The Evidence

Via Brendan Nyhan, Jonathan Landay reports for McClatchey:

Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Seems like an important point! Nevertheless, Like Muhammed ElBarradei and the IAEA this McClatchey outfit would have a lot more credibility if it hadn't gotten Iraq so wrong. I'll put my faith in George W. Bush and The Weekly Standard instead.

Comments

I'm pretty sure Bush and Cheney don't worry about pesky things like "facts."

Posted by Captain Noble | November 4, 2007 5:43 PM

So, Matt, does this mean you're weakly trying to answer my question one - whether YOU believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

Okay, let's say I buy this post as some sort of answer, no matter how lame.

Now let's talk about question two:

If it turns out that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program, or even just the intention to have the capability of switching to a nuclear weapons program at some point in the future based on their uranium enrichment technology, do you think the US should do some sort of military strike on Iran if Iran refuses to abandon those plans?

And by extension, if not, at what point would you support a military strike on Iran?

These two questions need to be put directly to anyone talking about Iran and a straight yes or no answer should be requested.

So I'm requesting a straight yes or no answer from you.

Anybody else want to go on the record - since Matt seemingly doesn't want to - on those two questions?

For the record, my two answers are: No, and No.

And for the extension question: only when Iran HAS actual nukes AND is threatening a first strike on someone - a safe answer since the probability of that ever happening is vanishingly small.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 4, 2007 7:25 PM

Richard, I think we should strike Iran if we catch them looking at us funny.

Posted by Bill | November 4, 2007 7:35 PM

Pakistan is looking pretty messed up right now, lots of terrorists running around there and we know they have nuclear weapons. I saw bomb them tomorrow.

Posted by CParis | November 4, 2007 7:58 PM

If only Bush and Cheney were worried about Iran getting nukes, Matt's post would make more sense. What about France, Britain and Germany (the EU-3)? What about Saudi Arabia, which just proposed a multinational enrichment facility outside of the Middle East?

It's as if Matt feels so bad for supporting the Iraq war initially that he is unable to be objective about Iran. And yet none of the countries I mentioned above, except Britain, supported the Iraq war and yet they are all concerned about Iran's nuclear program.

Maybe it's time for Matt to base his non-proliferation policy on something other than snark.

Posted by Fred | November 4, 2007 8:35 PM

If only Bush and Cheney were worried about Iran getting nukes, Matt's post would make more sense. What about France, Britain and Germany (the EU-3)? What about Saudi Arabia, which just proposed a multinational enrichment facility outside of the Middle East?

It's as if Matt feels so bad for supporting the Iraq war initially that he is unable to be objective about Iran. And yet none of the countries I mentioned above, except Britain, supported the Iraq war and yet they are all concerned about Iran's nuclear program.

Quite right, for the most part. But I think it's a little more subtle:

There was a massive consensus that Iraq had WMD, even from countries that did not support the war, with a few dissenting or doubting reports.

Now, there is an even more massive consensus that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, with a few dissenting or doubting reports.

The similarities between the two situations do not compel the conclusion that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. But they do compel a measure of caution. And on an issue as serious as the widely-suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program, the glib dismissal of a worldwide consensus is likely not the best tactic if you want a different result than we got out of the Iraq fiasco.

This takes, I think, admitting that Bush and Cheney have not conjured their concern about Iran out of a neoconservative chamber of horrors. Rather, their construction of the facts is shared by most of our allies, and it will take a great deal of effort--if indeed that construction of the facts is not correct--to change the world's mind.

Posted by southpaw | November 4, 2007 9:26 PM

Keep in mind one titanic fallacy obscured by that blanket "WMD" category (which the Bushites found so useful in confusing the American people): it lumps together nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The last are hardly more dangerous than regular high-explosive weapons. Biological weapons can be very nasty, but (at least until the miracles of genetic engineering allow them to be vastly improved in the next few decades) they don't begin to compare with nuclear weapons.

Just about everyone was sure that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons -- the question was whether it had a significant nuclear-weapons program, which is tremendously harder to conceal. The UN inspection, at the time it was cut off, had already made that extremely unlikely, and had it proceeded a few more weeks it would have ruled it out comnpletely. And the possession by Iraq of biological (let alone chemical) weapons would almost certainly not have been adequate to justify an invasion. Especially since -- as the CIA strained at length to point out to Bush in Oct. 2002 -- it's extremely hard to stage an invasion that can strip a nation of its existing biological-weapons stockpiles; they're simply far too easy to hide and disperse, and any hope we had of even partially grabbing them before Saddam could use them or give them away to terrorists would require extremely well-coordinated and massive raids on all the likely depots of them. Well, not only did we not even attempt that; the damn fools, WEEKS after the invasion, STILL weren't guarding those depots.

Everyone is confident that Iran has large stockpiles of bioweapons -- but nobody is talking about that as justification for an attack on it. Nuclear weaponry is the ONLY possible justification for any such attack -- unless, of course, you're filled (like Bush and Blair) with goofy overconfidence that it will be a Cakewalk to occupy and reform Iraq, so that you see little white lies about the actual extent of Iraq's nuclear program as justifiable for the Greater Good. (See also LBJ; Gulf of Tonkin.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 4, 2007 9:59 PM

Yglesias is mostly punk snark on this one issue - Iran and the bomb.

Anal retentive Lefties that insist there IS NO PROOF!!! are silent about what should be done if incontrovertable proof is discovered.

My guess is they would then scream against war with Iran as too risky for us and "The Children!" in Marine uniforms plus "all the innocent Iranian civilians that cheered the Bomb."

In Iran's case, absence of evidence is evidence of guilt. Just as with many criminal cases, guilt is determined not from evidence, but lack thereof of exculpatory considerations.

A nuclear bomb program requires 3 high technology projects - enrichment, detonation support component design, means of delivery.

Iran is working feverishly on the HEU, the detonaion components science, and the ICBM and MRBM delivery mechanism.

THe more complex peaceful nuclear power production program requires 8 optional and 5 obligatory national steps. One of the optional steps is enrichment. That the Iranians have done. But none of the other optional steps like the high tech fuel fabrication facility, working with any country on a turnkey plant, developing the metallurgical base of alloy welding. None of the required indegenous programs of operator training, health physics, E-planning, spent fuel storage siting.

It's like saying no proof a nation is making an anthrax weapons program exists - when the only activities are directed towards making anthrax spores, leaarning how to aerosolize it, and working on means to deliver it - with no "proof" they won't be testing herds, working on antibiotics Later.

*************************
Iran has a worrisome record of supporting terror outside it's borders, assassinating it's dissidents abroad and taking direct action against the US with bombings at Khobar Towers, supply of weapons to kill US soldiers in Iraq. And a cruel history of radical Islamist rulers..

Iran also has legitimate security concerns that woud be given more international attention - if they weren't so murderously batshit crazy. SEveral deals have been offered them where their borders would be guaranteed if they cease supporting terror groups. Iran has refused.

The danger on the Left is they hate Bush so much that they see any enemy of Bush's as a friend of theirs that must be defended and sheltered at all costs. That is foolhardy.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 4, 2007 10:15 PM

"Our children are growing up in a difficult time for America, because they see on their TV screens the fact that America is now a battlefield...But you've got to understand why we're vulnerable, and that is because there are people in the world that hate the fact that we love freedom....In Iraq, they don't put their hand over their heart and say, "Liberty and justice for all." They don't believe in liberty. The dictator who runs Iraq doesn't believe in justice. He only believes in liberty and justice for those who he decides get liberty and justice....

There's a lot of talk about Iraq on our TV screens, and there should be, because we're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.."--GWB, 9/17/02

You know, when the same people who told you that the Administration was wrong about WMDs and invading Iraq was going to be a catastrophic mistake now tell you that the Administration is wrong again, and bombing Iran is going to be another catastrophic mistake...maybe you should listen? Especially considering that having competent people lead this Administration's tremendously high-risk strategy isn't an option?

Or, you can continue listening to the people who have been wrong about everything as they spin the exact same yarn they spun last time. Because hey, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...I mean, you can't get fooled again.

Posted by anon | November 4, 2007 10:28 PM

Non-proliferation is quickly becoming a joke. We need to focus more on diplomacy and intelligence. If we get solid intel that Iran or any other country is arming and preparing to fire, then by all means strike. We have lost so much of our soft power that we cannot credibly work toward non-proliferation. We are going to have to learn to live with nuclear states even if those states are not friendly to us. We did okay with the Soviet Union; I'm sure we can handle Iran.

Posted by Captain Noble | November 4, 2007 10:53 PM

Well, we've heard from the usual right wing freakazoids.

Still haven't heard from Matt.

First of all, the fact that the EU is "concerned" about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program is basically irrelevant to the fact that there is zero evidence that there is one.

The "suspicious" incidents referred to in the article and elsewhere basically have to do with the fact that Iran kept its energy program secret for precisely the reason that the West would jump on them for having one. Not to mention that as one article put it, it was the most poorly kept secret in history. Basically, Iran has been fighting the West's attempts to keep it from having nuclear energy for the last thirty years. So once it had the connections and the resources to do better, naturally it would have been insane to reveal that to the West.

Not to mention that there is nothing in the NPT that requires them to reveal anything to the IAEA until the regulations require it - which is to say actually having "nuclear materials". No one is prevented by the NPT from having nuclear knowledge.

As for the "massive consensus" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it doesn't exist. Most of the countries of the world don't believe it, or support it if they do believe it. The EU has no more basis for believing it than the US or Britain does - which is to say, none. Their motivations clearly have to do with their colonial desires to keep Iran in a box, just like the rest of the ME countries.

Given that the EU equivalent of neocons are now in power in Britain, France and Germany, this is no surprise. Even if they weren't, the West clearly has common cause against allowing any regional power to emerge in the ME - other than Israel, of course.

Russia has made it clear that they don't believe it, although they do wish the Iranian program to be as transparent as possible in order to avoid a war.

The IAEA of course has made it crystal clear that there is NO nuclear weapons program. The only issues over which they have questions have to do with ultimate Iranian "intentions" - which can never be satisfied anyway - and actions alleged to have taken place in the past. Iran is in the process of clearing up those questions this month. If that effort is satisfactory to the IAEA, the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons will become a moot point.

Nothing that Chris Ford said is even remotely true. Iran has never been offered security guarantees of any kind, let alone ones they could take seriously. The one major "grand bargain" they offered the US was refused to even be acknowledged - and the Swiss were rebuked for even carrying it to Bush's attention.

As for their nuclear program, Ford has never bothered to study the entire Iranian program, so he's talking out his ass, as usual. regurgitating right wing talking points fed to him by somebody else.

As for their "support for terrorism", in fact, they support very little that could be considered "terrorism." Hizballah is not a "terrorist" group - they are a Lebanese nationalist resistance group. Hamas, to the degree that they get any Iranian support, which isn't clear, is clearly not a "terrorist" group, but a Palestinian resistance group. And of course, Iran has nothing whatever to do with Al Qaeda or any Sunni Islamist group.

There has been zero evidence adduced for any Iranian official support for weapons smuggling into Iraq, let alone direct use of any weapons against US troops, and even less evidence for any such going on in Afghanistan.

To the right wing freakazoids, of course, all this is proof of guilt.

That Iran is, geopolitically and militarily speaking, zero threat to anyone in the region who doesn't threaten them doesn't matter to the freaks. The fact that, even if Iran HAD a nuclear weapon or X number of them (where X is, say, less than ten), it STILL wouldn't be a threat to anybody in the region doesn't matter to them, either.

The freaks don't have the balls to simply announce that they hate Muslims and want them all dead, so the US can seize their oil.

This makes them punks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 4, 2007 11:01 PM

The nuclear issue is sure a crazy one.

Pakistan has nukes, a dictatorship, and is a haven for our most determined enemy.

Iran is developing nukes, worked with us to get bin Laden and thwart terrorism, and regularly battles Sunni fundamentalism.

Let's take the Brood of Vipers Challenge: prove that we aren't dead and that this isn't Hell.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 5, 2007 9:41 AM

"Iran is developing nukes, worked with us to get bin Laden and thwart terrorism"

Iran: a terrorism-thwarting nation? This is the height of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Iran is the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, from Beirut to Buenos Aires.

Posted by Juan | November 5, 2007 9:53 AM

Iran: a terrorism-thwarting nation?

Please to read the sentence and recall just a modicum of the recent past. Iran worked with us following 9/11 until we spurned its advances.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 5, 2007 10:14 AM

It shows how out-of-touch these people are that they can't even get a liberal Beltway blogger to spell their company's name right.

Posted by James Wimberley | November 5, 2007 12:56 PM

I hope the last sentence in that post was sarcastic.

Posted by The Other Brian | November 5, 2007 2:03 PM