Community | January 09, 2012 | 56 comments

Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes

source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/09/panetta-admits-iran-not-developing-nukes/

Image
WakeUpPeople
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. 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.”

Republicans have been beating the drums of war in recent weeks as tensions in the Iranian gulf have soared. Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transport hub crucial to global industry, if U.S. warships return to monitor their activities.

Iran said it was planning to hold military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming weeks, and prior wargames saw the Iranians test missiles that are designed to sink warships.

President Barack Obama recently agreed to fresh sanctions on Iran targeting the country’s central bank, in hopes of slowing down their nuclear program. The European Union was also considering fresh sanctions, and details were expected later in January. The U.N., as well, has sanctioned Iran repeatedly over its nuclear program.

Iran said recently that it had created the country’s first ever nuclear fuel rod made from domestic uranium enriched at their own facilities.

Nuclear fuel enrichment is much different from enrichment for weapons. Most commercial nuclear reactors use lightly enriched uranium, which is between 3-5 percent enriched. Weapons-grade uranium must be enriched to approximately 85 percent or more of a key radioactive isotope for it to be usable in an atomic bomb.

Iran added on Monday that it had also enriched uranium up to 20 percent in an underground facility, explaining that the isotopes were to be used to help cancer patients.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said late last year that Iran had carried out tests that suggested they may be taking the first steps toward building a nuclear weapon, but former agency insiders disputed the claim as being misleading.

This video is from CBS News, broadcast Sunday, Jan. 8, 2012, as clipped by ThinkProgress.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Iran,  U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople
  4.     
    |

56 comments // Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes

  • warman1138
  • warman1138
  • WakeUpPeople
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • MSII
    • +4
      MSII  

    • The truth is the sanctions against them are already absolutely devastating their economy. There is no true need for any more "military adventures" (except that certain lunatics so very desperately want them for their own fiscal and political reasons - none having to do with true security). They themselves will not attempt to close the straights as their own imports/exports have to go through there and they are absolutely desperate for what's left of those to continue moving.

    • 5 months ago
  • artemis6
  • gump
    • +3
      gump  

    • A population reduction and control war. Sneaky . Claim any excuse to invade or embargo . Attack economy of a nation or large class of people . Cause failure to thrive. Allege the problems to have been accidental and unforseeable. Watch millions die just because CIA ( BUSH/ CHENEY ) does not want them to be breathing CIA air or takin up space or water. Really . Look at Iraq . Look at the effects wrought by the invasion and occupation. The CIA already had control of the oil . Now they have a tight control of life and death for every human in the country. A population of twenty something millions is now down by millions and births are inhibited by depleted uranium strewn everywhere. More could be listed . The place is a ghetto . Genocide . They want to do the same in Iran. They want to do a variation here. Based on financial excusses. But still a war on the population at large. Has been planned and going on a long time.

    • 5 months ago
  • dudefromtherock
    • +5
      dudefromtherock  

    • The military industrial complex has no limits to its bloodlust. Waging war on a lie is the American way... Gulf of Tonkin Incident for example, ditto with the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

    • 5 months ago
  • cantucwearebrothers
    • +1
      cantucwearebrothers  
    • dudefromtherock:

      Yes...this is so true. It's about time we had truth in reporting again. I don't necessarily want to see all of the gory details on TV, but I don't need the government to pretty anything up for me in a way that means I actually have no clue as to what's going on.

    • 5 months ago
  • oppressed1
  • Leen61
  • bailey78
    • +5
      bailey78  
    • Leen61:

      NO No no we need war so folks can be killed and money can be made. We have all the time in the world to rebuild. Besides we have all these bombs and bullets to use before they go bad..

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • PeteLeS33
  • Gravity_Man
    • +2
      Gravity_Man  

    • "Red Lines"? REALLY? Wouldn't red lines be lines drawn by Red Commies? Why are American leaders drawing Red Commie lines?!

      QUICK BOY! RUN DOWN PANETTA!

    • 5 months ago
  • circlesquared
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
  • MotherForTruth
  • bailey78
  • MotherForTruth
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +5
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • MotherForTruth:

      http://latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hannah-mideast-20120109,0,43622...

      The people who count DO know. That doesn't stop the likes of Dick Cheney and his mouthpieces from agitating to do what they have wanted to do since the GHWBush administration: Invade and occupy Iran.

      While all of this GOP primary circus act is going on to distract us, there is a lot going on in the background. Obama is starting to get pressure from the real forces running America's rightwing political scene.

      One of Dick Cheney's mouthpieces (and former National Security Advisor to Cheney), John Hannah, is starting to agitate again. [Refer to link, below] The focus is on how Obama is seen by leaders and opinionists in the Middle East as being weak, ineffective, flighty, and someone they cannot depend on. What Obama planned as triumphs (the invasion of Pakistan and death of OBL, and the Persian Gulf "rescue") just put an exponent on his pitifully poor judgment, timing, and overall leadership of America.

      Hannah also emphasizes Obama's flip on foreign policy in Egypt, and the abrupt nature of it has given Middle East leaders a huge outbreak of the willies. Obama's flip undid decades of U.S. foreign policy--and other Middle East leaders no longer see the U.S. as a reliable ally. So they are looking elsewhere for their alliances.

      Neocons like Michael Ledeen have had woodies to invade Iran since the George HW Bush administration. However, I don't think the elder Bush was willing, and the younger Bush's administration was consumed by their clusterfrack in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      I agree with what the Middle East leaders are saying, but not with the conclusions of Cheney's mouthpiece.

      What seems to be Mr. Hannah's focus is maneuvering Obama into a position where he makes another horrific decision (as he has done in the past when challenged on his national security cred)...this time, the neocons want him to invade Iran.

      The REAL threat to the U.S. from the Middle East leaders loss of confidence in Obama's stability and credibility as a leader is that this backs up the common opinion in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, that the U.S. is no longer a world power, and is failing.

      This is setting up our planet for a gynormous world-leadership vacuum. And from our physics classes we all remember that when there is a vacuum, there is no telling what will rush in to fill the void.

      China is building up its military like crazy. Russia is about ready to put Putin back into power, and I don't think Putin is very fond of Obama at all.

      But the neocons are still determined to invade Iran, and Obama's failing leadership may give them an opportunity to maneuver him into doing what they want.

      I agree with Obama's apparent current stance on Iran: leave them alone. Invading Iran would be a disaster of unbelievable proportions. However, as we've seen, Obama's leadership is by whim, and he may well invade Iran after the election is over.

      I would like to believe that Panetta's statement wasn't just a blunder, but was actually planned in order to defuse the neocons' pressure for Obama to invade Iran or appear weak on foreign policy. The timing of Panetta's statement and Mr. Hannah's op-ed in the LATimes is too much of a coincidence to be believed.

      Now, more than ever, we cannot afford any more Obama foreign policy blunders, but I fear that is exactly what our future will hold.

      -----------------------------------------

      (latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hannah-mideast-20120109,0,4362289.story)

      OBAMA MIA IN THE MIDDLE EAST: The Obama administration's lack of strategic vision, its instinct for retreat and its complicity in the unraveling of the Mideast's security are key concerns.

      By John Hannah ||| LATimes Op-Ed, 1/9/2012

    • 5 months ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • rerushg
  • Vierotchka
  • maasanova
  • StuffedDerma
  • artemis6
  • jubal
  • hammywill
  • BusterPoindexter
  • letsliveinpeace
  • rerushg
    • +3
      rerushg  

    • I suppose that if you hang out in the Pentagon and your only sources of information are the CIA, State Dept., and MSM, facts might be a little hard to come by. Someone must have accidently flipped the channel to DemocracyNow or something.

      "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."
      I'm confused here. What does "nuclear capability" mean in this context? Spent nuclear fuel pellets and a slingshot?

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • jubal
  • rerushg
    • +3
      rerushg  
    • Vierotchka:

      Well sure, I got that. Thanks. It's just that there's some double-speak here that's confusing. Hell, maybe it's just that Panetta's confused and dragging me along with him.

      "... 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 no develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."

      There must be more to this story and Panetta's doing a dance. You don't put the SOD on "Face The Nation", knowing the question is coming, without a clear game plan.

    • 5 months ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +2
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • rerushg:

      It's a guess what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad means when he says anything. Much of what he claims as threats doesn't turn out to be true.

      I think he's a blowhard. But he is a very politically astute blowhard. As such, look for when he quits pounding his chest as the time to really start worrying. When Iran gets nuclear destruction capabilities, I bet he will be as quiet as a mouse.

    • 5 months ago
  • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP
  • letsliveinpeace
  • Vierotchka
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • Vierotchka
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • DEM46
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • Vierotchka
    • +4
      Vierotchka  
    • Truthitswhatsfordinner:

      As a superpower, it is interesting that the US hasn't won a single war since WWII (not that it won that war, the USSR did, basically), save perhaps the 1983 spectacular war against little Grenada...

      As for Iran, it is nothing like either Iraq nor Afghanistan (neither wars being won) - it is a large country of mostly mountains, with a much larger population than Iraq, a well-organized and highly trained and large army which is well-equipped with sophisticated weaponry. The US doesn't stand a chance except if it nukes the whole country, which would quickly come back to bite the US as the prevailing winds would carry a huge amount of radioactive material all the way to the US.

    • 5 months ago
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • Vierotchka
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
    • -2
      Truthitswhatsfordinner  
    • Vierotchka:

      Perhaps the US didn't win for reasons that had less to do with the military and more to do with politics. My comments are limited to the notion that if it was about US coveting Iranian oil, it could take take the oil as it enjoys an overwhelmingly superior military advantage.

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +1
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • DEM46:

      We took the power brought by having control of Iran's oil. We parceled it out to our pals and those we owed favors. We also gained power by holding the purse-strings and parceling out contracts for defense industry contracts, reconstruction contracts, etc.

    • 5 months ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • bailey78
  • CalgarC
  • WakeUpPeople
more from Community:
from the community

top videos