It’s hard to trust the details of the New York Times report this evening (linked on top of Drudge), A Nuclear Debate – Is Iran Designing Warheads, because, well, it’s the New York Times and they no longer have much of a reputation for accuracy in reporting. Moreover, one of the keys to article is the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the 2007 NIE report on Iran that the Times then, among others, swallowed, hook, line and sinker, as Ron Rosenbaum points out.
Nevertheless, the crux of the situation is supposedly this: The Germans, the French and the Israelis, in varying degrees, think the Iranians are at work on a nuclear warhead, but the CIA is more doubtful. All this against the background of the “sudden” (although apparently well known for some time) revelation that the Iranians have a second (of who knows how many) enrichment plants in (or almost in) operation. Into the mix as well is the hope (note that word) of our President that the Israelis can be convinced of the veracity of the American view – that the Iranians are still a ways off from blowing Tel Aviv to smithereens – and restrain themselves from attacking the Iranian installations.
Well, what’s a poor boy to make of all this (but sing in a rock and roll band)? I sure don’t know, but I have one simple, perhaps too simple, question: Why would the Iranians have to design a nuclear warhead for themselves in the first place? Why couldn’t they just get one from somebody (North Koreans, friendly Pakistanis… who knows who else?)? Or just take somebody’s existing plans and adapt them. It’s not exactly the newest technology in the world. If you were telling me the Iranians were going to build their own iPhone, I would roll my eyes, but this?
Anyway, I think we’re all going to be hearing more of this debate in the days to come. But unfortunately, it’s hard to know when we’re being spun on these matters, although we can assume we are. Reading these kinds of articles in the NYT can make your head spin, but at least this one quotes a few real people by name. Not everyone is an “unnamed intelligence official” or a “source close to someone or other.” An improvement.





PJM Home




Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. Steve:I hope the Iranian government is overthrown by the green revolution in the next few months. If not, I hope Israel mounts an attack in cooperation with France, Germany and Saudia Arabia. We are so unfortunate to have Obama as president.
Sep 28, 2009 - 8:32 pm 2. AQUA:Here’s the question — what MORE could we possibly be doing to encourage and give the Crazy Mullahs and Crazy A’Jad more reason to continue with their devil plans than we are now? All that’s left is to say, “Hey, guys, we’ll supply the warheads ourselves!”
Victor Davis Hanson’s column, “The Past is Not Quite the Past” is so to the point regarding Russia.
What reason on earth would Thug Putin have to help us and not support Iranian ambitions? Huh? What? Because they’re really nice guys after all and have just been misunderstood by evil us?
From the Russian Thug point of view, they have everything, everything to GAIN from our “troubles” with Iran. Are they suddenly going to “realize” that good makes good, and that helping the U.S. would be helping themselves? Hahahahaha!
They built the damned Iranian nuke plants — doesn’t that say “something” about where they stand (and where their black hearts lie)? What the hell is wrong with those who think Russians could be our “allies” to stand against Iran? I’m so sick of hearing this discussed on TV as if it weren’t an insane idea. Of course the Russians will “say” this and “say” that. Why not delay outright confrontations when it doesn’t harm them to do so? How can there be such downright dumbness as to take their little mumblings as “positive signs?”
Doesn’t anyone notice that there are a dearth of nations aligned against us — all “helping” each other — to which we keep showing the palms of our hands and believing they’ll love us after all — because of The Redeemer Obama?
Notice that Obama almost always says the exact opposite of what he means. When he said, “the powerful should not and cannot dominate the weak” — he meant the opposite. He will encourage Russia to dominate Eastern Europe, Iran to dominate the Middle East, Venezuela to dominate the likes of Honduras, Colombia — and on and on. Clearly, he loves dictators and tyrannical governments dominating weaker ones, and their own people. Clearly. Just watch what he “does” — and listen to what he “says” to find the opposite — which is what he “means.” He should be called “President Opposite.”
And Europe is going to enjoy Schadenfreude-ing the U.S. and Jew-Hating themselves right into Hell — right along with us. We are all standing on the precipice.
Sep 28, 2009 - 11:44 pm 3. ahem:Roger, reading the NYT is bad for your mental health. Assume everything they print is a lie.
Sep 29, 2009 - 6:37 am 4. ricpic:Israel must launch. Iran will be happy to talk forever. How does that stop them? Only force will stop Iran. And only Israel has the will to use force. So Israel must launch. Soon.
Sep 29, 2009 - 7:29 am 5. Donna:Roger, I read your blog faithfully and always watch Polliwood but never comment. Partly because by the time I’ve read the other comments I find someone else has said what I would have, only better.
So this is just to say “thanks.” Especially for your wry sense of humor (I just love your use of parenthesis). It helps to read such serious comments with a little humor thrown in.
And I like that you’re willingness to mention your Jewish heritage. Not being Jewish, I’m sensative to stereotyping, but I’ll just stereotype anyway and say Jews have great talent in that field. (Although the Brits are pretty good at wry humor also).
Thanks again for always making me smile, or chortle (through my tears!)
Sep 29, 2009 - 8:48 am 6. Professor Guvinoff:I have long spun my wheels without enriching much of anything, but on the other hand, I am not reading the New York Times, so I cannot tell whether the outcome would be better if I had.
Whatever we hear these days escapes reasonable synthesis. Iran is not ready for the fireworks, Iran is ready for the fireworks, Iran is almost ready for the fireworks, Israel will stop them, Israel will not stop them, Obama will use his Midas touch to render the stoppage unnecessary, Obama will precipitate the fireworks! Journalistic schizophrenia, that all we’ve got!
All I feel safe to say is that Israel does not have a death wish. Even the Israeli left supports Nethanyahu! Did anyone predict this? I suppose Israel will quietly try very hard to convince Obama to get serious (no leaks, because no plumbers), and then take care of business themselves if that’s the only option he leaves them with.
Who knows, the Iranian street will preempt Israel by removing the pedestal from under the mullahs first?
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:12 am 7. chuck:In the meantime, We the People can keep making history and enjoy the spectacle of Barney Frank beating olympic records running away from ACORN at the speed of light.
We can’t trust the CIA because it has been contaminated by politics and is as likely to serving political ends as providing intelligence. Same with the NY Times, same with Fannie Mae, same with …
There is a pattern here.
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:25 am 8. cfbleachers:Wow, now my feelings are hurt. I can’t post a comment on Roger’s thread…I am immediately and consistently sent to the spam filter.
Sep 29, 2009 - 4:24 pm 9. Robin Goodfellow:As far as I can tell, only one nuclear weapons program was halted for a reason other than that the country undertaking it made the choice to stop, and that is Iraq’s (interrupted by the first and second gulf wars). Even Libya’s program was halted voluntarily (albeit due to fears brought on by the invasion of Iraq). Given the current Iranian regime’s hard-line position on the matter our options are extremely likely to be limited to the following three choices:
1. Live with a nuclear, mullahcratic Iran.
Sep 30, 2009 - 1:54 am2. Hope and pray for spontaneous regime change (which has a high chance of failing, necessitating options number 1 or 3).
3. Bomb the ever-loving crap out of Iran in order to either/both: a. convince them to stop, b. severely damage their weapon making ability.