed EU could do if they decided the US Government was a threat to the rest of the world's freedom. That Washington DC is TODAY's Hitler or Stalin.

If the citizens of this country let whores in the US GOvernment fuck the rest of the world for no good reason --other than to curry favor with a few special interest groups-- then they should not be surprised if that spawns a murderous hatred that comes back home to us.

Imperialism is not in the US National Interest --but you won't hear that even discussed by our cowards in the Democratic leadership -- or by those whores in the news media who get rich waving the AMerican Flag while selling out the American People.

Re Bush's statement that Iran must be denied the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." -- I think that what Bush really meant was that Iran must be denied the knowledge necessary to make an alternative to Big Oil.

Next Up: Department of Justice Attorney General issues new opinion explaining that those who disseminate "classified info" -- that the Earth revolves around the Sun -- can be burned at the stake. On the grounds that such knowledge can put them on the dangerous path of developing Newtonian physics.

Does it occur to no one to wonder WHY the US Government spends almost nothing on advanced physics research any more -- why it makes it almost impossible to work in nuclear energy -- and why it has actually CUT research into alternative energy sources in the past two decades??

While at the same time, the US Government spends more on military operations than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Or why NO ONE in the news media bothers to point this out?

Re cleek's comment "if Bush attacks Iran, what happens to us in the US? nothing. maybe some other countries will like us a little less. but nobody is going to attack and invade us."

I agree with Don Williams on this one. Both Russia and China have serious vested interests in Iran. Both countries have had it up to here with the boy king. I wouldn't put it past either of them to retaliate, if not militarily, at least economically (China owns our debt, remember?).

Either or both of them could make our lives very, very miserable for a long time. And for what? That's the question I can't get my head around.

In 2002 I didn't believe they were going to attack Iraq; I was sure they were just bullshitting trying to elect some republicans. Well, I learned my lesson: today I truly believe they will start a war because some people in Iran might know something they aren't supposed to know. Yes, they will.

I've done a pretty fair amount work in and around
the Physics community and have found that the natural laws of the universe don't reveal themselves only to certain, special people. Thinking that only a chosen few can hold onto information on how the world works is quite asinine. A number of the Manhattan Project scientists were rather upset when the US government put a lid on much of the data related to the scientific discoveries made during the war years.

Neils Bohr along with many in the community thought stamping the of controlled sharing of the basic scientific knowledge would only led to international hostility between the haves and the have nots. Nobody has really advocated handing out bomb plans(accept maybe Fuchs or Teller). Nuclear technology is more frequently a catch all term, and some nations are denied information that could aid a nation in areas like power production.

Since you brought up Operation Ivy, I think we had best think of the some people have chosen to live in a Room Without a Windows.

Just hearing shrub use terms like WW III and nuc-u-lar in the same sentence is worrisome. Where are Pelosi and Reid on this? Are they going to let president 24% spout this reckless horseshit without any rejoinder?

This is a part of a consistent pattern of lowering the threshhold for war:

1) Part of Iran's armed forces is now a "terrorist organization," a term not previously applied to state entities.
2) Iranians are helping get American soldiers killed, though any evidence is carefully kept secret.
3) Knowing how to build a nuke is a reason for war, which is lower than the standard used to justify the attack on Iraq (possessing WMDs). It also gets around the IAEA's upcoming report, which will most likely say that there is no weapons program.

Next: Ahmadinejad looked at Bush in a funny way--attack!

All I know is that I don't know nothin'

Pet peeve: "it's" means "it is"

"It's return to prominence..." need to remove the apostrophe.

War on knowledge: We are seeing what constitutes a thoughtcrime.

When Orwell's nightmares manifest themselves in the real world, we have every reason to be afraid.

We have a president who is unmoved by popular opinion, who cannot be reasoned with, who cannot be swayed in his belief of his own rightness, who is unconcerned of the consequences for his actions, and who cannot be removed from office.

We have, in effect, a dictator. And this one is bent on starting a world war.

One other characteristic of the new threshhholds for war: they can neither be proven or disproved. They must be accepted or rejected on faith--'trust me'.

1) Revolutionary Guards are terrorists. The salient feature about terrorism is that it's in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
2) Iranians are killing American soldiers. Again you have to trust Bush on this, because he isn't releasing any evidence (probably because he doesn't have any)
3)Having the knowledge to make a bomb. This is totally a matter of conjecture. Short of having a device detonated, how can it be proven that someone actually has that knowledge? Again, trust Bush to know when the Iranians are about to obtain the knowledge.

Next: Ahmadinejad will look at Bush in a funny way, so Bush is duty bound to strike. How do we know Ahmadinejad's look signaled hostile intent? Bush said so.

What's comical about this (were it not so tragic) is that the Democrats claim not to trust Bush but will take his word for anything he says about Iran.

"Specifically, I'm told that the crux of the matter is that there's no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is, however, a uranium enrichment program that could at some point be used as part of a weapons program."

"I'm told?" "I'm fucking TOLD?"

Yeah, by ME about fifty times on this blog for the last month or two - and prior to that, on TPM, for about a year (before Josh banned me for being "anti-Semitic") - you've been fucking "told".

You just now learned that this is the problem?

Is that why you STILL haven't said anything specific about the Iran problem?

Okay, let's get past that ridiculousness...

"Thus you have, on the level of rhetoric though not international law or sound diplomacy, the justification for military action."

Uh, yup. In other words, Bush doesn't care as long as the wing nuts BELIEVE that an "Ay-rab" nation has "nukuleer" weapons.

According to the NPT, which has the force of law for the United States, not to mention the UN Charter, which also has the force of law for the United States, there is ZERO reason for military action against Iran - despite ANY minor infractions of the NPT that Iran MAY or MAY NOT have engaged in in the past twenty years.

The United States CANNOT prevent legally prevent Iran from obtaining either the ability to enrich OR for that matter even the acquisition of knowledge to build a nuclear weapons.

The ONLY thing Iran can be taken to task for is the actual diversion of nuclear materials for the purpose of constructing a nuclear weapon.

Which Iran has not done - and there is no evidence that they have ever intended to do so - and this is the IAEA's clearly stated position.

As I have said numerous times, the IAEA simply wants Iran to clear up questions concerning WHERE they got their centrifuge technology, WHEN they got it, and what was done at certain supposed nuclear facilities which no longer exist, and whether the Iranian military had any connection to the nuclear research or nuclear facilities IN THE PAST.

Failing to be completely "transparent" under the NPT is a minor infraction, one which numerous countries under IAEA supervision have committed in the past - and gotten both a clean bill of health from the IAEA AND the US after the questions were cleared up.

Iran, of course, has all sorts of legitimate reasons why they were secretive about their nuclear energy program - precisely because of the situation that exists now. They would have had to deal with this US aggression a lot sooner had they been more open about the development of their program.

But what is THIS shit about?

"On the other hand, perhaps Bush just screwed up and doesn't know what he's talking about and there's nothing to worry about. Alternatively, maybe he knows exactly what he's talking about and we ought to worry. Or maybe we ought to worry that he doesn't know what he's talking about. At a minimum, I'm kind of worried."

What the fuck does this mean? Are you joking? Was this your usual lame attempt at humor?

Or is it more likely your continued maximum effort NOT to say ANYTHING specific about Iran except pointless nonsense?

Look, read my lips. The Israelis have been saying over a year now that Iran having the technology to enrich AT ALL is a "red line" that they must not be allowed to cross.

The State Department's Joseph specifically stated long ago that the US demands that Iran have NO enrichment capability whatsoever - which basically means NO nuclear energy program whatsoever.

This of course is not possible given Iran's projected energy needs over the next few decades.

Therefore Bush and Israel have EXPLICITLY backed Iran into a corner: no nuclear energy or we bomb you.

Thus, Bush knows EXACTLY what he is saying here. It's the same thing the US and Israel has been saying for a couple of years now.

It's that simple.

And you're just figuring that out NOW?

Haven't you read ANYTHING about the Iran crisis over the last YEAR?

And you're supposed to be a PUNDIT?

BTW, Matt, if you really are as utterly ignorant about all this as you seem determined to appear, let me know.

I'll zip up my couple thousand documents on this and put it up somewhere where you can download it and possible get a clue as to what's going on here.

Jesus, this guy is a character.

How anybody can say, "Maybe Bush doesn't know what he's saying here" at this point in the crisis is beyond me...

We're within a few months of a major ME war and MY just doesn't get it.

BTW, Matt, if you're "a little worried", try reading Mike Farrell's article over at HuffPo:

Iran: Why am I Still Worried?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-farrell/iran-why-am-i-still-worr_b_68347.html

As an actor, he seems more clued in to what's happening than you, the pundit.

Money quotes:

"So I'm worried. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the neocons remain in full-throated war cry.

I worry when I learn that Defense Secretary Gates' Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs can publicly say "I hate all Iranians" and keep her job.

I worry when Mr. Bush's choice for Ambassador to the UN, cashiered against his boss's wishes, runs around calling for the bombing of Iran and, where have we heard this before, "regime change."

I worry that Mr. Bush could give 45 minutes of his day to Norman Podhoretz, the Grand Poobah of neoconservative ideology -- which gave us the war in Iraq -- to lobby for an attack on Iran.

I worry that despite Bush's dismissal, it's not just "baseless gossip."

I worry because a humiliating lack of public support seems to mean nothing to Mr. Bush and those propelling him.

I worry because I see the arrogance of a cult intent on fulfilling its mission before they lose what they seem to believe is a God-given opportunity.

And I worry because too many Americans, once again, seem content to sit on their hands, unwilling to believe this man could do something so stupid."

And I worry that its not just the corporate media that is buying into Bush's framing of Iran. Most Democratic politicians, and much of the "liberal" blogosphere takes it as a given that Iran is determined to get a nuke and immediately drop it on Israel. No thought is given to the overwhelming possibility that Iran is led by rational, non-suicidal actors.

The parallel to 2002 is uncanny. Bush is clearly jumping to the wildest possible conclusions about Iran's intentions and future behavior. Meanwhile, Mohammed El Baradei is conducting the painstaking investigation needed to determine if there has been any diversion from the nuclear energy program. But no one wants to hear what El Baradei has to say. They just want to blindly follow Bush into another war without even asking serious questions about justification or consequences. (Questions will be entertained in 2012, along with cries that "we wuz misled.")

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In the event of a war with Iran, the US is doing the same thing over again, but the results will not be the same: they will be much, much worse.

Tom Tomorrow had quite a good cartoon about this. Yes, the parallels between what Bush is saying now and what he was saying before invading Iraq are close. In which, of course, having a weapon was equated with having a programme to develop a weapon, which was equated with having the capacity to develop such a programme, which was equated with knowing how to bang rocks together.

The bottom line seems to be that Bush and the people who think like him want a full-scale war with Iran (and notice, please, that if you scatter bombs all over a country, and you have 160 000 troops stationed on the border of that country, you are strongly risking that they will attack you with their million-strong army).

The big question is whether Americans will allow him to have another full-scale war, one which will get considerably more Americans killed and complete the destruction of the US's place in international diplomacy.

Anyone in American politics attempting to address that question?

Bush has stated clearly that we wish to institute an international state of scientific fascism and/or tyranny.

We can have it, they cannot.

It = Knowledge.

I know that things are getting tougher....

Resist despair, because you can't change everything...

"Wide open road of my future now... It's looking fucking narrow."


Comments closed October 31, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.