Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger

[bananas]

Source: Times Online (UK)

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

<snip>

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

<snip>

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece

[Goldstein1984]

1. Because the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

aren't enough.

[Psephos]

5. Less is not more when it comes to information.

Iran's gain of nuclear weaponry will decrease stability in the Middle East, principally because most of the Arab powers in the region privately loathe Iran and fear its fundy theocrats. It will not be long before a nuclear arms race begins in earnest among them.

Anyone who loves actual peace and not just the word will find the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons a nightmare. Not because of what the West will do, but because of what its neighbors will do.

[nyy1998]

11. Exactly

It's not the US that people should be worried about, but rather Israel. And I don't think the rest of the Middle East will be too pleased about Iran having a bomb either.

[Goldstein1984]

12. Fool me twice, shame on me

We were given a lot of information about Iraq before we invaded.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

[dysfunctional press]

19. we won't be invading iran.

they are a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME than iraq or afghanistan, in terms of ability to respond.

[Xicano]

2. This isn't like that forged document the bush administration sold to us is it?

I am just saying.

[cstanleytech]

8. Oh it could be fake sure however Iran is and has been a clear threat

far more then Saddam was so we cant just bury our heads in the sand about the story, it has to be investigated because nukes in the hands of the nutcases running around in Iran is as scary as a 3rd Bush term would be.

[Xicano]

17. Given our actions I see it more like we've been the clear threat, don't you think?

We are the ones who've been entering into other counties with our economic hit men, our CIA operatives (jackals), and our military to over throw or assassinate elected leaders, install corrupt and brutal regimes all in the name of expanding our gawd given right to manifest destiny and economic empire expansionism. In so doing we also shamefully exploit their labor and rob their natural resources, but that's the point isn't it? And gawd forbid if these people think they have a right to implement a means to defend themselves. How do you think Iran feels? They're being surrounded by this, not to mention the memory of our past covert actions in Iran and the overthrow of their democratically elected leader who was replaced by a brutal dictator and the brutal secret police SAVAC.

And what about Israel? They have nuclear weapons and not only are they not suppose to but they also have they been in violation of numerous UN resolutions for many years and have an on going policy of violating UN resolutions, they have also waged aggressive military actions on Iran and other neighbors, killing thousands and thousands of people. Why isn't Israel considered a threat?

Looking at history, the way I see it is: White people have violently colonized or exploited other people's countries throughout the world and what we see today is nothing more than a continuation of this manifest destiny idealism and anybody who's a target and who decides they're going to take measures to defend themselves pose a threat? The question should be, pose a threat against who or what? I am sorry but I am not aware of Iran seeking conquest throughout the world, or economic imperialism for that matter. Can we honestly say the same about us? And if we can't, then, again, isn't our actions the clear threat don't you think?

Maybe if we learned to stop provoking people and driving them to defend themselves and respected their rights, their labor, their natural resources and their sovereignty, maybe the world would be a nicer place.

Lastly, lets suppose Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons. Don't you think they are keenly aware of ours and Israel's? Don't you think they're aware if they ever used them, even in a covert manner, that we and others will be able to know where it came from and that the consequences for Iran would be dire to say the least?

It seems to me that people against Iran acquiring a nuclear defense fit at least one of two categories. Either they haven't studied history well enough and buy into the fear propaganda, or, to put is simply, they are wolves who intend to make Iran their meal.



Peace,
Xicano

[cstanleytech]

28. I never said our government was innocent and pure but that the fact

is Iran is a threat to the middle-east as a whole.
Do I think Iran is likely to use them? Yes, I personally think they would use them if they had them either in some sort of attack or as blackmail.

[Marthian]

30. A pleasure reading your post.

Unfortunately, history is glossed over in American schools. Your post is insightful and true. Thank you. The wolves are at the Iranian door. (edited for spelling)

[Marthian]

29. Are these "nutcases running around in Iran"

the same ones who have never launched an offensive strike at anyone in the ME? The US foreign policy is one of vilification as the path to warfare. I don't really support the mullahs in Iran, but I do support their rights to develop defensive systems, even nuclear. The Iranians actually act as a point of stability in the region. US intel backs up the notion that Iran is a force for stability and not the hackneyed "sponsor of terrorism" that official policy designates. Why can all the belligerent powers have nukes but a non-belligerent country may not? Let me guess, they can't because they are Muslim...Think \about it and stop swallowing the warbait hook, line and sinker.

[cstanleytech]

33. Sorry but I cant support your view of allowing them to develop nukes

seeing as I don't personally even support us or any country having nukes, there are some weapons that man should just not have imo

[yava]

20. Whats the difference if it is forged or not?

Experts say there are MANY nations that without actually testing a nuclear detonation device, have tested all the components.

The ones who have tested are the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and N. Korea. In addition Israel is known to have loaded warheads built with the help of France and the US, including on subs.

Then there is those who have tested and own the components: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, S. Korea, Ukraine, Belarus, S. Africa.

And those who have NATO nuclear warheads with control shiftable to the individual nations in case of threat: Italy, Germany, Begium, Holland.

So, I count some 20 nations ahead of Iran.

[azurnoir]

3. evidently it's not that "confidential" n/t

[bananas]

4. Taiwan Investigates Report Iran Get Nuclear Parts Via Its Firms

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aDVbOMygH4Kg

Taiwan Investigates Report Iran Get Nuclear Parts Via Its Firms
By Weiyi Lim

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Taiwan said it’s investigating a report that local companies helped Iran purchase equipment that can be used to make weapons-grade nuclear material.

Iranian defense officials held a series of meetings with Taiwan-based companies to buy hundreds of pressure transducers, the London Daily Telegraph reported Dec. 10, citing Western intelligence officials it didn’t name.

“The report didn’t provide any names of the companies, nor who said it, it was all very vague,” Hsu Chun-fang, deputy director-general of the Bureau of Foreign Trade, said by phone today in Taipei. “We are just doing our duty to check on this.” She declined to elaborate.

European Union leaders set a seven-week deadline for Iran to return to talks over its nuclear program or face stiffer sanctions, seeking to deepen Iran’s international isolation.

<snip>

edit to add: Here's the Dec. 10 Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6780229/Iran-seeks-nuclear-parts-through-Taiwan.html

<snip>

Western intelligence officials say Iran has responded by concentrating its efforts on Taiwan, and has already managed to acquire a 100 transducers which have been secretly shipped to Tehran. The transducers were originally manufactured in Europe and then sold to a company in Taiwan, which then sold them on to Iran's defence ministry.

<snip>

[EFerrari]

6. Fyi: Scott Ritter on David Albright, founder of ISIS:

"I have no objection to an academically based think tank capable of producing sound analysis about the myriad nuclear-based threats the world faces today. But David Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by cloaking himself in a résumé which is disingenuous in the extreme. Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080626_the_nuclear_expert_who_never_was/

[bananas]

7. FYI: Rebuttal by Frank von Hippel: "Ritter is way off base"

From your link:

Editor’s note: Frank von Hippel has written a response to this column in the comments below. Click here to read his rebuttal.

The rebuttal:

A Nuclear Expert Who Is

Scott Ritter’s attack on David Albright, “The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was,” suggests that only those who have spent years on the “inside” or have some other official credential are true experts. He is wrong.

Ritter is correct that Albright’s expertise does not stem from either his participation in IAEA inspections or a PhD in nuclear physics. You can’t get the kind of expertise that Albright has developed that easily. Albright started to work on nuclear-proliferation issues as a researcher in Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. He ultimately established his own NGO, the Institute on Science and International Security (ISIS).

One measure of Albright’s expertise is the invaluable and authoritative book, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories Capabilities and Policies (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Oxford University Press, 1997). Albright was the lead author both alphabetically and in terms of his contributions. As an academic, I would be proud to be a co-author. Indeed, Albright’s two co-authors are senior professors at distinguished universities in the U.K. and Netherlands.

Albright was not interested in an academic career, however. He decided that it was more important to inform the public debate over nonproliferation – initially through his excellent articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and then, as journalists began to beat their way to his door, directly through releases to the media.

Albright pioneered the use of commercial satellite images to provide independent information on nuclear-related construction in countries of proliferation concern. The ISIS book, Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle that he co-edited with Kevin O’Neill in 2000, is still the most authoritative published work on the subject.

As Albright became more visible and trusted as an independent expert, insiders with important information began to come to him for help to get their story out. Some governmental experts who disagreed with the CIA claim that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was importing were for manufacturing centrifuges came to Albright, for example, at a critical time in the U.S. debate over Iraq’s supposedly resurgent nuclear-weapons program.

Albright is also obviously well respected in the IAEA. He is always the first outsider I know to get a copy of the latest IAEA report on the results of its inspections in Iran. This gives him a chance to make a quick analysis to inform the media on the significance of the new findings. I am glad that the media has this alternative to whatever spin the Administration decides to apply.

Albright’s role has its risks. In a confusing situation, he does not have the luxury of being able to sit on a result for months as is possible in academia. As a result, he has made some mistakes—as we all have. But there is no doubt that the communities of academics, NGOs and journalists who have come to depend upon his analyses are much better off with his guidance than we would be without it. Indeed, in 2006, the American Physical Society, the professional society of American physicists, gave Albright its Joseph A. Burton Forum Award. The citation was “For his tireless and productive efforts to slow the transfer of nuclear weapons technology. He brings a unique combination of deep understanding, objectivity, and effectiveness to this vexed area.”

I don’t know what set Scott Ritter off but his attack on Albright, while incendiary, is almost completely without substance. There is virtually no discussion of specific issues where he believes Albright was mistaken. Ritter is way off base.

Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Co-chair International Panel on Fissile Materials
Former Assistant Director for National Security, White House Office on Science and Technology Policy, 1993-94

[leveymg]

9. Albright was wrong about Iraq's alleged WMD programs. His WaPo Op-ed of 5/11/03, for instance:

I believe the administration had a good foundation for its suspicions about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and has good reason now to keep hunting for them. During my investigations in the mid-1990s, I often felt that Iraq was hiding at least low-level nuclear weapons activities from inspectors and would reconstitute a full-scale nuclear weapons program if given the chance. In addition, last fall and winter Iraq failed to cooperate with international weapons inspectors on many issues; it refused to allow free access to scientists inside or outside Iraq; and it provided inadequate evidence of its claims to have unilaterally destroyed its chemical and biological weapons.

A special concern now is the Tuwaitha nuclear research site, south of Baghdad, which has been heavily looted. A tiny contingent of U.S. troops guarding the facility let through many of the looters, who identified themselves as employees.

reprint: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newsstand/wp/A37168-2003May9.html

[Goldstein1984]

13. "The New American Militarism" - Andrew J. Bacevich

Recommended reading

[leveymg]

14. Read a review, will pick it up. Thanks!

Looks like I would largely agree with his perspective. I see some parallels with what Obama was saying during the campaign, as well. I do hope he hasn't become trapped inside the Washington Bubble. From a review at the Independent Institute site: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=569

In concluding, Bacevich expounds on ten principles that can reduce U.S. tendencies toward militarism: pay attention to the nation's founders, bolster the separation of powers, treat the use of armed force solely as a last resort, strengthen U.S. self-sufficiency, emphasize national defense, control defense spending, use more soft power, emphasize citizen-soldiers, use the National Guard and reserves properly, and improve U.S. civil-military relations. Were the United States to pursue these goals, including greater reliance on civilian education for U.S. military officers, Americans would benefit from the demilitarization of U.S. policy and the U.S. role in world affairs. These recommendations are sound. If implemented, they would reduce militarism sharply within U.S. society and in U.S. policymaking and help to stop the policy shift toward the maintenance of a de facto empire.

As I noted earlier, a number of liberal-progressive analysts have criticized militarism in the United States. However, Bacevich's criticism and recommendations, voiced by a conservative with military credentials, are important for people across the entire U.S. spectrum to read and heed. Liberals may be pleasantly surprised. Although some conservatives may be taken aback, they too will benefit, as will anyone in the civilian or military departments of the U.S. government regardless of his ideological inclinations.

Edward A. Olsen
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

[Goldstein1984]

15. You're welcome

Bacevich has impressive credentials--a thinking Conservative

He also recently lost a son in Iraq. His subsequent book was understandably a little angrier in tone.

One of my sons is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in Spring 2010. He and I disagree about the war.

[EFerrari]

10. I did some digging arouond last night on von Hippel.

He seems to be a good, even a liberal, person.

However, on the subject of the politicization of this issue, I trust Scott Ritter who's had the misfortune of becoming too familiar with the tactic.

[superconnected]

16. Time to start blaming Iran for 911.

[bemildred]

18. "Yellow cake!!! Yellow cake!!!

Full of weasel-words, like "believed" and "working on testing" and "Foreign intelligence agencies date them" and "thought to have". More pseudo-secret horseshit.

[steven johnson]

21. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a nuclear trigger is a nuclear trigger

Bemildrid, obfuscating again, are we?


Straw man logical fallacy

[The Stranger]

22. But the last time the lies were really lies, and we've seen this movie before, remember?

They hardly even alter the script, it seems. And hundreds of thousands have died, millions wasted for their lies the last time.

So who is really obfuscating, Steven?

[steven johnson]

23. An argument by a straw man is still a straw man

[EFerrari]

25. That doesn't even make sense.

[The Stranger]

31. The Yellowcake Niger fraud is not a straw man. It really happened.

[EFerrari]

24. bemildred obfuscatng again?

LOL

That's funny.

[bemildred]

26. Sounds sort of like an ad hominem, doesn't it?

:hi:

[EFerrari]

35. I don't have my copy of Wheelock's Latin 1 any more

but I look for your "obfuscating" posts all the time. :hi:

[bemildred]

36. "Against the man".

Attacking me instead of trying to show that the OP was not the dissembling dishonest propaganda drivel that I asserted it was.

When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler. by Al Gore.
:hi:

[bemildred]

27. And sometimes war propaganda is just war propaganda. nt

[steven johnson]

37. bemildred, so you're not going to continue to support Chavez's 'Axis of Idiots'?

You know: Cuba, Libya, Iran and Syria?

Sometimes disinformation is just disinformation.

[EFerrari]

38. Has anyone told you that the Cold War is over

and that Bush is out of office?

[steven johnson]

39. Chavez was just being a buffoon when joking about getting Iran Uranium for a bomb

I'm sure the fact that Iran was helping Venezuela detect uranium deposits has nothing to do with you defending Iran's innocence.

Chávez es un payaso, pero es un payaso peligroso.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/07/hugo-chavez-iran-nuclear-bomb

[EFerrari]

40. I haven't defended anything. You have a logic problem in two languages.

:)

[Peace Patriot]

42. Interesting how these 2 targets of corpo/fascist psyops-Iran & Venezuela-have lots & lots of OIL.

To me, it's just so transparent that I find it hard to understand anyone's blindness to, a) the reason why these countries have been targeted by the global corporate predators and war profiteers who rule over us (--they need OIL to fuel their monstrous war machine), and b) the consequent behavior of the leaders of these countries, who are responsible for their peoples' safety (such as allying with each other; or, in Iran's case, seeking a nuclear deterrent against attack; or, in Venezuela's case, closing its borders with Colombia, where the Pentagon is planning a massive U.S. military buildup).

I mean, it's not as if the U.S. had NOT just invaded Iraq, with no justification, slaughtered a million innocent people, tortured many more, and set up a puppet government to hand the oil over to western multinationals. And it's not as if Iran isn't right next door to Iraq, and hasn't been watching its neighbor get invaded, slaughtered and demolished. And it's not as if Venezuela isn't right next door to Colombia, and hasn't been watching the slow, South Vietnam-like U.S. military buildup right on its border, and hasn't been aware of the $6 BILLION in military aid that the U.S. has larded on Colombia--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth--and hasn't objected (along with most of Latin America) to the latest outrage--a secretly negotiated U.S./Colombia military agreement for U.S. military use of SEVEN new bases in Colombia (one of them overlooking the Gulf of Venezuela and all of Venezuela's main oil reserves and facilities), NO LIMIT on the number of U.S. soldiers and U.S. contractors who can be deployed to Colombia, UNLIMITED diplomatic immunity for whatever U.S. soldiers and 'contractors' do in Colombia, and U.S. military use of ALL civilian airports and other facilities in Colombia.

Venezuela is not stupid. Iran is not stupid. And neither has invaded ANYBODY, or shown ANY territorial ambitions. Their concerns are clearly, demonstrably, and obviously defensive.

Furthermore, Iran is one of the potentially most progressive countries in the Middle East. And they would BE a progressive democracy if the U.S., England and Israel had not destroyed their new democracy in 1954 and had not installed the horrible 'Shah' of Iran who inflicted 25 years of torture and repression on the Iranian people, which drove the Iranians into the arms of mullahs, to protect them from further interference, and theft of their oil, by the west. That's WHY the first elected president of Iran, in 1954, was overthrown by the CIA--because he wanted to nationalize the oil to benefit the poor! OIL!

Venezuela has one of the most vibrant democracies in the western hemisphere--it being a COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE of the corpo-fascists that it is not--so, democracy does not exempt you from threats, attacks and bullying by the U.S war machine--not to mention a U.S. supported rightwing military coup attempt in 2002, and numerous other anti-democracy plots.

Iran knows this. Venezuela knows this. The U.S. government is egregiously hypocritical. It tolerates the murder of thousands of union leaders, peasant farmers, human rights workers, political leftists, journalists and others in Colombia, and rewards the extermination of the left in Colombia with $6 BILLION in aid! And it is using this fascist narco-thug government in Colombia as part of a plan to seize control of Venezuela's (and probably Ecuador's) northern oil regions adjacent to Colombia.

OIL! To fuel the great war machine, and to fuel the tankers of "free trade for the rich."

It is our own government that threatens world peace--NOT Iran's, NOT Venezuela's. They are reacting to the obvious, palpable, visible threat of U.S. invasion.

Did we, or did we not, just invade another country, and bomb the shit out of its people, with no justification whatsoever, in order to steal their oil? DID WE NOT DO THAT? Are people who defend this U.S. demonization of Iran and Venezuela BLIND? Do they have Alzheimer's, or what? They can't remember what happened six years ago?

Like I said, it's plainly obvious to me that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela--one country whose democracy we destroyed, and the other whose democracy we almost destroyed, to get control of the oil--are afraid for their people. And they are not alone.

Lula da Silva, president of Brazil--who also recently welcomed Iran's leaders to his country--has said, of the U.S. reconstitution of the 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, that this "poses a threat to Brazil's oil." (Everybody south of the border knows that it is a threat to Venezuela's.) Latin American leaders are currently reeling from what the U.S. just did in Honduras--its slimy, deceptive, treacherous, backstabbing support of a rightwing military coup! They know that multimillions of U.S. taxpayer money are going to rightwing groups in their own countries, plotting similar overthrows of democracy. Brazil has oil. Ecuador has oil. Bolivia has oil. Cuba has oil. None of them are safe. And is it any wonder that they fear the U.S., and are allying with other victims of the U.S.?

The U.S. is the biggest threat in the world to the stability and safety of other countries and their peoples. We are threatening and slandering peaceful countries--and, in the case of Venezuela, a country with a better democracy than our own--because our corporate rulers lust after their OIL.

Here's something else Lula da Silva said. He was interviewed about a year ago, and was asked about this corpo-fascist bullshit that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator." His reply: "They can invent a lot of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

So, how does that testimony, from Venezuela's neighbor, gel with the lies, psyops and disinformation that has been aimed at this oil target? Who is telling the truth? The Venezuelan people, who know Chavez better than anybody, consistently vote for him, in fair and transparent elections, in overwhelming numbers. How does that gel with the crapola we are fed by the State Department and its scribes in the corpo-fascist media?

We are being fed LIES--both overt and subliminal. And the reason is OIL.

[bemildred]

41. Name calling is not an argument, it is an admission that you have no argument. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

32. Hope this intel does not come from a Taxi driver n/t

[mbperrin]

34. If so, so what? They're a sovereign nation. They can develop what they

like. We sure as hell have.

If not true, no worries. And the track record of the "threats of the Middle East" sucks!

[Flaneur]

43. Oddly enough, there's another LBN thread debunking this crap right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4201700

[TheWatcher]

44. And that can only be a good thing.

What is heartening to see is that less and less people, especially on this Site, are very quick to believe this kind of Propaganda anymore.

And that is what it is.

[IndianaGreen]

45. This story has already been debunked

in a recent LBN story.