NYT reporter David Sanger speaking at the East West Center
The New York Times is reporting that Iran has begun nuclear enrichment at a second plant, but reporter David Sanger leaves the militaristic Israeli response till the jump:
“No one has a full sense of the Iranian production plan there,” said one diplomat who has studied the few details Iran has shared about the plant. “And I think that’s the point.” Already Iran has produced enough fuel to manufacture about four weapons, but only if the fuel goes through further enrichment, nuclear experts say…
It is that ability that has Israel most concerned. So Israeli officials were relieved in December when Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, speaking at a conference in Washington, strongly suggested that the United States was determined to stop not only a weapon, but the ability to produce one. But on Sunday, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Panetta was less specific about how close to the line Iran would be allowed to go. Sanctions and separate embargoes against Iran were “working to put pressure on them, to make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing,” Mr. Panetta said, in comments that were taped before Mr. Abbasi’s announcement. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
When Sanger says that Israeli officials were “concerned” and are now “relieved” by Panetta’s statement that the American red line is Iran’s “ability to produce” a nuclear weapon, he surely knows what he’s talking about. Sanger moderated a panel for the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies during their 2010 conference on Iran. The panel featured the senator from AIPAC, Mark Kirk. And a year ago he reported, based on mostly-unnamed sources, that “the covert race to create Stuxnet [computer worm aimed at Iranian program] was a joint project between the Americans and the Israelis.”
The questions American readers should ask based on this latest unsourced information are:
Who in Israel is pushing the U.S. to war against Iran? Is this in Americans’ interest? When Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, stated to Senator Rand Paul last night that it is American policy to prevent countries from getting nuclear weapons, what policy was she reflecting? Why did we not use force to prevent Pakistan, India, and Israel from obtaining nuclear weapons?
I was gonna read the times article, and phil’s post, but apparently Mitt Romney said something stupid yesterday, so as an American, I am bound to give all my attention to that……
Leon Pannetta said “And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
I would suggest that the Secretary of Defense has, in fact, moved the goal posts. If Iran could master enrichment, it would effectively acquire the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Hence Iran was not to be allowed to enrich its own uranium. That used to be the U.S. red line. Now it’s just: don’t build a nuclear weapon. And Panetta acknowledged that Iran is not doing that. The U.S. has effectively conceded that it won’t start a war if Iran sticks to the production of nuclear fuel.
“Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
This is a very confusing line. Is Panetta fine with developing nuclear capability but not with developing nuclear weapons? That would be an explosive statement and it should not go down well at all with the Israelis. Iran on the other hand would sign for that because nuclear capability is good enough a deterrence for them.
Hello again folks.
all the details about 3.5% and 20% and 90% cause eye glaze.
but I think I understand the difference between the words “nuclear CAPABILITY” and “nuclear WEAPONS.”
Iran IS nuclear CAPABLE. It’s nuclear CAPABILITY is monitored by IAEA and is within its rights as an NPT signatory.
What is so confusing about that Tuyzentfloot?
Is the ‘confusing’ element the reality that Panetta is hewing to the rule of law and Iran’s legal and contractual rights, rather than issuing comfort letters to Israelis who disavow rule of law and have not contracted to participate in nuclear regulation regime? In other words, is it a problem that Panetta is not acting as Israel’s indulgent uncle?
You rock, Leon Panetta.
Why should we trust Israel that owns uncharted amounts of Nuclear Power, and who is known for its aggressivness, disregard for human rights, oppressions, hubris and contempt for majority of the world ??
Why American politicians and MSMedia people don’t dare to bring this up as a problem for the global peace??
Why do they assume that it is OK for the criminal to possess full arsenal of nuclear weapons, but it bothers them that other nation ( known for being respectful and peaceful) wants to defense itself against this crminal???
When are they going to stop with hypocrisy and double talk, and start talking like a human beings that actually care ,and have some honor and decency??
Do they really think people on the Earth are THAT stupid and ignorant???