David Sanger of the NY Times parrots the conventional wisdom on the latest Iran nuclear talks "breakthrough" (my emphasis):
VIENNA — Iranian negotiators have agreed to a draft deal that would delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
Under the tentative accord hammered out in international talks here, Iran agreed to ship about three-quarters of its known stockpile of nuclear fuel to Russia for conversion into a form it could use only in a peaceful nuclear reactor, participants in the negotiations said Wednesday. But the arrangement would still have to be approved by Friday in Tehran and Washington.
If Tehran’s divided leadership agrees to the accord, which Iran’s negotiators indicated was not assured, it will remove enough nuclear fuel from Iran to delay any work on a nuclear weapon until the country can replenish its stockpile of fuel, estimated to require about one year. As such, it would buy more time for Mr. Obama to try to negotiate a more comprehensive and more difficult agreement to end Iran’s production of new nuclear material.
Really? Maybe this is peace in our time!
The less enthusiastic among us may want to pause and reflect upon the message of the misunderstood and somewhat discredited National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 (excerpts). Briefly, a nuclear weapons program has several components. Iran needs to get uranium, establish its method for enriching it, design a nuclear warhead of an appropriate size for the delivery vehicle, and design the delivery vehicle. From the NIE (footnote 1):
...by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work;
So where is Iran on the weapons design and weapons delivery pieces of the puzzle? We don't know. Hypothetically, if they are two years away from completing (or acquiring) a weapons design and three years away from producing a missile that is up to standard, then a one year "delay" in acquiring a stockpile of enriched uranium won't delay their weapons program at all. As long as the three tasks can proceed in parallel, rather than sequentially, Iran can sacrifice year in the uranium enrichment part of the program and still have the uranium they need when the weapons design is completed in two years; of course, even that would be premature of the delivery vehicle is not yet ready.
So what is Iran's actual status? In May of 2009, John Kerry, writing as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, presented a report on Iran with an emphatic "Who knows?" on their weapons design:
Intelligence analysts and nuclear experts working for foreign governments agreed in interviews with committee staff that Iran had stopped its weapons work in late 2003. Some of these officials said in unclassified briefings that by that time, however, intelligence indicates Iran had produced a suitable design, manufactured some components and conducted enough successful explosives tests to put the project on the shelf until it manufactured the fissile material required for several weapons.Many have doubts about whether Iran has a design for aworkable nuclear warhead. In early March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that there is still time to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program. ``They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time,'' he said.
Per the Times of October 3, 2009 (David Sanger reporting), the IAEA thinks Iran has solved the design problems, but they are not sure:
Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.
The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.
But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.
As to the delivery system, Iran continues to test the Shahab-3 as well as other shorter-range missiles. Is the Shahab-3 suitable for a nuclear warhead? That's for Iran to know and the IAEA to find out - apparently Iran won't let the IAEA see the blueprints.
So does a one year delay in the acquisition of enriched uranium really delay an Iranian weapons program for one year? Maybe! Or maybe not, depending on unanswered questions about their design and delivery programs.
But in TimesWorld there are no remaining questions - Obama is on the verge of a mini-triumph that will "delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year". As long as we are only talking about the rich fantasy life of Times editors, that is fine. But if world leaders treat Iran as praiseworthy and trustworthy for delaying their nuclear program by a year when, in reality, Iran had other obstacles to overcome and does not consider this to be a delay at all, well, that is a problem.
BR, I'm having a bout of insominia. Burkhas are perfect. But we must consider the effect of the 25th Amendment on our circus:
When The Once gets canned, Biden steps up automatically, and Pelosi is next in line (being next in line will increase her prestige and hence her face will go back to being Frankenstein's monster, not MJ.) But the 25th Amendment allows Biden to nominate a new Veep, to be confirmed by joint vote of House and Senate.
But this misses a point. We've been assuming serial, sequential impeachments. But there's not Constitutional bar to impeaching all five of them at once, and trying to run the trials concurrently. In that case, Chief Justice Roberts would preside over The Once's trial, and Biden over Pelosi, Byrd, and Clinton. Who will preside over Biden's trial? The Constituiton is silent on this matter. The Constitution does give Congress, specifically the Senate, the right to judge its own trials. Practially, this means the majority party can always override the presiding officer. My bet is that Biden will be elected presiding officer in his own trial, to The Once's intense jealousy.
With luck we can rig the trials to convict all on the same day. This would give the Presidency to Bob Gates, to Eric Holder's intense jealousy.
That panting noise you hear is Barnum in the afterlife, struggling to get back and be the impresario for this show, truly The Greatest On Earth.
Posted by: Gregory Koster | October 23, 2009 at 04:21 AM
ROFWL! Oh, my goodness, what fun! I feel so alive and awake, too! We're making a thought-action together and it impinges on real life to form events. B&B are laughing with us :)
Posted by: BR | October 23, 2009 at 04:56 AM
Enriched uranium bomb is low-yield, extremely heavy, and could possibly be produced in Iran only at the rate of 1 unit per year. It is, in all practical terms, undeliverable weapon, and totally unsuited for offensive warfare.
Only plutonium warheads are truly offensive weapon, which could tip strategic balance in ME. Iran is actively pursuing plutonium program, but is decade away from any practical results. Hopefully, mad dog Ahmad will be blown into pieces by his internal enemies in much shorter time, and Iranians will be wise enough to exchange their crazy and wasteful nuclear ambitions for something useful. Like NG pipeline to China.
For pure practical purposes, do not count on Israel to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities in near future. It is not just worth the troubles.
Posted by: AL | October 23, 2009 at 05:22 AM
I simply think that Sarah is a Team Player---nothing more, nothing less. But for Team America, not for Team Republican's. I don't thinks she complicated. Remember Reagan, "We win, they lose". That's my opinion of Sarah. She is smart enough to understand her appeal, and when she can effectively use it to further both herself and true American Conservatives, she'll do it.
I truly hope she does the NY23 thing and fully rubs it in the eye of the Republican Frumster Leadership. Hard.
As for Oprah. Good luck Sarah. Let's see if you've done your homework. I am hopeful.
Posted by: daddy | October 23, 2009 at 06:16 AM
Rick (stupid question alert)
What's your definition of populism? I will also assume it is the definition of populism.
Daddy,
That's my impression of Sarah too. I am certainly not convinced she is gaming for political office. If you can make a living leading without all the trappings, why not? I'd rather be Rush than Obama.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 06:34 AM
Which /that
This guy can explain it very well. Since we have so many lawyers here, they have probably heard of him. If not, I commend him highly.
Posted by: peter (Lenten Sunday dispensation) | October 23, 2009 at 07:05 AM
Now some would say 'populism' does tend to degenerate into suspicion of banker, well in this climate, does Goldman, Fannie & Freddie, and zenophobia. That's the easy path, the Buchanan/Perot path. To stand up
for classical liberalism, what my Argentine
historian acquaintance, recognized is the
harder but more satisfying course.
Posted by: narciso | October 23, 2009 at 07:56 AM
WEll well well:
I don't know about hope, but this is really CHANGE [Michael Graham]
Obama's fundraiser in Boston today isn't sold out.
Tickets still available as local libs protest Obama's appearance. Wow.
Via the Corner
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 07:58 AM
Jane, you need to empty your purse and send all the pieces of green paper with pictures of dead white men on them to that fundraiser.
===============================
Posted by: Or maybe a cream pie facial. | October 23, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Yeah, that'l happen.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 08:21 AM
Hmmm.
The thing that I find curious is that on the one hand the Iranians are working on some extremely difficult stuff, engineering wise, in their nuclear weapons program. Refining uranium ain't easy and the design of a warhead that could withstand the g-forces of a rocket launch is beyond not easy.
But on the other hand these clowns, Iranians, are incapable of actually building even the simplest of advanced technology or even getting their current rockets to work right. Anybody remember that photoshopped image of several rockets launching? Where one rocket didn't actually launch and the image was retouched to make it look like it did?
That is fairly normal for Iran. Small arms, ammunition and the like is within their capabilities. But Iran has had a long history of announcing the domestic development of some sort of advanced weapon system that actually turned out to be an old Soviet or Russian weapon system that was repainted and renamed. Or had some idiot modification that meant nothing.
I seriously wonder if Iran's nuclear program is more of a Potemkin Village. Leave some traces of enriched uranium around. Build some facilities in secret and don't allow anybody near them. Make big claims.
Let's get real here. The Iranians are still trying to fly the old F-14 Tomcats they got during the Shah reign. And at that they can't manufacture all of the spare parts so they have to deal with the black market.
If you can't manufacture 1970's era turbine blades or landing gear, can you manufacture a suborbital nuclear tipped weapon?
Posted by: memomachine | October 23, 2009 at 08:56 AM
Enriched uranium bomb is low-yield, extremely heavy, and could possibly be produced in Iran only at the rate of 1 unit per year. It is, in all practical terms, undeliverable weapon, and totally unsuited for offensive warfare.
Nonsense. Pakistan's program initially relied exclusively on HEU weapons. They're a bit bulkier and clunkier, but they're still nukes. Besides, one has to evaluate the target's vulnerability. If the target is Israel--dense population centers in very limited land space--even a poor nuke capacity will do it. Moreover, once the nuke threshold is crossed, it becomes very difficult politically to hold the line on reactors that can produce plutonium.
If you can't manufacture 1970's era turbine blades or landing gear, can you manufacture a suborbital nuclear tipped weapon?
Well, the obvious rejoinder is that we couldn't create a reliable turbine in 1945 (nor were our rockets reliable for many years afterward). And the hardest part of a nuke is still the same: enrichment. Can they do it? Yes.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 23, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Rick, I would say that Palin is in the Montesquieu quadrant of your conservative box. What she is promoting is quite consistent with the free, boisterous commercial republic with a vigorous executive defending that republic from foreign enemies that Montesquieu promoted.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Jane,
I would not presume to offer the definition of populism any more than I would the definition of conservatism. My definition of populism is the granting of too high a value to the concept of vox populi, vox dei - Bryan's or Long's willingness to overturn precedent so that the "common man" might escape responsibility and consequence for having entered into formal contracts. There is a whiff of populism in Alaska's immediate distribution of most of the windfall from oil and gas royalty income in lieu of increasing reserves against the time when the windfall will be exhausted.
TC,
Montesquieu might well be satisfied by Sarah's actions, my point is that she appears to be operating on an ad hoc basis rather than on a basis informed by study of political philosophy. Her book may reveal a serious misjudgment on my part and I will cheerfully admit so should that prove to be true.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 23, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Interesting Rick, I need to think about it. Thank you.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Rick, I don't think Palin necessarily has an intellectual grasp of political philosophy in the sense that someone such as Ronald Reagan did (although, during his life, Reagan didn't get enough credit from the left or right side of the spectrum for his intellect). However, I do think Palin is a leader who can protect the Hume/Montesquieu/Kirk/Burke box from the Alinsky/Ayers/Wright/Streisand box better than any other politician today.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 23, 2009 at 01:04 PM
TC - shouldn't you be at the Westin protesting. You could hang out with those code pink people.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 01:47 PM
TC,
Agreed. Paul did not deny the possibility of salvation for those who had not heard the Word and CS Lewis was rather astute in his observations regarding the Tao. I have seen nothing in her actions which precludes the probability that she would act in accordance with what I understand to be natural law.
I'm as content with that observation as I am with supporting her. I was never surprised or disconcerted by any action taken by Bush and I doubt that I shall be by Palin. She is a "natural" in all the best sense of the word.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 23, 2009 at 02:03 PM
I didn't realize that Code Pink folks were protesting at the Westin, Jane. What is the topic of their dyspepsia today?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 23, 2009 at 02:12 PM
They want us out of Afghanistan. The gays are also expected to show up. It should be fun (you still have time to make it I'm sure).
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2009 at 02:20 PM
I would, except I have conference calls all day. Code Pink will have to do without me today.
Just as well. If I were there, I would be tempted to ask them what they think would happen to them if they carried on their protests in Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Russia.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 23, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Jane, I had a comment about Ø's visit in the "Good as it Gets" thread.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 23, 2009 at 02:48 PM