Perhaps someone could ask her, on tape, why she thinks they don’t have one yet.
Perhaps confirmation that they don’t would be in order…
North Korea has one, does that count? But please let’s compare two of the most crazy politicians out there!
Not before evidence that they do… I haven’t seen any indication of it in the news. Last major story I remember was about Iran pausing the part of its enrichment program that enriches to levels above those needed for civilian purposes.
All intelligence and IAEA reports have confirmed that they have no weapons, that they are nowhere near the technological ability to create one, and there is no firm evidence that they even have a weapons program. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that none of their uranium which is being enriched for energy and medical uses has been diverted to anything else.
The IAEA is completely disregarded here, without a second thought. I don’t know of anything that would serve as acceptable evidence besides an in-depth sweep of 100% of Iranian territory, conducted by Israeli specialists.
We’ve already had all our “second thoughts.” The IAEA has proven itself worthy of disregard.
Funny how the conspiracy theorist who thinks everything that the US govt says is a lie takes the IAEA’s word as solid gold but I guess an agency is trustworthy as long as they back up your political agenda.
Sigh … don’t have a ox in this field to be gored, but anyway … obviously Bachmann’s prediction has not come true. However there were things happening in Iran, things Bachmann either would have had incomplete knowledge of - the Stuxnet virus and how much it impacted the Iranian nuclear program; this sabotage of a key test, destruction of a test site, and killing of some key players in the Iranian nuclear development team - (we may yet not know the full impact of those events!) or could not have known of, the Flame virus, which also impacted the Iranian nuclear program and was not known in the West until some 5 or 6 months later.
I’m genuinely surprised that you seem unaware of these events (BTW, Stuxnet is still afflicting computers in Iran, and possibly still impeding their nuclear program), or if you are, haven’t considered the effect the events would have had on the Iranian nuclear program … and therefore on Rep. Bachmann’s prediction.
So crow away, Jebby, if you still want to. But the crowing has a hollow ring.
Volk, Iran has enough gas/oil to be energy independent for many decades and the necessary processing plants are relatively inexpensive. But if you want to believe Iran is spending vastly more to get nuclear power for civilian use …
It still makes more sense to build nuclear, which is way more efficient, and have a whole lot more oil/gas for export. They’ve been wanting to since the Shah was in power.
IAEA has done nothing of the sort.
- Contrary to the Board resolutions of November 2011 and September 2012, and despite the
intensified dialogue between the Agency and Iran since January 2012, no concrete results have been
achieved in resolving the outstanding issues, including Iran having not concluded and implemented the
structured approach. The Director General is, therefore, unable to report any progress on clarifying the
issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.
- It is a matter of concern that the extensive and significant activities which have taken place since
February 2012 at the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access will
have seriously undermined the Agency’s ability to undertake effective verification. The Agency
reiterates its request that Iran, without further delay, provide both access to that location and
substantive answers to the Agency’s detailed questions regarding the Parchin site and the foreign
Given the nature and extent of credible information available, the Agency continues to consider it
essential for Iran to engage with the Agency without further delay on the substance of the Agency’s
concerns. In the absence of such engagement, the Agency will not be able to resolve concerns about
issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, including those which need to be clarified to exclude
the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.
The rest of the IAEA November report may be read here:
The major concern for the IAEA, aside from the amount of enrichment, beyond that necessary for power generation, is the capability that eixists to engage in large scale enrichment to weapons grade material, in quantity, on short notice.
It might make sense if oil production, oil drilling, and refinery operations were operating efficiently and producing a favorable balance of trade payment to the nation from which funding might then be withdrawn for nuclear power development. But, that is not what is going on. Oil wells are not being drilled, existing wells go unmaintained, and refining capacity is decades out of date. None of this is news; it’s been true for a decade. Which casts Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy is a wholly different light. An oil-producing nation which has had to import gasoline for over a decade, while expending vast resources on nuclear development, doesn’t sound to the rational observer like one that has domestic energy concerns on the top of its list.
The IAEA has been all over the board on this. Iran was a year away from a bomb when Bush took office. I remember the Democrats screaming for him to stay out of it and leave it to the European powers, being as it is a Euopean problem.
Iran may have a stockpile of nuclear weapons already and Obama paying them to keep quiet about it. Nothing is beyond the tyrant in the White House.
Perhaps some people’s time-line is off a bit, and don’t realize that Stuxnet came about after Bachman made her prediction?
In any case, the point in bringing it up now is by me.
I think the important thing to remember is that while it is impossible to know the exact status of Iran’s Nuclear Program we can all rest in complete confidence that everything we need to know in order to determine that Ron Paul is a hypocritical imbecile is public and verifiable.
I would have used the word, certifiable. It just seems to fit.
It still makes more sense to build nuclear, which is way more efficient, and have a whole lot more oil/gas for export.
Spending far more for nuclear power - imported fissile material, imported design/construction knowledge, plant & equipment far more expensive, imported operations knowledge - than the equivalent megawatt-hours of gas- or oil-fired plants makes no sense. Iran’s exports might never recoup those costs, and their dependence on foreign contractors would last decades.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are military and aimed at Israel (initially … do the Iranians and Chechens get along with each other?); civilian nuclear power is a red herring.
That’s dangerously presumptuous. Iran likes to talk about immolating Israel and, if it thought it could do so and get away with it, it might, but its nuclear ambitions serve ambitions far closer to home. If Israel is worried about a nuclear Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf are terrified of the thought. The United States of America, successively through the Carter and Reagan doctrines, has assured the Gulf nations and the world, that the oil carrying sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will remain open. A nuclearized Iran is the only thing that can challenge that doctrine with impunity. The Iranians are in search first of Gulf region hegemony; dealing with Israel can wait upon that achievement.
Like I said in my post, “initially”. Establishing a threat over world oil supplies (and it would not have to be 100% or even 50% of the world’s oil supply, just enough to threaten a deep world-wide energy chaos) might, to the Iranians, be a MAD way of gaining greater freedom to attempt to annihilate Israel. Iranian (like Arabs’) hatred for Israel and the Jews and desire to annihilate both is real, not demagoguery for the masses. After that? Who knows? Support other Islamist forces throughout Asia and Africa? Force Arab states to bow to Iranian sway?