Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Damian Lataan, I am afraid you were spot on with your predictions regarding the Palestinian elections. However I do not think there is going to be interesting times in the Middle East, there is just no way Hamas and Israel are going to talk. It is going to be a bloodbath one way or another, and the cause of peace is going to be set back 10 years.

I just hope commonsense prevails, but I doubt that will happen as we who do not live in this part of the world have no conception of what it is all about. I think the only thing we can be sure of is that if the Palestinians decide to flex their muscles by letting loose their suicide bombers, there will be swift and deadly retaliation.

Let's just hope that there are enough cool heads around to sort this mess out, however I am very fearful for my daughter and her family who live there.

Netanyahu may be "extreme right wing" relative to other Israelis, but compared to anyone on the Palestinian side he is not even remotely in their ultra-ultra-right-wing ballpark.

Hamish: what do you mean Mike? Or is this just nonsense?
 

See Iran’s Next Steps: Final Tests and the Construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant published by ISIS on 12 January 2006. In it David Albright and Corey Hinderstein note: "It is difficult to estimate how long it would take Iran to be able to build its first nuclear weapon, assuming Iran makes such a decision."

In other words ISIS is not asserting that Iran is or is not intending to produce a weapon. They conclude:

"Given another year to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be deliverable by a ballistic missile. This result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain. Though some analysts at the IAEA believe that Iran could assemble centrifuges quicker, other analysts, including those in the US intelligence community, appear to believe that a date of 2009 would be overly optimistic. They believe that Iran is likely to encounter technical difficulties that would significantly delay bringing a centrifuge plant into operation."

Damian Lataan writes: "Prior to 1999 ISIS and Albright were quite happy to perpetuate the myth of an Iraqi nuclear bomb."

In March 1991 ISIS's Albright had written "a months-long investigation of the requirements any country would need to build nuclear weapons, and an assessment of Iraq's ability to meet those requirements, we conclude that Saddam Hussein was many years away from developing usable nuclear weapons."

"In 1998, Albright told [the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh], he and Hamza sent publishers a proposal for a book tentatively entitled 'Fizzle: Iraq and the Atomic Bomb,' which described how Iraq had failed in its quest for a nuclear device."

Damian, perhaps you could narrow down the dates during which "ISIS and Albright were quite happy to perpetuate the myth of an Iraqi nuclear bomb." Sometime between 1991 and 1998, I presume, Albright changed his mind about the Iraqis nuclear program, decided to "perpetuate a myth" and then suddenly in 1998 decided to "un-perpetuate" it. Enlighten the "dumb and gullible" among us, won't you please?

Once again you say "Prior to 1999 ISIS and Albright were quite happy to perpetuate the myth of an Iraqi nuclear bomb." NO, Damian, they were NOT, and I have now provided quite extensive documentation that this is an incorrect statement. You have provided nothing but repeated assertions, with either no documentation, or documentation that upon even cursory inspection turns out to belie your allegations. I remind you, you have only corrected yourself once.

You go on to say "Iran has no plans for nuclear weapons and neither Russia nor China would be allowing Iran to become nuclear armed." Maybe. Maybe not. The jury's still out on that one. There's enough uncertainty to be sceptical, and enough evidence to be concerned. How about you provide some backup for your case?

I have provided ISIS' assessments on Iran. Albright was critical of the New York Times just a few months ago for suggesting "the US had proof Iran was designing a nuclear weapon, which it does not."

In late 2004 ISIS said ""Iran does not appear to have nuclear weapons and seems unlikely to be able to make them for at least several years.  Nonetheless, the IAEA board of governors is correct to view the Iranian situation as urgent and to issue a firm demand that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs. Two years have passed since secret Iranian nuclear sites were first brought to public attention, and Iran appears unwilling to abandon its fissile material production programs. Iran has too often dictated the pace of diplomatic progress, giving the impression that it is playing for time. In the next one or two years, Iran could build up unstoppable institutional and public momentum to finish and operate its enrichment plant or a heavy-water reactor and outlast the current international diplomatic effort."

This does not sound, to me, like an organisation trying to "perpetuate a myth." Your turn, Damian. Let's see some documentation of your assessment that "Iran has no plans for nuclear weapons." What do we have to support that assertion? The Iranian President's assurances? But, Damian, you've already told us he is not to be taken seriously.

Damian, you say "Webdiarists might like to make judgements for themselves on this matter." We certainly will. I, for one, prefer to do so on the basis of solid, reliable information. I have provided, in previous posts, some links which may help. Damian: Albright and ISIS are, if anything, on your side of the arguments about both Iraqi and Iranian nukes. You don't recognise this?

Thank you Damian, for that correction. Now perhaps you could detail for us the "strong connections" between Chalabi and his INC and ISIS. I've not been able to find any, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. I'm willing to stand corrected.

The information I have documented so far on ISIS, and Jaffee Center, look to me like evidence that both organisations have been sceptical about Iraqi nuclear capabilities. Reports from both organisations are also cautious in tone on Iran: in ISIS's case about its nuclear capabilities; in JCSS's case about the costs versus benefits of military action against Iran.

ISIS was sceptical about Iraqi nukes throughout the period of sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War, right up to the eve of the 2003 invasion (March 10, 2003).

Of course it's possible I missed examples of ISIS's involvement in "exaggerations and lies" so perhaps you could provide us some material that backs up your contention. I've provided quite a bit of documentation on ISIS and JCSS, much of it in direct and primary refutation of a number of your misrepresentations of relationships and ideological leanings of these organisations.

This mistake is the only one you've taken responsibility for so far.

You say "those who insist that the reports of ISIS and the Jaffee Center relating to Iraqi and Iranian nuclear weapons programs are ‘non-partisan’ are equally discredited."

I'm one of "those;" - why don't you just come out and say it? So far you have not "discredited" anything I've written. Quite the opposite, you've only managed to be caught in some rather blatant falsehoods (which I hope are inadvertent blunders - but you have neither retracted nor defended them, even in the face of direct evidence.)

Hi Gareth Eastwood, I think I have answered your question with the link provided to CP.

More like manufactured claims coming from the US with the usual spin and fearmongering to pressure the EU countries.

Re: the EU question, an excerpt from, Why Iran will lead to World War 3, by Mike Whitney, Aug. 9th. 2005.

"Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself. 

No way. 

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members (England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process. 

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal? 

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda. 

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts."

CP, the statement from the link is, "Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005."

That doesn't read to me as an intent to invade Iran in early 2005, but that planning has been underway since then.

Your question - "Is this also why the EU is trying to get Iran before the Security Council?"

I think the answer lies in the hysteria and the pressure that the US is trying to whip up, as yet,  there is no evidence to support the Bush Administration conviction that Iran is making a nuclear bomb (how quickly we forget the WMD lies!). Don't Russia and China still have to come onside before Iran goes before the Security Council? Iran could be doing just what it says it is - implementing a program for the purpose of electricity generation. I don't know, but I'd rather be a bit sceptical in light of what we have learned from the US invasion of Iraq. How many more innocent  people need to die for the Bush agenda to be complete?

Why would you expect that Iran just sit there like a lame duck awaiting a joint US/Israel invasion,  just because they choose to deal in Euros and not US Dollars?

Hey Deb. I don't know if I would say that there is no nuclear threat from Iran. However, whatever threat there is has been grossly overstated so as to whip up a frenzy. Add to that the lunatic rantings of Ahmadinejad and the frenzy is positively frothing.

Any Iranian Bourse would probably get a nice chunk of business from China, India and Russia and that would put a dent in the US dollar. Furthermore, the introduction of an alternative petro-currency would force the Americans into a situation where their dollar needed to compete for the status of 'currency of choice' in the international market.

By using fiscal restraint and generally tightening up government spending, the US dollar will have to get itself a lot leaner and it's this, in my opinion, which is scaring the Bush administration. It's all very unpopular with voters who want to update their SUVs every three years.

BTW, in a very unscientific poll of a very narrow target sample of about 12 friends and family members in Canada and the US, only my older brother had ever heard of the Iranian Bourse. Mushrooms, darling, mushrooms!!

Damian Lataan writes: "Khidhir Hamza worked for ISIS when he lied to the Senate committee about Iraq’s nuclear weapons."

According to information on Hamza from ISIS, "Khidhir Hamza worked as a consultant for ISIS during 1997-1999." and "Dr. Hamza is no longer associated with ISIS, and we do not have any forwarding information about how to reach him." (I don't know when this statement was posted on the ISIS web site).

The earliest references I can find to Hamza's US Senate testimony are testimony before Senate committees in 2001 and again in 2002. These are the occasions I know about, and they occurred well after Hamza had worked for ISIS. Perhaps Hamza did testify (and lie) to a US Senate while he worked for ISIS, but I can't find any references to it.

On July 31, 2002 Hamza told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "With more than ten tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium - according to German intelligence - in its possession, Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb-grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005." Hamza also gave testimony before the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on 19 Sept. 2002, regarding Iraqi nuclear weapons ambitions. He said in that testimony "My estimate is that Iraq, in two years of complete and putting together enough facilities for full-scale production and within three years, to have enough for two to three nuclear weapons."

Asked about Hamza's assessment of the Iraqi nuclear threat on 25 Sept 2002, ISIS head David Albright told ABC Lateline: "I must apologise that we no longer can in any way recommend Dr Hamza. I unfortunately now believe he is deliberately distorting both his past credentials and his statements about Iraqi nuclear capabilities then and now."

Damian, could you be more specific on the date(s) of Dr Hamza's lies to a US Senate Committee?

Here are excerpts from ISIS studies regarding Iraqi nuclear capabilities. If someone can show me how these demonstrate ISIS was "concocting" anything, please do.

1) In The CIA's Aluminum Tubes' Assessment: Is the Nuclear Case Going Down the Tubes?, published on March 10, 2003, ISIS Director David Albright writes:

"After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program. Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes."

And, under the heading "So Far, No Evidence of a Nuclear Weapons Program", Albright adds:

The administration's case has been further weakened because the UN Security Council inspectors have so far found no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. This result comes after extensive IAEA assessments of information from UN member states and many investigations in Iraq.

In addition, former members of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program who have escaped Iraq disagree among themselves about the existence of a nuclear weapons program. Some posit that Iraq's nuclear weapons program continues; some say the program ended after 1991. None of these Iraqis have any direct knowledge of any current banned nuclear programs. They appear to all carry political baggage and biases about going to war or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and these biases seem to drive their judgments about nuclear issues, rendering their statements about current Iraqi nuclear activities suspect.

Albright concludes:

Perhaps we will eventually learn that Iraq actually planned to hide a centrifuge purchase in a rocket procurement program. Such cleverness is well within Iraqi capabilities, although Iraq rarely chooses to build a poor product when it can build the same item significantly better in less time. Such a revelation, however, will not vindicate the CIA analysis, which is viewed as atrocious and deceptive by many experts on centrifuges and Iraqi rockets.

The CIA analysis has wasted the time of inspectors in Iraq while not leading to any progress on exposing Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program. Inspectors have had to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for evidence to prove or disprove the CIA analysis. Faced with overwhelming negative evidence from the inspectors, the proponents of this analysis have simply ignored the negative reports or act as if the CIA possesses secret information it cannot share. If the CIA has such secret evidence, it should share it rather than producing faulty technical analysis.

By ignoring technical evidence and pushing flawed analysis, the proponents of the CIA analysis undermine the credibility of the President, Secretary Powell, and the CIA. The attacks against those who disagree serve to show their defensiveness and a mean spirit.
This case serves to remind us that decision-makers are not above misusing technical and scientific analysis to bolster their political goals. The problem is that such a strategy denigrates the process of conducting impartial technical analysis and misleads the public.

2) In a 1999 report entitled Iraq's Efforts to Acquire Information about Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Related Technologies from the United States, Albright and Kevin O'Neill review Khidhir Hamza's summaries and have this to say about Hamza's reporting:

The scope of work for the above-referenced project asks the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) to provide a detailed, unclassified report of the efforts by the government of Iraq to obtain information about nuclear weapons and fissile materials production technologies, describing what information Iraq currently has of the U.S. nuclear weapons technology, what information the Iraqis are trying to discover, and how the U.S. might better protect U.S. nuclear weapons information. This report was to be solely authored by Khidhir Hamza, a senior Iraqi nuclear scientist who held several high-level positions in Iraq's pre-Gulf War nuclear weapons program, and to reflect his knowledge and views of the issues; the report was never intended to be a comprehensive assessment of these issues.

To fulfill this project, Hamza drafted a report and was interviewed by ISIS staff on three separate occasions. Transcripts of these interview sessions were produced.

We reviewed a draft report submitted by Hamza, and found much relevant information and insights. However, we regret that we found his report to be deficient in several ways. We also found several inconsistencies in the interview transcripts. However, Hamza failed to respond to comments by us on his draft report or to address the transcript inconsistencies. Despite these shortcomings, Hamza's report and the interview transcripts do address many of the questions asked in the project's scope of work.

3) Also in 1999, in "Crying Wolf" About the Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Threat, then-Deputy Director Kevin O'Neill writes:

[A report] entitled 'Is the Bomb Within Saddam's Grasp?' by Kenneth Timmerman, claims that Iraq has acquired a pressurized water reactor (PWR) for its nuclear weapons program and is secretly constructing a facility to enrich uranium.
Khidhir Hamza, a former senior Iraqi nuclear official who defected from Iraq in the early 1990s, now works as a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). Timmerman interviewed Hamza for the report, quoting him about Saddam Hussein's single-mindedness to acquire nuclear weapons. However, Hamza says that he told Timmerman that the information about an Iraqi PWR was not credible. Hamza also says that he told the same thing to a Reader's Digest editor when the magazine contacted him to verify his quote. The report was published anyway.

Despite Hamza's conclusions, Reader's Digest reported the story of an Iraqi defector, now connected to the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a principal Iraqi opposition group. The INC defector, identified as a nuclear 'technician' who worked on Iraq's uranium enrichment programs, told Timmerman that Iraq had acquired a PWR through contracts with China and North Korea.

According to Hamza, the technician is 'a dubious source who should not have been taken seriously.' Moreover, Hamza says that the INC lacks the technical background to judge defector information about nuclear activities. Nevertheless, the INC is highly motivated to advance its own agenda against the Iraqi government, even if it means cutting corners around the truth. Hamza says that the INC 'shopped the defector around' until it found someone who would accept his story.

4) A 1998 report authored by Albright and Hamza, entitled Iraq's Reconstitution of Its Nuclear Weapons Program, concludes as follows:

Ensuring that Iraq does not build nuclear weapons will require vigilance. The chance of Iraq building nuclear weapons in secret depends critically on the effectiveness of the OMV system. If inspections become ineffective, even if sanctions remain, Iraq's chance of success will be unacceptably high. Iraq has developed a deep understanding of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the entire inspection system. It appears to have a strategy to weaken inspections at will. Although a robust and constantly improving inspection system is necessary to detect and thwart Iraq's proscribed nuclear activities, Security Council enforcement of the inspections, backed up by U.S. and British willingness to use military force, will remain vital to the future effectiveness of inspections.

The OMV [Ongoing Monitoring and Vigilance Program] needs improvement, including a more system-wide approach to its design and deployment. More environmental monitoring in Iraq is needed. Improved cooperation on detecting illicit imports into Iraq is also increasingly vital, as the sanctions become less effective. International efforts to improve controls over fissile material in the former Soviet Union must receive a higher priority. With a strengthened, enforced OMV program, Iraq is far less likely to build nuclear weapons in secret. If key Iraqi scientists are brought to the West, Saddam Hussein may find it difficult to succeed in building nuclear weapons for many years.

Ultimately, the goal of the inspections in Iraq is to buy time, in hopes that the regime will either change or give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. A highly confrontational inspection system has little chance of lasting for decades in any country. It is a tribute to the Security Council, and in particular the United States, that the inspections have lasted this long. But the system of stringent inspections must remain effective at least as long as the current regime persists on its noncooperative path.

;

This particular report confirms that Saddam had nuclear ambitions (not exactly a shocking revelation), which were never realised, and discusses ways of preventing his regime's acquisition of nuclear weapons capability. Hardly "concocting" anything.

By the way ISIS has on its website Hamza's CV accompanied by the followoing note (I don't know what year this was posted):

Dr Khidhir Hamza worked as a consultant for ISIS during 1997-1999. He provided a copy of his CV, reproduced below, as of 1997.
ISIS is making available the CV's or brief biographies of those individuals whose experiences are discussed in ISIS's project on understanding the lessons of export control case studies. Additional CV's will posted to the ISIS web site as they become available.
Dr. Hamza is no longer associated with ISIS, and we do not have any forwarding information about how to reach him.

In summary, these reports directly contradict Damian Lataan's allegation that ISIS tried to "concoct" anything about Iraq's nuclear weapons ambitions, or tried to make a case for war against Iraq in 2003. Indeed, many of these reports by ISIS cast doubt on the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi nuclear weapons programs in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.

Even in 1991, ISIS had suggested that Pres GHW Bush's assertions that Iraq had been "months away" from a nuclear bomb were exaggerated. ISIS's Albright (at the time at the NGO Friends of the Earth) with co-author Mark Hibbs, said in a March 1991 article Iraq and the bomb: Were they even close?:

"a months-long investigation of the requirements any country would need to build nuclear weapons, and an assessment of Iraq's ability to meet those requirements, we conclude that Saddam Hussein was many years away from developing usable nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the Iraqi nuclear bomb-making capability was so primitive that the international sanctions put in place after the August 2 invasion may have had more substantive effect than the tons of bombs dropped by U.S. and allied planes five months later. 'There may be good reasons to go to war with Iraq,' one U.S. government official said before January 16, 'but Iraq's nuclear program isn't one of them.'

Note also my previous documentation of Israeli intel assessments of Saddam's WMD capabilities prior to the 2003 war, which said Iraq had no nuclear weapons, in their estimation.

So where does all this leave Damian Lataan's credibility?

I wouldn't mind correcting such misstatements so much if not for the fact that Damian is so quick to impugn other Webdiarists' "credibility" and even to accuse me of dishonesty. That personal attack got my attention, as you can all imagine. (His abusive style is also rather irritating.) But what I really wonder is how someone could be so careless as to post such blatant falsehoods in a forum where people can easily check up on them? It took only minutes for me to thoroughly debunk Damian's assertions. And I'm not an expert on neoconservatism, Iraq, Iran, WMD, etc., just an educated person who can read (contrary to popular belief not all Americans are illiterate).

The larger question is how Damian's pattern of false accusations can be reconciled with Webdiary's Code of Ethics. I use the word "pattern" advisedly: these are just the falsehoods I uncovered in the past week. Who knows how many more there are, and I don't have time to investigate them all. In the academic world I work in, Damian would have to retract the falsehoods or face disciplinary action. He has not retracted them, even when faced with evidence of their untruth, posted by me, from primary sources, including direct quotes. He has also not substantively challenged anything I have posted in refutation. It's possible I got something wrong - so correct me. Nor has he ever substantively refuted any of the earlier posts which triggered his attacks on my integrity.

As he has mentioned he is working on a thesis regarding neoconservatism, I can only hope his conduct here on Webdiary is not representative of his academic conduct. Thesis supervisors and examiners can read too.

So Webdiary Management, what now? What do I have to do to "restore honor?" Blogs at ten paces? Am I supposed to slap Damian in the face with a virtual glove (available at www.e-duel.com) and demand "satisfaction?" Is Webdiary "ethical" and "accountable" or not? Vigorous debate is one thing, but such abusive accusations surely must be inimical to building a virtual community where intelligent comment is welcome?

Hamish: I think that was a virtual slap you just gave Will. Forgive me, but I'm not in a position to check every assertion, or even to follow all the arguments in detail, so I still can not pass some final arbiter's judgement on the matters you raise. On the fuzzy boundaries between honest error and unethical conduct, I feel obliged to give a lot of benefit of the doubt, so it is really up to Webdiarists to make their judgements on contributors' respective credibility.

To everyone, I can say please. Please use restraint in your accusations. Please address people's arguments carefully, without impugning their character. Please ask your probing, critical questions without innuendo and sleight. Please make your own arguments clearly, with links and sources where possible, and with the everyday humility of a creature who is not God. Arrogance and self-certainty are such sure signs of mediocrity. Learn a lesson from Socrates and be aware that wisdom is in the realisation that we can really know nothing. Nothing is self-evident, and nobody is stupid for not knowing something, or thinking something else. We are all flawed, all trying in our own ways, all in but one moment of our journeys at a time, and all beautiful.

Damian Lataan says: "There is still absolutely no evidence whatsoever that proves Iran wants to build nuclear weapons. All we have so far is a lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ from the master appeaser of the Lying Tyrant Bush, El Baradei of the IAEA, and some ludicrous report from a bunch of ex-Israeli generals and intelligence ‘experts’ that some right-wing Israeli apologist expected us to believe was ‘evidence-based’, (no ‘evidence’ whatsoever in the report; just presumption, innuendo and inference) and ‘non-partisan’. (One of the authors, Ephraim Asculai, is an ex-member of the neoconservative Washington based think-tank organisation Institute of Science and International Security whose members were regularly supplying ‘evidence’ of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons to the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq)."

So the Institute of Science and International Security is a neocon think tank, eh? Let's examine this one, shall we? I can find no links between ISIS Director David Albright (or any other ISIS staff) and anything even remotely "neoconservative" (Indeed the biographical sketch that link goes to is from Mother Jones magazine, an neocon rag if ever there was one!) He is on the Steering Committee of the Brookings Institution's (again - neocon? I don't think so) U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project along with Jon Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, another notorious neocon. In fact, Albright, as ISIS Director, went on record recently criticising a New York Times story for "repeatedly characteriz[ing] the contents of computer files as containing information about a nuclear warhead design when the information actually describes a re-entry vehicle for a missile.” The controversy, reported on Arms Control-oriented website armscontrolwonk.com, notes [The New York Times story] "made it sound like the US had proof Iran was designing a nuclear weapon, which it does not."

In other words Damian, ISIS Director Albright is, if anything, on your side of the Iran argument!

An assessment of possible Iranian nuclear capabilities, by Albright and fellow ISIS staffer Corey Hinderstein, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (another warmongering neo-con publication - right Damian?), was sceptical (as of the end of 2004) of US and Israeli intelligence estimates of how soon Iran would be able to build a nuclear bomb soon, but noted:

"Iran does not appear to have nuclear weapons and seems unlikely to be able to make them for at least several years. Nonetheless, the IAEA board of governors is correct to view the Iranian situation as urgent and to issue a firm demand that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs. Two years have passed since secret Iranian nuclear sites were first brought to public attention, and Iran appears unwilling to abandon its fissile material production programs. Iran has too often dictated the pace of diplomatic progress, giving the impression that it is playing for time. In the next one or two years, Iran could build up unstoppable institutional and public momentum to finish and operate its enrichment plant or a heavy-water reactor and outlast the current international diplomatic effort."

In this report they also review evidence for Iran's nuclear weapons potential. Much of the evidence is admittedly indirect, and not absolutely conclusive, but evidence nonetheless. For everyone who has demanded evidence in the Iran situation, start by reading the Albright and Hinderstein report. Once again I must ask you, Damian, don't you read the material you yourself cite as making your case?

As I suspected, you have no evidence of any breach of the NPT by Iran.

You have agreed, the NPT specifically permits research into uranium enrichment. EL Baradei admits that Iran has "a right under the treaty to enrich uranium".

When asked if the IAEA has any indication that there is some other completely separate Iranian nuclear-weapons program, El Baradei says: "No, we don´t. But I won´t exclude that possibility."

No evidence, just speculation.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern refers to leaked National Intelligence Estimates:

The NIE concludes that Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade." Linzer’s sources put the timeline closer to 2015.

I wonder why El Baradei said: "I´m making it very clear right now that I cannot extend the deadline, which is... March 6".

What's so important about March? It wouldn't have anything to do with the Iranian euro-denominated oil bourse due to start up in March, would it?

Of course, we don't see the US or the IAEA pushing to refer India or Pakistan or Israel to the Security Council for their blatant nuclear proliferation activities. Go figure.

You're welcome CP.

I think you are getting yourself lost in a blizzard of factoids that are basically irrelevant.

Firstly, Hitler never looked outward for support or "propaganda victories" in his whole sordid political career. He was unaffected by what the world or anyone thought of him. His one and only focus was on himself and his grand German supremacist plan. This plan had only one essential feature, Hitler as supreme dictator.

Second, you're trying to connect some supposed influence of people of the Left on what Hitler did is completely wrong and is an artefact of your unending "Left bad/Right good" chest thumping.

Perhaps you have overlooked that after WWI, the whole world was heartily sick of the mindlessness of war. Add to that, the fact that Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy and a whole generation of young men with the energy and economic potential to make a difference to the recovering nations, Germany included, had disappeared.

That's what prompted my use of "shabby".

Why don't you try again and this time let's see if you can write something without "Left" or "Right" in it.