How did such a patently bogus article get through the editors at ABC news?
Seriously, the article has one source, and one source alone that says an Iranian nuke could be possible by 2009. And what does this one source base this completely unrealistic claim on? 1,000 new centrifuges Iran is installing at Natanz, which the articles notes, are not even operational.
As David Albright says, "If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."
But if you go back and look at the record and see how long it has taken for Iran to get where they are you realize what garbage this article is. We've been expecting Iran to install 3,000 centrifuges for some time. And now that they've installed 1/3 that number we're going to blow it up into a crisis? First it was 3,000 centrifuges that make up the red line, now it's 1,000?
Please. This is nothing more than disinformation, a well timed leak doled out to Ross and ABC. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Update 11:12PM Central Time: I just watched the Brian Ross investigative report at ABCNews.com and I cannot begin to tell you how shoddy and sensationalistic it is. Watch it for yourself. It really doesn't get any worse than this. Every single claim in the video hinges on one major "IF."
"If they can get the centrifuges to work . . ." Did you get that? Exactly: the centrifuges don't even work! How outrageous is that? Scare us to death with the prospect of mad Iranian nukes in the region when the technology they have doesn't even work.
Pathetic and shoddy and meant only to excite our emotions.
originally posted at the Huffington Post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 11
Good article....thanks
1) would they be willing to use them against other countries like Isreal or one that had US citizens or troops in it? Yes.
2) Would they use it to push agendas that could cause danger or worse ot other peoples around the world? Yes
3) would they be willing to seel said Missiles to groups like Al-Quada? Yes
Those should be the quwestions you are looking at, and not bypassing them for the IFs.
2.) Would they be willing to use nukes to further their agenda? Well, don't we use the threat of nukes to further our agenda? Didn't we do so during the Cold War--it's called deterrence. D'oh!
3.) No, they would not sell WMD to Al Qaeda. The Iranians are Shi'a and Al Qaeda are Sunni. They are mortal enemies. Of course, you wouldn't know this for all the propaganda we get from the Bush Admin about Iran.
No Countries like ours and many of the European countries, I would agree, but you are missing a very important point here. These are not rational governments. They would not think that way, they would look do hit not military targets, but places where the most people could be killed driving social fear into the country.
2.) Would they be willing to use nukes to further their agenda? Well, don't we use the threat of nukes to further our agenda? Didn't we do so during the Cold War--it's called deterrence. D'oh!
No again look to my comment to one.
3.) No, they would not sell WMD to Al Qaeda. The Iranians are Shi'a and Al Qaeda are Sunni. They are mortal enemies. Of course, you wouldn't know this for all the propaganda we get from the Bush Admin about Iran.
Bull crap. They have been known to give aid to many of the terror oganizations, this was even stated during the Clinton reign, but because Bush is now saying the same thing, it becomes a lie. Why is it that when Clinton, or a Democrat says this, he is telling the truth, but when anyone else says it, it quickly becomes a lie. Your points are weak, and without any support.
You can assert all you like that my points are weak and without any support, but I've been there. I know how Iranians think and act. Regardless of what you think you know this isn't about Bush or Clinton--who is, by the way, the ultimate trump card for all irrational arguments--it's about how to protect our soldiers in Iraq and prevent an even worse fiasco than the one we already have.
You didn't answer my question: Would they be willing to use nukes to further their agenda? Well, don't we use the threat of nukes to further our agenda? Show me the courtesy of answering my question as I have answered all three of yours.
Lastly, if you think Iran would sell nukes to Al Qaeda you are quite foolish indeed. Al Qaeda would just as soon turn around and nuke Tehran before they would waste a nuke on us.