There’s a stockpile of 20% enriched uranium?
Dateline 21 Jul 2014
“Iran has turned all of its enriched uranium closest to the level needed to make nuclear arms into more harmless forms, the United Nations’ nuclear agency has said.”
Has that report been debunked or confirmed?
I’ve done a bit more research. Here’s the IAEA report:
Copy and paste is problematic from that document so I invite all to follow the link. On page 1 you’ll find the statement that Iran no longer has a stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. Annex III of the report has the details.
You know who is the closest nuclear threshold power to the United States? Canada. We could build a fairly advanced weapon in a matter of months, but choose not to.
Eventually all states will reach that point. Its likely Iran already has. If history has proven anything, it’s that you can slow the progression of technology but you can’t stop it. I believe these ultimately fruitless endeavors to stop rational, non-suicidal nations from developing their own weapons (or the technology to do so) is creating a much greater risk - that the isolation, political difficulties and economic troubles imposed by these efforts will facilitate the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a non-state actor.
Then all bets are off. Then we’re not talking rational, non-suicidal, relatively stable nation-states controlling these weapons, we’re talking crazy people willing to kill whomever to get closer to their vague and frightening goals. Personally, I’m more worried about what could happen in Pakistan rather than what will happen in Iran, and I think their situation, particularly in the tribal regions, is far more distressing. Iran is a geo-political battle. Pakistan is a major security threat.
Fascinating.
At the risk of waxing ad hominem, I find Frum to offer the same vacuous hypotheticals and twisting of reality that permeates these desperate arguments from the right.
I found this to be particularly noteworthy, in response to the outlandish suggestion that we actually learn from our own recent history:
FRUM: “We’re not really talking about Iran at all in this debate. We’re talking about Iraq. Proponents and supporters of this agreement are reliving the Iraq experience, applying lessons they believed they learned then - and (above all!) vowing to themselves never again to repeat what they see as the mistakes of 2002-2003.”
Man, this guy interjects more qualifiers than a contract lawyer on meth. “…lessons they believed they learned then…” “…what they see as mistakes…”
Clearly Frum is laboring intensely to distance himself from that detestable bunch.
I daresay, before Bush’s Folly, the supporters of invading Iraq were bemoaning that we were reliving Vietnam. The sheer audacity of some who insist we learn from experience! What a fool Santayana was!
Frum’s point amounts to this: if we don’t force ourselves to ignore the past, we stand a chance of not repeating it. Of course, repeating those mistakes is crucial to attaining the ultimate goal of remaking the Middle East according to the designs of PNAC.
In his eagerness to slaughter preemptively, Frum would have us forget the principle of “mutually assured destruction” as well.
Shorter Frum:
Bottom line: Frum wants war and that our disastrous experience in the region cannot be used as a deterrent to that course of action.
Excellent idea!
This may release me from the view that all Republicans are idiots - though time will tell.
Don’t know if this is just a “Prime” feature - but done in sufficient breadth, it distinguishes TPM from competitors.
One quibble in this exchange - Josh’s reply to David refers to “You (the actual you or the notional you).” I have no idea what this means. Is Josh suggesting that David is arguing for things he doesn’t believe?
Because everyone knows this to be true. It’s not a secret. There is no real need to officially acknowledge what everyone knows to be completely true. It’s already taken into consideration in every step both sides take.
BTW, I LOVE this new format and exchange.
OK. Frum predictable as ever. Was it possible, no matter how great the Iran deal is…that Frum would commend it? No. He is a partisan ( although he has a great moderate schtick ) and is incapable of seeing good in anything Democrat. But here you have Josh Marshall and David Frum…two smart guys…debating something they cannot know much about. They may be in full command of what is known but “what is known” about this thing is very little…so isn’t this all very silly?
Enjoyed the format a lot. Found myself going back and forth on the issues with the various points being made. Which is to say, I thought both Josh and David had valid strongly held beliefs. I believe the pursuit of a verifiable agreement is worth the effort particularly when the alternatives are considered.
As to pointing to Iraq for lessons to be learned I think it is an entirely poor model. I recall being told we would invade Iraq only as a last resort. I also thought we had accomplished our goal when UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq to resume inspections.
Until we come to an actual agreement we really will not know whether we have conditions acceptable to us. Until we get to that point, negotiation is much preferred to open warfare.
No, what I meant here was that I meant both “you” directly to David but also “you” meant in the general sense.
No, I’ve seen no report that the Iranians have completed that dilution of their HEU stockpile either. Frum just plain, flat out lied, just as he did about Arak producing plutonium. Arak isn’t even operational. Frum just demonstrated the baboon mentality of your common conservative, flipping dust in air, flinging poo, and hooting to distract the other party. If Josh decides to debate him again in the future on this topic, Frum needs to understand the ground rules firmly about telling the truth.
Doesn’t your comment apply equally to almost all of the folks we see talking TV or writing op-ed commentary? It applies especially to those anti-science politicians who can’t seem to understand any of the details of any international agreement which is based on some sort of science and not just political ideology.
For me, I guess the question is why do people like Mr. Frum, who has some perfectly reasonable positions always end up siding with neocon illogic when it comes to diplomacy (or the actual avoidance of) and nothing explains this except fear. Unless, of course, they are so disconnected from the human experience as to calculate the worth of their stock portfolios in peace time as opposed to war time. In which case, the answer is probably still fear.
Well, now we know some answers:
Will Iran surrender its stockpile of high-enriched uranium?
Yes.
Will the Arak reactor cease producing plutonium?
Yes
Will sanctions be lifted immediately, or in stages as Iran proves its compliance?
Will be lifted after compliance.
Can nuclear inspectors go anywhere in Iran?
Yes.