Here We Go Again With the Iranian Nuclear Scare

By Eric S. Margolis

March 09, 2009 "Khaleej Times" -- - While the United States was fighting for its economic life, Obama administration officials and the media issued a blizzard of contradictory claims over Iran’s alleged nuclear threat, leaving one wondering who is really charge of US foreign policy?

Much of the uproar over Iran’s so-far non-existent nuclear weapons must be seen as part of efforts by the Israeli lobby to block President Barack Obama’s proposed opening to Teheran, and to keep pressing the US to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Israel’s supporters and most Israeli military experts insist Iran has secret weapons programmes. Israel knows about covert nuclear programs, having run one of the world’s largest and most productive.

The hawkish Hillary Clinton’s naming of veteran Israel supporter Dennis Ross as her special adviser on Iran and the Gulf suggest she is more interested in building future domestic political support than securing balanced advice.

Meanwhile, confusion over Iran grew sharply. New CIA director, Leon Panetta, said ‘there is no question, they (Iran) are seeking that (nuclear weapons) capability.’

Pentagon chief Adm. Mike Mullen claimed Iran had ‘enough fissile material to build a bomb.’ Fox News claimed Iran already had 50 nuclear weapons. While the American Rome burns, here we go again with renewed hysteria over MWMD’s - Muslim Weapons of Mass Destruction. Wars drums are again beating over Iran.

The czar of all 16 US intelligence agencies, Adm. Dennis Blair, stated Iran could have enough enriched uranium for one atomic weapon by 2010-2015. But he reaffirmed the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is not pursuing them. Defence Secretary William Gates backed up Blair. So does the  UN nuclear agency. Some of the confusion over Iran comes from misunderstanding nuclear enrichment, and lurid scare stories.

Iran is producing low-grade uranium-235 (LEU), enriched to only 2.5 per cent, to generate electricity. Teheran has this absolute right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its centrifuge enrichment process at Natanz is under 24-hour international inspection. Iran’s soon to open nuclear plant at Bushehr cannot produce nuclear weapons fuel. Its spent fuel will be  returned to Russia.

Today, some 15 nations produce LEU U-235, including Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, and Japan. Israel, India and Pakistan, all covert nuclear weapons powers, refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty. North Korea abrogated it. UN inspectors report Iran has produced 1,010 kg of 2-3 per cent enriched uranium for energy generation, insists Iran. Theoretically that is enough for one atomic bomb.

But to make a nuclear weapon, U-235 must be enriched to over 90 per cent in an elaborate, costly process. Iran is not doing so, say UN inspectors.

Highly enriched U-235 or plutonium must then be milled and shaped into a perfect ball or cylinder. Any surface imperfections will prevent achieving critical mass. Next, high explosive lenses must surround the core, and detonate at precisely the same millisecond. In the gun system, two cores must collide at very high speed. In some cases, a stream of neutrons are pumped into the device as it explodes.

This process is highly complex. Nuclear weapons cannot be deemed reliable unless they are tested. North Korea recently detonated a device  that fizzled. Iran has never built or  tested a nuclear weapon. Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuclear weapon in 1979.

Even if Iran had the capability to fashion a complex nuclear weapon, it would be useless without delivery. Iran’s sole medium-range delivery system is its unreliable, inaccurate 1,500 km ranged Shahab-3. Miniaturizing and hardening nuclear warheads capable of flying atop a Shahab missile is another complex technological challenge.

It is inconceivable that Iran or anyone else would launch a single nuclear weapon. What if it didn’t go off? Imagine the embarrassment and the retaliation. Iran would need at least ten warheads and a reliable delivery system to be a credible nuclear power.

Israel, the primary target for any Iranian nuclear strike, has an indestructible triad of air, missile and sea-launched nuclear weapons pointed at Iran. An Israeli submarine with  nuclear cruise missiles is on station off Iran’s coast. Iran would be wiped off the map by even a few of Israel’s 200  nuclear weapons. Iran is no likelier to use a nuke against its Gulf neighbours. The explosion would blanket Iran with radioactive dust and sand.

Washington would do better to stop worrying about Iran and focus on its economic meltdown.

Eric S Margolis is a veteran US journalist who has reported from the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan for several years

Favorite

0 members favorited this

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by Jeff on March 15, 2009 at 2:08pm: Roger, the evidence is overwhelming. The fact that you are perhaps one of the few remaining active supporters of DU should tell you something.

Roger, let me ask you, do you support Bysphenol-A, MSG, Nutrasweet or GMO foods?

Roger, do you support war?

Are the terrorists out to get us?

Because Roger perhaps you didn't read this piece of editorial you've responded to. Perhaps you don't understand that we don't believe Iran and Nuclear capability spell danger. Iran would be suicidal to attack another country and hasn't done so, hasn't attacked any other countries in 1000 years. Only the US kills innocent people, quite historically.

Roger, most of the people on this site believe that the US is the greatest terrorist nation to have ever existed in recorded history.

Roger, most of the people on this site believe that those labeled Al-Qaeda, or insurgents are simply Freedom Fighters who have picked up arms against US Imperialism.

Roger, let me ask you, do you remember when people believed the earth was flat? Do you remember when DDT was thought to actually be good for you? US Government television commercials in the '50s espoused the benefits of DDT Roger. In fact most doctors in the '50s espoused the idea that cigarette smoking was just fine and not harmful. Today we know differently.

Roger, in 2001 most Americans thought there were Iraqi's in their closets hiding with incendiary devices ready to kill their children.

In 2009, well, we all know the score Roger.

Roger, this is, very basically, an anti-government web site. Almost every piece of editorial on it seeks to expose the government lies, the propaganda, the absolute fraud that disguises itself quite well as what we refer to as "politicians."

Roger, court cases about DU are meaningless to us. We don't seek to prove or disprove the harmful effects of DU. We believe, in our hearts, that DU, Bysphenol-A, Nutrasweet, Endocrine Disrupters and many other elements pushed by Big Pharma and the Corporate Military Industrial Complex, the US government, are harmful to humanity and not you or anyone or anything else will ever be able to adequately prove differently.

Roger, perhaps you should evaluate how you spend your time. I would venture to guess, from reading numerous web sites attached to Googling your name, that you have never, not once ever, convinced anyone that you are right and they are wrong. Your efforts are an exercise in futility. You argue one side, those you argue with take the other, and in so doing you never accomplish one single thing. Your goal is never met. Futility is the only way I can describe your efforts effectively. It's just silliness in the extreme.

Comment by Roger Helbig on March 15, 2009 at 6:44am: pmartin28 -

You have no emotions for the fact that you don't deal in facts and you intend to spread more lies about me. No one has died due to DU who was not killed by the direct impact or explosion of on board ammunition and fuel of a target tank and probably no one has been made sick. DU has been determined not to have anything to do with Gulf War Illness. I thus do not care about people that do not exist. I will bet that you can not name a single person who has proven that they have illness that directly results from their having been exposed to DU. I do not consider the UK court case to be conclusive since I have seen no evidence that the individual soldier was actually exposed to or contaminated with DU.

Comment by Roger Helbig on March 15, 2009 at 6:17am: Jeff,

How is it that you are certain that I am a fraud? You have never met me; you have never corresponded with me; you have merely read what my enemies have written about me. Only two of them have ever met me, and they never engaged me in conversation, just showed up as stooges for my next door neighbor. Neither, Moret nor Nichols, though, I expect was particularly happy to be dismissed by the Court Commissioner hearing the Small Claims case that the neighbor lost and then really lost on appeal, where the Superior Court judge told my neighbor that he had a "credibility problem". That is "judge speak" for I know you are lying in my court room and I suggest that you stop. You and your fellow bullies of this blog who are flooding it with false comments about me and who seem afraid to contact me directly and engage me in correspondence have as the judge so aptly put it "a credibility problem". You really know nothing about me other than that I vehemently oppose the lies about depleted uranium and the liars who tell them. You also apparently do not know that you have Uranium 238 in your own body and if measured by the means apparently used by Asaf Durakovic would be told that you have been contaminated with DU. When you have discussed this with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, then get back to me. I have nothing to hide and I am not hiding. I provide an e-mail address for direct communication; you have questions, ask me instead of just being a group bully; cowards need to gang up on people because they don't have the courage to do it alone.

DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

Comment by Jeff on March 14, 2009 at 10:47pm: I agree.

That said, I still feel strongly that there are many, many "Roger's" in the world and having one this close to me simply reminds me why I'm fighting this war.

Let's face it, it's unlikely any of us will ever get close to a Rockefeller, Kissinger, Obama, Rothschild, Cheney, Bush, or any of the players or their puppets.

Having Roger this close to me is just a great reminder, for me, of what it is that I dislike so vehemently about the fraudulent politicians that create havoc globally, kill innocent people, leave Depleted Uranium behind in their war theaters and do nothing on a global scale but destroy societies, families and peace.

So, in the end, Roger helps me focus. He keeps me active. He motivates me. As much as I dislike him, I welcome his presence.

Knowing he's a fraud, knowing he's misguided for whatever reason, whether he actually believes the crap he spews or not, knowing he's absolutely categorically incorrect is enough for me.

Comment by Jeff on March 14, 2009 at 7:16pm: I read it all, very interesting. But I like Roger, he's like having a big poster on my wall that reminds me each and every day what I hate the most about the world we live in!

Comment by illuminated-dj on March 14, 2009 at 7:05pm: at end of the day,roger is defending murdering scum,and defending what kind of weapons they use to do it,i think hes on the wrong site.

Comment by Jeff on March 14, 2009 at 6:22pm: What I like about this site is that I have the right to speak my mind.

Roger, you are a fraud, a worthless pawn being used by the people we, members of this site, hope to see banished from history one day. We, members of this site, fight people like you every day. You don't scare us, you don't threaten us. Your existence provides us with the strength we need to carry on. Your appearance on this site is GOOD for us. It strengthens us in every way. Because of you we have more strength each and every day. Stay here. Post your drivel. We need people like you to remind us of why we wake each day.

Comment by illuminated-dj on March 14, 2009 at 1:52pm: roger the fact that du is dangerous or not is irrelevant here,we all know the wars are started out of lies and deceit,most of us are here because of the people at the top who start the wars through lies,were not too fussed about the weapons they use,stop the illegal wars,stop the use of depleted uranium,simple

Comment by Roger Helbig on March 14, 2009 at 7:49am: Hanford is not contaminated by DU, which is naturally occuring Uranium 238, the most common naturally occuring isotope. It is contaminated by many other waste products, including solvents and other chemicals from Plutonium production to create the Nagasaki bomb. Even so, it probably is far less contaminated than your post implies and I doubt that you actually own any land there.

Comment by Roger Helbig on March 14, 2009 at 7:46am: pmartin28 - I strongly expect that you have violated the rules of this site with your copying material to another site and I have asked that you be removed. Good bye!

PS .. slander means that the material that you post is false - if I were you, I would get a good attorney to explain that to you - there is very little of what you had to say along with your charming way of describing me that is true - for example, Arbuthnot was being fed lies by Moret who was dug out of the internet by J. Fares, because we countersued him for harassment - he had no real defense for salting our lawn and destroying our property so he tried to use Moret and Nichols as a smokescreen - he lost the case, he paid up and a couple of weeks after we replaced the fence he tore down between our back yards, his wife kicked him out for domestic violence - you can read all about it at the link for the Contra Costa Superior Court at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us under Tell Me About My Case, using J. Fares, and you don't know either the case number of the year - you will find four cases involving him and my family - two for civil harassment and two for a sewer that he claims our tree destroyed when the life expectancy of a sewer line in Richmond (not Richardson - that's in Texas) California is 15 years and his was 50 years old and even though it is known to be leaking and thus contributing to polluting San Francisco Bay he has not replaced it yet - you and Fares would get along great pmartin28 - you both have little regard for the truth and have a colorful but otherwise quite rude manner and vocabulary.