Reddit Reddit reviews Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare

We found 13 Reddit comments about Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
Middle East History
Iran History
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare
Check price on Amazon

13 Reddit comments about Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare:

u/lizzieb_23 · 17 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

SECOND

What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"

They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years

And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm


The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal

https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators

See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/

This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.

Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507


FINALLY

The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"

Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.

It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:

>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/

But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)

The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf

However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.

Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.

All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.

Iran has done all that too.

Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing



And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)

In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.

So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.

Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715

and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910

u/fdeckert · 12 pointsr/geopolitics

>He uses this to say that Iran didn't offer up anything new in the agreement from what they proposed in 2005.


He's hardly the only one who points out that Iran had been making BETTER compromise offers earlier on that were rejected by the US:

US Amb. Chas Freeman:

>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered.
http://chasfreeman.net/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/

British Sec of State Jack Straw
>“I’m absolutely convinced that we can do business with Dr Rouhani, because we did do business with Dr Rouhani, and had it not been for major problems within the US administration under President Bush, we could have actually settled the whole Iran nuclear dossier back in 2005, and we probably wouldn’t have had President Ahmadinejad as a consequence of the failure as well.”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-morrison-peter-oborne/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister

Even IAEA director ElBaradei:

> I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021

Instead:

>They weren’t interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but regime change – by any means necessary
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/

In fact there's a long line of Iranian offers that were rejected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/when-ahmadinejad-questions-the-1.html


In 2004 Iran suspended enrichment entirely for years as a good faith gesture; the US pressured the Europeans to not accept perfectly reasonable and legal Iranian offers:


>One witness puts the problem like this: “There was not the faintest chance that President George W Bush’s Republican advisers and Israeli allies would allow him to look benignly on such a deal. On the contrary, if the Europeans were to defy American wishes, they would be letting themselves in for a transatlantic row to end all rows.”So when they came back to the negotiating table one hour later they were studiously non-committal. They spoke highly of the Iranian offer, but asked for time so that their governments could consider it.

>And when Sir John Sawers took the Iranian offer back to London it was very quickly forgotten. According to Foreign Office sources, Tony Blair intervened to make sure that it went no further

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html

So the EU3 were basically lying to the Iranians and secretly in cahootz with the US:

>Thus, according to a cable leaked by WikiLeaks, Giannella explained during a visit to the US embassy in Brussels in December 2004 that, from an E3 perspective, ‘permanent cessation of all enrichment activities was non-negotiable, and that no other “objective guarantee” would suffice’. At the same time, she conceded that she had ‘never heard a single Iranian interlocutor even hint at the possibility of giving up the sacred “right” to develop and maintain a nuclear fuel cycle’. The ‘talks are buying time,’ she said.36 However, in the Paris Agreement, the E3 also explicitly recognized that suspension ‘is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation’, which from the Iranian perspective implied that Iran was entitled to conduct all fuel cycle activities.37
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/168617/EUNPC_no%2027.pdf

And ended up offering Iran an "empty box in pretty wrapping"

http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/PUB110805.pdf

At another point the US killed a deal after Iran had agreed to the same terms proposed by Obama just weeks earlier, causing the other parties to the negotiations to get ticked:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillary-mann-leverett/president-obama-should-be_b_592886.html

By then it became obvious that the real agenda was regime-change, and the 'nuclear threat' issue was just the cooked-up pretext, and that no matter what compromises Iran made the US would just increase demands -- like ElBaradei said above.

https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and

https://news.vice.com/article/the-great-iranian-nuclear-swindle

Also, remember that the sanctions were already being dismantled as EU courts had ruled them to be illegal
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-courts-insight/insight-how-european-courts-are-dismantling-sanctions-on-iran-idUSBRE96E0LS20130715

u/veganmark · 8 pointsr/SandersForPresident

This is fascinating, thank you! The election of Bernie Sanders is the best thing that could happen to U.S.-Iran relations.

Thanks to Israeli propaganda, most Americans don't understand that the Shiite peoples are non-aggressive, and only concerned to defend their national sovereignty - as opposed to Sunni fundamentalists, supported by the Saudis, who include the true jihadi terrorists. So-called Shiite "terrorists" are only defending their homelands.

My friend Jeremy Stone played a key role in opening scientific exchanges between the U.S. and Iran, before Ahmadinejad ascended to power and screwed this up. Jeremy is a friend of Foreign Minister Zarif, and speaks warmly of him. And Jeremy's foundation has commissioned the work of Gareth Porter, who wrote a book documenting that Iran never has had a nuclear weapons program: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459131754&sr=1-1&keywords=Gareth+Porter

I suspect that the Austrian artist, Karpour, who made that wonderful drawing of "Birdie", is of Iranian origin; do you know?: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebXh5qUEAA7wc0.jpg

u/tayaravaknin · 7 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

You spammed a lot of links, but tried to paper over the most important one.

>And the Dec 2015 IAEA report says nothing about a nuclear weapons program in Iran, just studies that were at worst "relevant to" nukes, but which didn't violate the NPT.

This is false. The IAEA concluded, based on limited inspections (which means more evidence of further research might be possible to find if not for the way the deal was structured), that:

>The Agency assesses that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assesses that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The Agency has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.

The IAEA therefore concluded that the same activities happening prior to 2003, related to a nuclear weapon, continued at least in part until at least 2009.

All the rest is bunk, as far as the possible military dimensions go. Iran was conducting weapons research until at least 2009.

Now I'll go through your articles:

>Actually no, the NIE is the judgment of all 16 (now 17) US intelligence agencies not just one agency, and it concluded that whatever nuclear weapons work existed in Iran ended before 2003.

No, it did not. It concluded initially that Iran appeared to have stopped in 2003, as of the NIE's 2007 report. But US reports post-2007 found that Iran had, at the very least, preserved the capabilities they had made intentionally. This was confirmed by foreign intelligence. That has been the IAEA assessment since 2011.

>Furthermore this book is states the claim that Iran had a weapons program pre-2003 was dismissed by German intelligence as fabricated: https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

Said book is by Gareth Porter, a reporter who has gone to great depths to try and defend Iranian actions at every turn. Porter doesn't have a history of credibility, since he has long been reflexively anti-US; he denied the Cambodian genocide, for example, and admitted it was because he just assumed the US was wrong. He has claimed the Syria chemical attack in Ghouta wasn't done by Assad, despite the UN itself affirming that it was. His claims about German intelligence are unverifiable and German intelligence has multiple times reaffirmed the threat of an Iranian bomb, should they choose to actively pursue anything beyond the design/testing stages.

>"With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran," an IAEA statement said. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

This is a misrepresentation. First of all, it's an outdated report from 2009. Second of all, the IAEA is saying as it has always said that it doesn't have proof that Iran is actively building a bomb. What it did have proof of was that Iran was designing weapons in ways specific to nuclear weapons, which it has confirmed.

>And Iran's repeated offers were not limited to just 2003 and 2013, there were many other cases of Iran making compromise offers that were ignored or rejected

>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/we-in-iran-dont-need-this-quarrel.html

>http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/when-ahmadinejad-questions-the-1.html

Your first link is to an op-ed by then-Iranian ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif. It's hardly a source that describes official policy, as op-eds are regularly used for foreign consumption. It specified only broad parameters for negotiations, and not "compromise offers", as you claimed. Indeed, Iran announced 6 days later that it had enriched uranium for the first time, intended to anger the US most likely. The US responded by saying that the UN should take action to tell Iran to stop its enrichment program, and Ahmedinejad said Iran would "never" stop enrichment.

Al-Monitor is a questionable site, since it has been accused of pushing a pro-Assad, pro-Iran line in the past. Nevertheless, the author is credible. He writes of Ahmedinejad's offer to discuss the 20% enriched uranium being exchanged. Thing is, the US was already considering negotiations and the P5+1 set up a framework.

When Iran came forward with a serious offer, it was debated and negotiations were set up. Not before.

>And I quoted IAEA head ELbaradei about how Iran had offered to limit is enrichment program but was ignored because the US was more interested in regime-change

ElBaradei was simply wrong; if the US was interested in regime-change, it would've done it under Bush a long time ago. Sure, the US might be interested in it, but the nuclear program was never going to be the reason given.

Indeed, Rouhani just admitted a day or two ago that Iran's government was so poor due to sanctions that before the deal, it could barely pay anything more than government salaries. If the US wanted regime-change, it would've let Iran collapse rather than struck a deal.

>And that at one point Iran even accepted the US demands during negotiations with Turkey and Brazil, but the US killed the deal after Iran had said yes. See my prior post for details, I won't repeat them here.

I looked through your links. I see nothing about Turkey and Brazil. I see an offer they made the EU, which the UK thought the US wouldn't have accepted and so it was never really brought up to the US at all.

That's it.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html

This mentions Brazil and Turkey. Maybe you meant this? This deal wasn't rejected by the US after it was accepted, it related to a deal to get nuclear fuel transported out. It didn't have anything to do with solving the question of enrichment, inspections, etc.

That deal has been criticized as worse than useless, and that article explains why the deal was essentially ignored:

>As David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, put it in a report, the deal was "not as attractive" as it had been seven months earlier. Back in October, removing 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium would have put a lid on Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. By May, that would still leave them with enough uranium, some of it already highly enriched, to proceed toward nukes with no obstacles.

Iran obfuscated on the issue. When they had the offer to get rid of enough uranium to prevent getting a bomb, and signal to the world that they'd be fine with that, they turned it down. Then they accepted the new deal, when they were sure it would leave them enough uranium to get a bomb if they wanted one.

You see how misleading that is?

>http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and (Note the author is a former National Security Council advisor and Iran specialist)

Gary Sick hasn't been involved in the National Security Council since the few weeks he was in Reagan's administration. He pushed conspiracy theories about the Iranian "October surprise", and had no inside knowledge or nuclear expertise. Please don't misrepresent your sources, who didn't address what I linked to above either.

>... the US may have even tried to plant evidence on Iran https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case

Even if this were true, and the allegations haven't been proven, they occurred in 2000. That has no relevance to the huge amount of evidence the IAEA received, and shows only a tiny piece. The IAEA relied on spy data from multiple countries as well as their own data.

The alleged doctoring of a few documents would not affect the overall conclusions.

>And as US Ambassador Chas Freeman has written

The ambassador who failed to get appointed during Obama's administration because he is a disgrace who blamed the "Israel lobby" for his failure to get the job, who became essentially a client of Saudi Arabia and China, and who claimed Israel runs US policy in the Middle East (despite that clearly not being the case with Obama) and despite AIPAC not even taking a position on his nomination?

That Chas Freeman?

He has no idea what happened with Iran; that wasn't his purview in the slightest. His believed "deal" on Iran being better in 2005 is baseless.

>And Iran's offers were already pretty detailed but in any case the point is that Iran was in fact willing to negotiate but was stymied. Sure, not all the details had been worked out before the negotiations, that is supposed to happen in negotiations

When they were willing to negotiate, negotiations happened.

u/rogersiii · 3 pointsr/worldpolitics

Paul Pillar explains why Israel sees Iran as a competitor http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-real-subject-netanyahus-congressional-spectacle-it-isnt-12337

Israel wants the US to go to war against Iran for it, or at least to make sure the two don't get along, because then Israel would not be as important if they do get along.

Here is an award-winning book explaining precisely that: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

So, pro-Israeli lobbyists have been active for quite a while in the US to push their agenda to start a US-Iran war, :

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

just as they pushed for the US invasion of Iraq

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

Remember, when the US decided to recognize Communist China, the non-Communist Taiwanese -- who until then were considered the legal govt of China by some -- were kicked to the curb. Many American foreign policy experts believe that in dealing with Iran, the US should "go to China" as President Nixon did by recognising and accepting Iran as a reality http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/if-nixon-can-go-to-china-20130303

But Israel doesn't want to be a third wheel. Iran has 80 million potential consumers of US goods and services as well as a growing well-educated middle class -- while Israel keeps getting the US into trouble and drags her down like ball and chain into a quagmire of war and ethnic cleansing. If the US and Iran get along, who needs Israel?

The Saudis are similarly concerned. They don't want to return to the days of the Shah when Iran was the "policeman of the Persian Gulf"

Also, the "Iran threat" is very useful for Israeli politicians who want to pretend to be the great defenders of Israel though in private they don't feel all that threatened. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859

Nuclear weapons "capability" is a bullshit scaremongering term, which they're using because they don't have any actual evidence of any actual weapons so they frame it as "capabilities".

In fact 40 nations already have a nuclear weapons capability, and this is simply because civilian and military nuclear technology is the same not because 1 out of 4 nations on the planet plan on making nukes. Beware of this "capability" weasel language. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8V0ezWHGCYAJ:www.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

People just assume that Iran must want the bomb but that's just an assumption

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

And note who these authors are who say that Iran's nuclear program is not in breach of international law http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

But the US wants to keep the "Iranian nuclear threat" alive, since it is a convenient pretext to try to topple their government, just as "WMDs in Iraq" was just as a lie and a pretext to invade Iraq.

http://www.reddit.com/r/iranpolitics/comments/2xih2d/iran_offer_to_cut_centrifuges_by_a_third_led_to/cp0ed8x

Read more about Iran's nuclear program here http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425173705

u/BobTaft · 3 pointsr/worldevents

I disagree thouroughly. There has been a tremendous disinformation campaign used against Iran and mostly instigated by Israel.

Read these books by the historian, Gareth Porter

Here is an article about one of Porter's books

and "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare"

read some of this journalism before believing Mr. Clapper who we know is in the habit of lying under oath.

u/tocano · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

This is nonsense. The Ayatollah and those in power in Iran (and most middle eastern states), are just as self-interested as other people. I suspect that what they want, more than anything, is to maintain their power. That's why they always encourage others to go carry out such attacks why they themselves sit in luxury and protection. It's the same as with war-hawk politicians, advocating other people's kids sign up for the military. Plus, they KNOW that it would look horrible in the international community to start threatening to throw nukes around. It would invite more sanctions and possibly even preemptive attack - something they most certainly don't want.

And remember that they have used this "MAD doesn't apply to them" several times now. They dismissed MAD theory at first because communists were so "dedicated". Then they said that China didn't care about MAD because they had so many people the politicians didn't care if they lost 3/4 of them. Then they said that MAD wouldn't apply to India/Pakistan because there was such hatred there. Now they claim that MAD doesn't apply to Muslim extremists because they all just want to die anyway.

Plus, this all presumes that they're actively pursuing nukes, which much evidence says they're really not.

Lastly, I find it rich that this Republican is accusing his own Republican-led committee of misrepresenting (if not lying) in a Congressional report. If that doesn't tell you that neither party can be trusted, I don't know what does.

u/rogersII · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Theres a great book on al this:

http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406506670&sr=8-1&keywords=porter+manufactured+crisis

Any nuclear program can be used to make nukes in the indefinite future. Right now 40 countries coud make nukes if they wanted.
http://www.rense.com/general43/nations.htm

Iran's nuclear program actually started at the behest of the USA http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html

Thus far no evidence of any nucear weapons program has ever been found in Iran, which is why the US now phrases the issue in terms of "intention to obtain capabilities" - since conveniently there is no way to PROVE that something can't happen in the indefinite future so Iran is always "on the hook" no matter what it does. Iran even suspeded the enrichment of uranium for 3 years

See, the "Iranian nuclear threat" is a cooked-up pretext, that's all.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/21/iaea-conduct-complicates-iran-nuclear-deal/

This was the same shit they pulled with the invasion of Iraq - even when the Iraqis filed a 12000 page declaration proving they didn't have WMDs anymore, the US accused them of lying just by filing such a large document - but the US was careful to first remove the pages that implicated US and Western countries in Saddam's WMD program. http://www.projectcensored.org/3-us-illegally-removes-pages-from-iraq-un-report/

See, it really doesn't make a difference if there's any actual proof -- not if you can just say it over and over again until it becomes "true" and people repeat it. And the media help sell this bullshit.

u/ralpher · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

You have to understand that the US dispute with Iran is not and never was really about 'nuclear weapons' --- just like the US dispute with Iraq was not really about "WMDs in Iraq" -- that was just the BS fed to the public to justify the plans to topple the regimes there http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

That was just a pretext, and justification for an entirely different policy of imposing regme change in those countries.

There is in fact no evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, and Iran's nuclear program is perfectly legal.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

All countries are equal, legally, and so all countries can make nukes if they want. There is no law of nature that says the US can but not Argentina or Iran. Most of the countries of he world including Iran agreed to forego that right, in exchange for certain promises from the countries that already had nukes (these promises have been ignored or violated by the nuclear-armed states.) This bargain was made in the NonProliferation Treaty. However that treaty itself says that the countries are free to withdraw from it if they feel the need to do so, and can go back to having the option ot make nukes.

There is another issue here with respect to Iran: the right to enrich uranium and have the technology to be self-sufficient in nuclear power. The US says this is dangerous because the same technology "could be" used to make nukes, and it wants to limit the number of nations that can enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is a necessary step in making reactor fuel, as well as potentially bombs. Other nations -- particularly developing nations -- say the US is out to create a cartel of nuclear fuel providers, and is using the "nuclear threat" as a pretext to dominate the sole source of energy in the post-oil world. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/bush-proposals/

u/tinlizzey12 · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

There is a lot of deliberate misinformation as well as plain ignorance in the reporting since this is a highly polarized and legal/technical area. I suggest this book:

Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare by Gareth Porter http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

More
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-myths-about-irans-nuclear-enrichment-program.html


But yes, the US encouraged Iran to go nuclear in the first place, back in the 1970s. Since then Iran's population has tripled, its oil production has halved, and it burns half of that at home instead of exporting it.

http://iranaffairs.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/15_billion_deal.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/14/opinion/14iht-edsahimi_ed3_.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Note that the US doesn't accuse Iran of actually having a nuclear weapons program, but of "intending to obtain the capability" to make nukes. This is neither illegal nor rare, but is inevitable in having a nuclear energy program. As a former IAEA inspector explained:

>And so, clearly Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286


The "Iran nuclear threat" is actually just a pretext to try to impose regime change in Iran just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a lie and pretext.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/

u/agfa12 · 1 pointr/askaconservative

Claims that Iran blocked legally-required inspections were denied by even the IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKRA15680720070511

So lets see, that's ELBaradei, Blix, and even Amano (who had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks) say Iran is not making nukes

And actual arms inspectors

>Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286 And 5 European ambassadors to Iran say that too http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

And actual nuclear experts http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2014/06/18/what-is-the-quality-of-scientific-evidence-against-iran/

Oh and the actual international community also says it http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/

Nonaligned states protest Israeli attacks on IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/22/us-nuclear-iaea-nonaligned-idUSL2187147520071122

The US has been pushing some documents as proof that Iran supposedly engaged in nuclear-related studies (Called the "Alleged Studies" by the previous IAEA director, and "Possible Military Dimensions" by the new, US-backed IAEA director) until 2003 however the evidence -- to the extent the US has actually let anyone including the IAEA or Iran to see -- has been laughed at http://www.ips-dc.org/whipping_wisps_into_storm_clouds_iran_and_the_alleged_studies/

There have also been a variety of half-baked leaks of "proof" of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, for example the "AP Graph" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb which turned out to be a hoax http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation as was the general quality of the scientific evidence against Iran http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1205/Flawed-graph-weakens-case-against-Iran-nuclear-program-video

The US had even pressured the IAEA to accept these documents as proof against Iran, but the IAEA refused, and the IAEA director Elbaradei called the allegations "hype" leading to some in Congress to accuse the IAEA of "censoring" the reports and hiding a "Secret Annex" http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/05/iaeas-man-in-dc-no-secret-annex-on-iran/ which proved Iran's nuclear weapns program's existence. The Israelis even accused the IAEA head Elbaradei of being an "Iranian agent" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146150,00.html.

The US went after Elbaradei, http://no.alt.diskusjoner.usa.narkive.com/dCbdwInF/jakten-pa-elbaradei including tapping his telephones http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57928-2004Dec11.html.

The IAEA replied that charges of it censoring info on Iran are "baseless and politically-motivated" http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917 and that there was still no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

But once the new US-backed IAEA Director, Amano, came into office after a highly contested election http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/26/us-nuclear-iaea-election-idUSTRE52O7P220090326 in which he had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks, and http://www.ips-dc.org/current_chief_of_iaea_releases_its_brakes_on_rush_to_war_with_iran/

Amano released the so-called "Secret Annex" that the previous iAEA director had refused to endorse, which supposedly proved everything about Iran's nuclear weapons program -- but despite the pre-release hype, it turned out to be a dud that didn't say anything new, and actually showed the evidence against Iran was "thin" as a former IAEA inspector concluded http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1109/Iran-nuclear-report-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all

Later, the trial of a CIA whistleblower showed that the CIA may have even been planting evidence in Iran, so it could frame Iran http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case This book is all about that http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

In short, the previous US policy of trying to use the exaggerated threat of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program as a pretext and justification for a policy of imposing regime-change in Iran, was a giant backfiring fiasco. It only led to Iran's further development of its nuclear program which now the US has to negotiate down, and also created a nationalistic backlash in Iran, where the vast majority of poeple support their governments position. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php

And actually Iran had been making BETTER offers that the US ignored

>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered. http://lobelog.com/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/

u/cancerous_176 · 1 pointr/Documentaries

Gulf of Tonkin 1967: McNamara knew it was a mistake before LBJ used it as an excuse to escalate. Daniel Ellsberg’s firsthand account from inside the Pentagon: http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/excerpt-ellsberg-memoir/2/
(Gareth Porter says Mac kept the truth from LBJ: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/05/how-lbj-was-deceived-on-gulf-of-tonkin/ )

Cold War’s End 1988-1991: CIA so busy lying about Soviet power under Casey and Gates, they missed the USSR’s fall. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21487-no-tears-for-the-real-robert-gates

Iraq War I: 1990-1991: Lied about Iraqi preparations to invade Saudi, Iraqi forces murdering babies https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

Kosovo: 1999: Lied about 100,000 Albanian Muslims slaughtered by Serbs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

Afghanistan: 2001: Lied that Taliban wouldn’t give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Iraq War II 2003: Lied that Iraq was making WMD, including nuclear weapons, was allied with al Qaeda https://medium.com/dan-sanchez-blog/16-articles-that-expose-how-they-lied-us-into-war-in-iraq-bedf2e47c0bc

Somalia 2006: The Islamic Courts Union government was not truly in league with al Qaeda as claimed https://www.thenation.com/article/blowback-somalia/

Libya 2011: Lied that there was an impending genocide in Eastern Libya https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/

Syria 2013: No Slam Dunk on al Qaeda false-flag sarin attack, they finally admit much later
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/10/neocons-red-faced-over-red-line/

Iraq War III 2014: Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar did not need rescuing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2014/08/13/5fdd3358-2301-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?utm_term=.b2834d3b716b

Yemen 2015: Not really bad intel, but notably knew war would be “long, bloody and indecisive,” launched it anyway, just to “placate the Saudis.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-us.html

—Hasn’t led to war yet, but they’ve been lying for years about Iran’s intent and actions to make nuclear weapons, which never existed. https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338 https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/ CIA did finally admit this was so in 2007 https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/20071203_release.pdf

Older phony casus belli:

1812: Impressment of sailors was the excuse when the Democrats really just wanted to seize Canada. https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/19/1812-the-war-partys-first-success/

1846: Mexico: U.S. invaded, called it defense from the Mexicans https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions

1861: Civil War: Keeping Ft. Sumpter open after South Carolina secession was a provocation. (Everyone’s got a different opinion about this one.)

1620-Current: Indian wars: Paid Napolean for the land. God says we can. And they started it anyway. http://users.humboldt.edu/ogayle/hist110/unit3/indians.html

1898: Spain: Remember the Maine was an accidental fire which spread to the magazine. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Maine.1898.pdf

1898: Philippines: Must Christianize these Catholics. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/blackboard/mckinley.html

WWI: Lusitania was a deliberate provocation, Zimmerman telegram threat of German-Mexican invasion of U.S. Southwest was a ridiculous joke. https://www.amazon.com/Lusitania-Colin-Simpson/dp/0582127076 https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann

WWII: Pearl Harbor: FDR Knew. https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299

Korea: Syngman Ree’s forces’ provocations preceded Northern invasion https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

u/thelasian · 1 pointr/changemyview

CONTINUED


The significance of this is not in the details of the nuclear deal itself, but in that the US and Iran are POSSIBLY finding ways to get along rather than continuing towards a conflict.

That's why there are many forces opposed to such a deal and insist that the US and Iran should not be talking but that the US should be attacking Iran instead, including Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US which has been pushing for a war for a while now.

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

There are others who say that the US should not listen to the Israelis and should instead "Go to Iran" just as Nixon "went to China" and decided to open up relations with those countries rather than continue the emnity.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

So you see the nuclear issue is not really about nukes but is just a part of a larger political dispute. There are no Iranian nukes just as there were no Iraqi WMDs.

To make up for the lack of evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program in the past, the issue is instead framed as concern about Iran's "capability" to make nukes in the indefinite future.

In reality, Iran's "capability" to make nukes is hardly unique -- 40 nations were already capable of quickly making nukes if they wanted to, back 10 years ago. More now, presumably.

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html

That's because the "capability" to make nukes comes with becoming technologically developed, not because these 40 nations want to make nukes. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There is a significant difference: the capability to make nukes is not illegal but the media coverage obfuscates this significant difference. In fact the NonProliferation Treaty is actually also intended to promote nuclear technology (which has to be shared "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination") -- thus having the "capability" to make nukes is not a violation of the NPT but actually an inevitable part of following the NPT.

The US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that while Iran was engaged in "nuclear-related studies" until 2003 (for which the actual evidence is very questionable - more below) there's no sign they're interested in nukes now -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

a conclusion that the Israelis agreed with, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

The Russians noted there was no evidence of nukes either http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/10/iran.russia

There's no reason to just assume that Iran wants nukes either http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There's zero evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, ever.

>Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php

According to IAEA Director Elbaradei:

> I have been making it very clear that with regard to these alleged studies, we have not seen any use of nuclear material, we have not received any information that Iran has manufactured any part of a nuclear weapon or component. That’s why I say, to present the Iran threat as imminent is hype. http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2009/10/elbaradei-interview-language-of-force.html

And

>With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

and

>The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article28114.ece

Even the new, US-backed IAEA Director

>The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms. "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703



and lets remember that Iran has bent over backwards and has actually allowed more inspections than legally required, in addition to suspending enrichment of uranium entirely for more than 2 years in the past, and currently.
> "Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it

Claims that Iran blocked legally-required inspections were denied by even the IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKRA15680720070511

So lets see, that's ELBaradei, Blix, and even Amano (who had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks) say Iran is not making nukes

And actual arms inspectors

>Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286 And 5 European ambassadors to Iran say that too http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

And actual nuclear experts http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2014/06/18/what-is-the-quality-of-scientific-evidence-against-iran/

Oh and the actual international community also says it http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/

Nonaligned states protest Israeli attacks on IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/22/us-nuclear-iaea-nonaligned-idUSL2187147520071122

The US has been pushing some documents as proof that Iran supposedly engaged in nuclear-related studies (Called the "Alleged Studies" by the previous IAEA director, and "Possible Military Dimensions" by the new, US-backed IAEA director) until 2003 however the evidence -- to the extent the US has actually let anyone including the IAEA or Iran to see -- has been laughed at http://www.ips-dc.org/whipping_wisps_into_storm_clouds_iran_and_the_alleged_studies/

There have also been a variety of half-baked leaks of "proof" of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, for example the "AP Graph" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb which turned out to be a hoax http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation as was the general quality of the scientific evidence against Iran http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1205/Flawed-graph-weakens-case-against-Iran-nuclear-program-video

Later, the trial of a CIA whistleblower showed that the CIA may have even been planting evidence in Iran, so it could frame Iran http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case This book is all about that http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

In short, the previous US policy of trying to use the exaggerated threat of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program as a pretext and justification for a policy of imposing regime-change in Iran, was a giant backfiring fiasco. It only led to Iran's further development of its nuclear program which now the US has to negotiate down, and also created a nationalistic backlash in Iran, where the vast majority of poeple support their governments position. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php

And actually Iran had been making BETTER offers that the US ignored

>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered. http://lobelog.com/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/