A Quick Point

One more quick point on the Iran NIE. There's much less new material here than the media reaction would suggest. In particular, the International Atomic Energy Agency has been making the point that there's no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program for some time. They've just been subject to a lot of derision and getting ignored. In general, the entire framing of the Iranian issue has been centered on people ignoring the difference between a country pursuing a nuclear energy research program that would generate information that would be useful in building a nuclear weapon, and a country pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

When the Bush administration launched Operation Ivy and decided that the issue was Iranian "knowledge," the White House was in effect acknowledging that there was no weapons program on hand to complain about.

At any rate, it seems to have been considered okay to ignore the IAEA's reports on the grounds that the UN is icky or the head of the IAEA is an Arab or both, so maybe now that the US Intelligence Community is saying it too, people will listen.

UPDATE: Okay. On reflection, there is a difference between "no evidence" of a nuclear program and an affirmative conclusion of no nuclear program. My point is just that if last week someone had been going on about "the Iranian nuclear program" and you'd asked that person why he was so sure there even was an Iranian nuclear program, you'd have been dismissed as a fringy DFH, even though the IAEA had been trying to publicize its findings for some time.

Comments

How about "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"? That seemed to work well in the beginning of 2004.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html

PS: Why do so many {a href=} (obviously with real >) yield a "no follow" link? Are we not supposed to embed links here?

Posted by El Cid | December 4, 2007 12:33 PM

the entire framing of the Iranian issue has been centered on people ignoring the difference between a country pursuing a nuclear energy research program that would generate information that would be useful in building a nuclear weapon, and a country pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Yeaa.... no. The framing has long been that anyone who makes such a distinction is a dupe, a liberal, and soft on defense. As for Operation Ivy, this is a common dumbing-down tactic for this administration, where the bar must be set so low that even Bush can make it over.

Remember "weapons of mass destruction program related activities"?

Just as each new climate-science denial position ("it isn't happening," "it is happening but it's not our fault," "it is happening and we're partially to blame but there's nothing we can do") is designed to ensure that nothing disturbs the profitability of old and politically connected industries, so each new narrative out of the foreign policy establishment is designed to ensure that there's a plausible threat created to justify blasting the shit out of people who have things we want.

Otherwise, Joe Twelvepack would never send his son to go die while stealing it. Does your empire need a resource? For a surprisingly low fee, our Fear Engineers will fabricate a scary brown man who threatens your way of life and your daughters' honor. Cross my palm with silver, saheeb, and pretty soon everyone's wearing a funny moustache. Hitlers don't grow on trees, you know.

What's happened here is that the foreign policy establishment has fallen so in love with its narrative that they got further out than the intelligence establishment could support. In 2003, that didn't matter. Now it does.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 4, 2007 12:34 PM

Bush has flatly stated Iranian possession of the necessary knowledge to build a nuclear weapon threatens the U.S. and others. How do we bomb what they likely already know? Is he proposing targeting everyone in their nuclear program with the working knowledge of a nuclear device? WTF? And I keep hearing their programs designed to construct a reactor facility(s) to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes constitutes a threat because of dual use fears. Are they forever forbidden from building nuclear powered electrical generating facilities? Kind of unrealistic in a world of dwindling oil supplies, in a nation nearly bereft of coal or hydro opportunities. It's obvious regardless of anything anyone has to say on this matter Bush has decided the Iranians are a threat to be dealt with militarily. What would sanctions, inducements or other methods do to negate Iran's existing knowledege of nuclear weapon devices? Nothing.

Posted by steve duncan | December 4, 2007 12:51 PM

>Bush has flatly stated Iranian possession of the necessary knowledge to build a nuclear weapon threatens the U.S. Is he proposing targeting everyone in their nuclear program with the working knowledge of a nuclear device?

An embargo on Modern Physics textbook shipments to Iran, perhaps? It's really not that challenging to make a "Little Boy" type A-bomb.

Posted by Matt B | December 4, 2007 1:19 PM

PS: Why do so many {a href=} (obviously with real >) yield a "no follow" link? Are we not supposed to embed links here?

That tag prevents search engine crawlers from following our links and assigning them a higher merit because they come from the highly prestigious Atlantic website. This, in turn, discourages people looking to improve their Google ranking from spam-linking their sites here.

Posted by neil | December 4, 2007 1:20 PM

Imagine the frenzied scurrying by the AIPAC scaremongers and propagandists!! The prospect absolutely makes my day.

AIPAC, on this issue, STFU!!

Posted by chet | December 4, 2007 1:53 PM

An embargo on Modern Physics textbook shipments to Iran, perhaps? It's really not that challenging to make a "Little Boy" type A-bomb.

Fat Man isn't much more difficult either. Someone better not tell the Iranians what happens when you go to Wikipedia and type "Nuclear Weapons Design".

Bush just defined anyone with Internet access as a security threat to the US.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 4, 2007 3:18 PM

You need to be a bit clearer Matt.

No one disputes that Iran has a "nuclear program." You mean to say "nuclear weapons program."

Moreover, Iran has more than a "nuclear energy research program." What they have, among other things, is a production-scale uranium enrichment program, that is producing material potentially applicable to either electricity generation or nuclear weapons.

I have no faith whatsoever in the pronouncements of the Bush administration, but it is a mistake to assume that they are 180 degrees wrong about everything.

Posted by Steve | December 4, 2007 4:00 PM

it is a mistake to assume that they are 180 degrees wrong about everything

That's usually the safest bet in town.

Posted by croatoan | December 4, 2007 4:45 PM

Steve is correct that Iran's nuclear energy program has dual capability - it can be used to produce nuclear weapons IF Iran decides to drop the NPT and do so.

So does Japan - and for the same reason - possible need for nuclear weapons against China in the future. For Iran, it's regime change defense against Israel and the US. Absent the threat from those countries, Iran would not bother with nukes.

Nonetheless, this does NOT mean that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. It merely means that as long as Iran is not existentially threatened, it will not have a nuclear weapons program.

Remove the regime change threat, remove the program threat. This should be the diplomatic approach being pursued by the US.

Email me when this happens.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 5:46 PM

Linking Operation Ivy to Foreign Policy, nice.

Thanks for reminding me why I read this blog.

Posted by Neal Murray | December 4, 2007 6:49 PM

Is the pasty dweeb from High Fidelity now naming operations for the Bush administration?

Posted by Reality Man | December 4, 2007 10:33 PM

"Nonetheless, this does NOT mean that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. It merely means that as long as Iran is not existentially threatened, it will not have a nuclear weapons program."

Or it means they do not have one until they once again decide it is in their interest to have one. They haven't stopped holding evil thoughts about Israel, have they?

Posted by Mike | December 6, 2007 9:15 AM