Everyone is talking about Jim Lobe's post on a recent report justifying war on Iran, crafted by Michael Rubin of AEI and Michael Makovsky (who Lobe says worked for Doug Feith to manipulate the intelligence on Iraq and had emigrated to Israel in 1989; no dual loyalty problem there, huh?). But the concern is not All the Usual Suspects. It is that Dennis Ross, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Barack Obama, also signed on to the report.
Scott McConnell calls Ross a "soft neocon" and is troubled by the report. So am I. Jack Ross (no relation) seeks to allay:
Any doubt that Ross is going the way of Pollack and O'Hanlon [i.e., liberal hawks who have planted both feet in the dustbin of history] is dispelled by Lobe's excellent delineation of just how many neocon usual suspects are tied to the game Dennis Ross is playing. Indeed, therefore, what he's doing is just too obvious for Obama to go in for it.
Here's hoping. Ross also sends along this attack ad against Dennis Shulman, a Democrat who is likely to become the first ordained rabbi to serve in Congress-- from Northwest N.J. Shulman appeared at an antiwar rally with Cindy Sheehan and has called for talking to Iran and Hamas. You go, boy. How nice to see an antiwar Jewish guy in our politics. After having to watch Schumer, Wiener, Berman and Lieberman all these years...
Finally, Jack Ross says: "Another important point to mention about Colin Powell's remarks were that he heroically said: 'And so what if Obama were a Muslim? Do we want a Muslim-American boy or girl to hear that and think they can never be President? That's not America.'" My country tis of thee!
Ross is about as grise an eminence as you can get, though Martin Indyk runs him close. So polite, so reasonable, and yet always so mobbed up.
The good cops; they're like Witties to Eliot Cohen's SOG. The pretence of inner conflicts in a hotbed of narrow conformity.
just wiki-ed dennis ross. jewish mother. probably everyone here knew already. i just had to check. is this anti-semitic? i feel semi-guilty for posting this…
peters
isn't it the neocons themselves that say 'know thy enemy'? Irving Kristol spelled it out years ago, when he defined statesmanship as the art of knowing one's enemies (when surely to anyone not twisted by a fearful ethnocentrism, statesmanship consists of attempts to make even enemies friends, or at least not enemies anymore)
Per Kristol, the stance of the US, typified and encouraged by it's Zio-dominated media and Congress, is to be suspicious of anyone with an Arab name or colouring, or a Muslim headdress, or even anyone who knows such people, or who has ever associated with them , or even driven their cars or mown lawns for them. Crikey, even the next President is fair game for having the temerity to have been given an Muslim middle name by his parents.
But we can't identify potential fifth column Israel-firsters in our own governments, oh no. Anti-semitism apparently.
This can only end in tears.
peters, don't feel bad. Everyone has had to go through the same stages. Our society has lost the ability to discuss Jewishness in an adult manner and it is a difficult process regaining it.
Now that you know that Dennis Ross is a Jewish Zionist who was originally employed at AIPAC, you can ask yourself what the hell was such a person doing as the negotiator at the Israel-Palestine peace talks. And then you can ask how the U.S. can pretend to be an "honest broker."
the conditioning is really deep isn't it? i have been posting about this yet i fall prey to it.
Even more worrisome: Ivo Daalder.
*Uggghhh*
FROM MARIN COUNTY, CA:
McCain surrogate tells Dominican students to prepare for war with Iran in next four years
by Richard Halstead
A Republican charged with representing the views of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain told Dominican University students Thursday that war with Iran in the next four years is inevitable.[SNIP]
"Let me assure you of this," Grayson said after the student presentation on foreign policy. "The next president, whether it is Senator Obama or John McCain, will go to war, and he will go to war with Iran.
"They are very busy developing nuclear weapons. They will use those nuclear weapons against Israel or any of its allies, and that is a war that we're going to fight," Grayson said……..
SOURCE- link to marinij.com
/>
Dear peters…..
Have no fear about appearing anti-semitic….calling a spade a spade is a good old American tradition…..
Some jews, and even some in congress like Lieberman, Engle, Shumer, and some christian evangelics in congress and some just plain corrupt congressional gentiles aren't loyal to America and use our country for the benefit of jews and Israel or themselves…that's just an unfortunate fact.
I would be "anti-American" not to call them out. Since the zionist started their anti semite slusing we American are now in the positon of having to choose to be either anti semites or anti American according to their standards.
AN EXCELLENT INTERVIEW BY GLENN GRENWALD -
On McCain's support of nuclear power.
McCain has often supported nuclear power as his chosen norm of the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He considers it THE primary alternative to fossil fuel based electricity generation. (Transportation and space heating are 65% of energy consumption, so electrical generation choices are not the biggest carbon emissions impact.)
If nuclear is proposed to be a norm, then to exclude countries from nuclear power is odd math.
I disagree with McCain on nuclear power. I think it is a disaster for a couple reasons.
One is that the majority of countries that have developed nuclear fuels, also have a nuclear weapons program. The two programs have historically, and are currently, TIED to each other.
The concern about Iran's potential or planned weapons program is unknown and likely conditional on its foreign relations, but a nuclear weapons program would be the exception rather than the norm.
Nuclear power itself is costly, as toxic in supply and disposal chain, as it is "clean" in the room, and compels an invasive security infrastructure to protect against the horrendous consequences of markets in weapons fuel, or even partially processed nuclear fuels (as toxic weapons).
When I say supply and disposal chain, I mean that there are humans and ecologies grossly harmed (now much in Africa).
I lived at one point, about 10 miles from Indian Point reactor in Peekskill NY (I lived in Croton). I now live within 10 miles of another contreversial reactor.
Obama's position on domestic nuclear power is more progressive. Like war is appropriately a last resort, nuclear power is an energy last resort. And, as the development cycle for nuclear plants is in the 10-year range, its a plan that NEVER needed really to actually address energy needs. (In 10 years, many times the output of nuclear plants can be built harnessing prairie wind. The development cycle for wind installations is in the 2-year range.)
On Iran's nuclear power plans.
Much is made of the contrast between Israel's sole reactor and prospective weapons program and Iran's. I would prefer the conditions by which Israel is confidently universally accepted, and THEN assertively requested to renounce its weapons program.
Israel doesn't face westward nuclear threats, only eastward.
It creates a dilemma, as Iran entering the nuclear arms process WILL exagerate an Asian nuclear arms race, more driven to ITS east, than towards Israel. India, China, Pakistan, Russia are all potential adversaries of Iran if relations go south, which they definitely can.
EVERY additional nuclear weapons power is genuinely destabalizing, legal or not.
That is not a basis for war, but it definitely is a basis for VERY careful and requiring defensive (not offensive) response.
Two errors in the above post.
EVERY nuclear weapons program is accompanied by a nuclear power program. Of countries that internally develop a nuclear power infrastructure, the majority develop nuclear weapons. Solely, nuclear electrical generation would be the exception, not the norm.
McCain's nuclear norm proposal specifically would be extremely hypocritical re: Iran, and compel permanent hypocrisy on the part of US foreign policy if nuclear power as a norm is adopted.
Phil,
I would question whether invoking a new euphemism fosters good political process.
It REEKS of a purge mentality.
Obama is laudable for inviting very diverse viewpoints to the table.
The basic problem is that the infrastructure – think tanks of one sort of another – from which political appointees are drawn in relation to US middle east policy offers only very limited diversity of approaches to Iran, the Palestinians etc etc. (Of course there are heated disagreements over, in reality, very modest divergences).
prairie winds as energy resource is less efficient–blackouts would be regular, even if not for long each time; too, a distribution infrastructure would have to be created to serve lands outside the prairie states…
yes, otto, the basic problem:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9590
EVERY nuclear weapons program is accompanied by a nuclear power program. Of countries that internally develop a nuclear power infrastructure, the majority develop nuclear weapons. Solely, nuclear electrical generation would be the exception, not the norm.
What statistics do you base the above statement on?
nuclear power by country
31 nuclear power …
8 declared + Israel undeclared = 9 States with nuclear weapon.
Your sources?
US nuclear energy AND nuclear weapons
France nuclear energy AND nuclear weapons
Japan nuclear power no nuclear weapons but defended by US
Russia nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
Germany nuclear energy no nuclear weapons but defended by US/Nato
South Korea nuclear energy no nuclear weapons but defended by US
Ukraine nuclear energy and nuclear weapons (decommisioned)
Canada nuclear energy no nuclear weapons but defended by US
UK nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
Sweden nuclear energy no nuclear weapons (the one exception to the linking of nuclear energy to weapons)
China nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
Of the most represented countries with 513 reactors, only ten is not defended by nuclear weapons in some material respect, either as part of NATO, or former Soviet association.
Maybe the world has changed since the cold war. But, historically nuclear weaponry is associated with nuclear power.
And the reason is that the technological jump between weapons and plutonium refinement is a much smaller technological innovation than the plutonium enrichment itself.
Its a real concern. The important question is how to respond in the case of Iran and others.
AGAIN back up your claim: Of countries that internally develop a nuclear power infrastructure, the majority develop nuclear weapons.
Were is your majority that "develop nuclear" weapons?
You state the majority that develops nuclear power develops weapons too. It still stands 31:9. With 9 being far from a majority.
Superpower "protective" structures (military alliances) do not a majority make that develops nuclear weapons.
As the country you pick out as one exception to the rule is not the only neutral country on European ground. What about Swiss? No nuclear weapons either, that I know of.
Interestingly Israel disappears completely from your list. And couldn't it be just as protected as the Europeans as alley no. 1?
Witty,
And the reason is that the technological jump between weapons and plutonium refinement is a much smaller technological innovation than the plutonium enrichment itself.
A few clarifications and corrections. The jump between non-nuclear and Plutonium weapons is quite large. Having nuclear reactors shortens the jump a lot. But only if they are not under IAEA supervision. The reason is that spent fuel can be well monitored. The risk with Uranium enrichment is that the processes needed for creating low enriched U fuel can be diverted and reconfigured to quickly create HEU and HEU (90%+) weapons are, while an inefficient use of resources, trivial to design. Also, unlike reactors, U centrifuges create little signature and are more easily hidden.
It is the Uranium enrichment facilities, not the standard power reactors Iran is ramping that worries us the most.
Also Plutonium isn't "enriched." It's chemically (PUREX) processed from nuclear fuel rods. Weapons production (decent ones) is a complex mess where you run fuel rods for a short time (monthish), let them rest a while for the radioactivity to drop, separate out the Pu239 from the unused U, which is then made into new fuel. Messy and complicated and not at all like what is used in power reactors where the rods are kept in until the U235 fuel is 70% used. Power reactors produce Pu239 mixed with high levels of other Pu isotopes. These produce frequent spontaneous fission and hence crappy, unpredictable weapons. And this mixed isotope Pu can not be purified. The risk of spent fuel diversion is real but way overstated.
Also, reactors for making Pu239 do not need any U enriched fuel at all. Graphite / heavy water reactors can be made using only natural Uranium – no centrifuges required. Natural U is pretty common and is more plentiful than Silver or Mercury. However, hiding one once turned on (Syria didn't even get he thing loaded, let alone turned on) is difficult because they produce huge heat signatures for quite a while before they can produce a single weapon.
"Enrichment" is a term that only applies to Uranium. When you see "Plutonium enrichment" you can be sure the writer is ignorant about his subject.
One can learn more at armscontrolwonk.
LeaNder,
I agree with your assessment of numbers of countries, with the exception of how you treat former Russian republics.
The weight of nuclear power is associated with nuclear weapons. In the period when nuclear weapons were controllable, the promise of "energy too cheap to meter" was floated as a solution.
Those countries that process their own plutonium, are capable of developing nuclear weapons. That they don't choose to is their choice.
Its at best a guess whether Iran would voluntarily NOT develop nuclear weapons and only develop nuclear power.
Their becoming one of that club, IS destabalizing, and as I said, it is mostly destabalizing to their east: Pakistan and India more prominently.
Israel isn't on my list because it has only one reactor.
My terminology was innaccurate. Thanks for the clarification. I don't know the process intimately. I do know that the supply chain to fuel suitable for energy generation is similar to the fuel for weapons.
Better that nuclear power and their accompanying weapons are minimized rather than encouraged by either McCain, Ahmenidijad, or "dissenters".
You do get the irony of McCain suggesting nuclear power as THE solution to global warming, while opposing nuclear power to "evil" countries.
Richard Witty,
You do get the irony of McCain suggesting nuclear power as THE solution to global warming, while opposing nuclear power to "evil" countries.
Indeed!
You make much of Israel's "sole" reactor. I don't know what you are reading but that "sole" reactor is very high power and can crank out about 100 Pu239 weapons a decade. It's been operational since the 60's. The heat output (power) of a weapons directed reactor is directly related to it's Pu239 output. Israel nuclear tech can be assumed first rate so they likely use the the smallest amounts of Pu239 with high compression values as triggers for thermonuclear devices. This scientific/engineering advantage Israel had and has is not forever. I don't see any way nuclear weapons can be limited by rationing reactors. Inspections and strict protocols, yes but even that's tough. We face a risky future.
There is an argument Iran must be making nukes because it is sitting on a lot of oil which far exceeds it's supply of energy from indigenous Uranium. This is true only in the limited sense of the typical light water reactor. If one looks at the Canadian MOX process and the even more plentiful Thorium->U process the Iranian claim they are doing it to conserve increasingly valuable oil makes a lot of sense. This doesn't preclude the probability they are pursuing nukes but I think it unwise to assume it as a given absent hard evidence. We've been down that road before.
A RELATED ARTICLE-
Bipartisan Policy: Bomb-Bomb Iran
by Gordon Prather
Well, according to a report released last month by the Grand Pooh-Bahs of The Bipartisan Policy Center – and an op-ed piece based upon their report, published this week in the Washington Post – it shouldn't matter whether a Republican or a Democrat becomes our next President; he'll probably have to bomb-bomb Iran. And the sooner, the better……
ENTIRE ARTICLE- link to antiwar.com
/>
Oh, and I agree with McCain on nuclear power. Electricity is ultimately more useful than oil since it is the most versatile form of energy. Heating with electric heat pumps is quite competitive with oil furnaces. The risk from radiation is pretty overblown. Even those on the right overestimate the risks. The left does so out of the conflation of nuclear anything with nuclear weapons. The right has just absorbed the cultural meme.
Hey guys remember What happened to JFK while he was trying to prevent escalation of nuclear power with Israel?
You think Iran never noticed?
Israel got it's reactor covertly from France. The US, under both JFK and Johnson opposed Israeli nuke efforts. Johnson did so half heartedly as he was more sympathetic with Israel's unique and vulnerable situation.
I heard Michael Makovsky's brother, David, speak at Hillel in April. He's also with WINEP. It was remarkable to hear him to summarize the history of Zionism/Israel by saying "The Jews came in peace, but the Arabs wanted war." And his talk was titled something like "the chances for co-existence." These are scary people who live in a world of their own making–nothing penetrates. I attended the evening talk, but there was an invitation-only lunch where he discussed Iran to the Federation faithful. Do you wonder what was said?
"This doesn't preclude the probability they are pursuing nukes but I think it unwise to assume it as a given absent hard evidence. We've been down that road before."
I don't assume that. It takes other evidence and indications to conclude the future.
It is NOT true that Iran has consistently complied with the International Atomic Energy Commission, so they do NOT convey confidence on that basis.
So long as they continue to speak in terms of removing Israel politically (if not genocidally), they remain a destabalizing influence to their west as well as their east.
I promise you, India facing nuclear Sunni Pakistan and nuclear Shia Iran, is NOT pleased about the developments.
There are multiple scary spinouts.
1. India and Pakistan conflict and Iran joins in "solidarity"
2. Pakistan and Iran conflict
3. India and Israel form an alliance and Iran conflicts with Israel and then engages with India militarily to defend its flank.
If Obama can succeed in normalizing Iran's place in the world, that would be wonderful, but that would have to include recognition of Israel, to be actual normalization.
Report: Bush to declare renewal of ties with Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031246.html
Tehran has already been informed of the initiative, but its view on the matter remains unclear. Similar reports were published a few months ago, but the plan was then put on hold.
Earlier this month, the American Iranian Council, a U.S.-based organization, was banned from operating in Iran. However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a U.S. tour last month that he would consider restoring his country's relations with the U.S.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said Tehran would favorably consider such proposal, as long as it was to be carried out bilaterally.
Israel will murder BHO just as they killed JFK, 2 or 3 years into his presidency.