The Washington Note and Raw Story both have new stories about Valerie Plame Wilson. Both stories revolve around Iran’s attempts to obtain uranium and nuclear technology. This is a very ironic turn of events. The l’affair Plame started out as a protest against the false allegations against Iraq and has now morphed into a story line that supports allegations against Iran.
How could this have happened?
It appears that Valerie Plame was part of a team that was monitoring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Disclosing her idenity and the true nature of her ostensible employer had the effect of compromising that operation. Meanwhile, the still classified portions of Joseph Wilson’s oral Niger report contained no evidence that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Niger. But, it did contain evidence that Iran made such an attempt.
This story cuts both ways. It further explodes the idea that Valerie Plame was just some semi-retired paper pusher at Langley. If true, this elevates the seriousness of exposing her identity quite substantially. On the other hand, it bolsters the case for people that are trying to mobilize international support for a tough line on Iran.
Raw Story:
I highly recommend paying the money for the Atlantic article (subsc. only), The Point of No Return by William Langewiesche on A.Q. Khan’s network, and the work of Mark Hibbs:
Diaried here (ePM).
.
CIA/America Refused Arrest in 1975 & 1985
Dr. A.Q. Khan displaying his gold medalawarded by Pakistani President Rafiq Tarrar
in Lahore after the 1998 tests.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Boy Howdy, things are really heating up nowadays! I simply can not get my mind around all of this, this time! Really amazing to hear this. I have got to read more on this one! This will t ake us in a totally different direction on many things, wont it?
.
“The CIA and the State Department had doubts about the purported Niger information [Bush’s claim, in his 2003 State of the Union, that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa] because they knew Hussein already had a stockpile of the same type of uranium that he was supposed to be seeking.”
● WaPo Dec. 24 2003 – White House Faulted on Uranium Claim
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I see that Steve Clemons somewhat discounts the idea that the outing of Plame had to do with her work rather than her status as the wife of Wilson.
I’m not sure why these things are mutually exclusive. I’ve never thought that it seemed very reasonable to assume that the Cheney people would out a CIA agent just to try to diminish her husband in the public’s eye. I’ll grant you that the Bush Administration isn’t reasonable. But they are devious. And I’ve regularly said that the fact that she worked on WMD could not be discounted. The fact that they didn’t like the WMD intelligence would give them motive to bring her down; he husband’s trip to Niger gave them opportunity. Maybe they were killing two birds with one stone.
On the other hand I’m not sure how the revelation that she worked on the IRAN issues plays into that theory and I’ll have to think more about that.
I think I actually remember reading that Plame’s detection was that they stopped some WMD’s coming in from Turkey. I am sure they, the adm., was trying to sneak some in for vilification in the excuse for going to war…just so they would find some. Therefore, causing some distention from the WH on this. Then, plus, the Niger thingee. I can see where they wanted her scalp…..and you are right to say kill two birds with one stone.
Whoever went after Wilson wasn’t just trying to “diminish” – they wanted him totally discredited (they failed miserably). Based on what I’ve read, whoever outed Plame knew she was CIA, but was not aware of her covert status. Remember she was back in D.C. at the time. Further, “bring(ing) her down” would have little-to-no effect on the agency’s final report to the WH.
Devious as they appear, they seem to lack the common sense they were born with. Arrogance will do that to a person.
All right – I’ll use “discredit” if you want. It failed. As you say, miserably. Why?
Because even if the story they were spreading was true — who cares? Who cares if a man is given his job because his wife had some influence in the decision as long as he does the job well? Not enough people in the world would care enough about that to discredit him. Yes they are arrogant. Yes, some of them lack common sense — but not all of them.
But throw in the fact that the wife is an expert in the very area that is causing the white house hearburn and now you have an interesting set of facts. Why would they hope to accomplish by bringing her down? I don’t know. Clearly, as you say, they weren’t interested in her input into the agency’s final report.
I just don’t see the two purposes being mutually exclusive.
Booman said: “… a story line that supports allegations against Iran.”
What allegations would that be? Everyone knows the Iranians want to build nuclear power plants, which is their right under agreed to treaties. As far as I can tell one still needs uranium to fire up those plants. So what is the problem with shopping for it? Does anyone have creditable info that the Iranians are building a bomb? And, if they are building one (which is also their right) is invasion/bombing/shunning a good idea? Wouldn’t diplomatic engagement to form some kind of treaty be far more reasonable?
The Iranians have signed the NPT and thus have declined to seek nuclear weapons, so, no it is not in their right to develop an A-bomb, and according to sources in the IAEA they have even admitted acquireing blueprints on how to develop nuclear warheads from the network of the infamous A.Q. Khan, seemingly in violation of NPT’s article II.
Acquiring nuclear warhead blueprints from A.Q.Khan is the first step in the production of nuclear weapons, if not why seeking the assistance and know-how from an expert on developing nuclear weapons? That is not something you do if you want to convince some one of your peaceful intentions, especially not when it comes to WMD’s.
Well that is ample evidence of the right hand not knowing what the left hand does and is yet another example of the absence of ethics within the current US administration. Still it is not illegal to supply Iran with nuclear reactor parts, after all it is to be used for peaceful energy purposes.
What I am saying is that it is in no country’s right to acquire nuclear weapons be it the US, Israel, Pakistan or Iran, and even if some countries have acquired these WMD’s that doesn’t mean that we ought to ditch the NPT all together.
When Iran have admitted acquiring blueprints on how to develop nuclear warheads from the network of the infamous A.Q. Khan this reflects badly on Iran’s pledges of peaceful intentions.
Certainly the US has no more right to these weapons than any other nation, on the contrary, one could make the argument that since US is the only country that has ever deployed such a weapon, as well as the US’ record of invading and occupying other nations, not to mention their various and varied covert operations around the world, and leaving entirely aside their policy of kidnapping anyone they choose and hauling them off to torture camps, that the US has no right, and clearly not the responsibility, of having any weapons at all.
So then, which nations should form a coalition to disarm the US and liberate its people?
Oh, and that “infamous A.Q. Khan network” is a sneaky bunch indeed:
Certainly the US has no more right to these weapons than any other nation, on the contrary, one could make the argument that since US is the only country that has ever deployed such a weapon, as well as the US’ record of invading and occupying other nations, not to mention their various and varied covert operations around the world, and leaving entirely aside their policy of kidnapping anyone they choose and hauling them off to torture camps, that the US has no right, and clearly not the responsibility, of having any weapons at all.
Yes, I agree that the US have to take their fair share of ill deeds done in the past, but there is more than enough evidence of torture and assassinations to incriminate almost any country in the World at a given time, Iran included. The Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie and any publisher that dared to publish his book is ample evidence of that resulting in some deaths and other severely wounded. Still the wrong doings of the US is not, in my opinion relevant when discussing the NPT and that is why I find it a bit futile to play the blame game.
So then, which nations should form a coalition to disarm the US and liberate its people?
No one, because no one can, but two wrongs does not one right make.
Oh, and that “infamous A.Q. Khan network” is a sneaky bunch indeed.
Yes, according to Guardian Unlimited, quite so, the Iranians seems to have gotten hold of two blueprints on how to develop a nuclear bomb at the moment, one flawed from the CIA sting operation and one seemingly correct from the A.Q.Khan network:
If the story of the CIA operation going foul is correct, it only shows how wrong things can go when bad judgement is exercised, especially within the intelligence community. Still this doesn’t detract from the fact that Iran was willing to buy illegal documents on how to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. So my point is still significant and, in my opinion, even enhanced by your information.
and the most terrible, in terms of the chances of the continuance of human life on earth, is allowing the US to amass such destructive capability, and to run rampant over the globe, seeking out those in other countries willing to do the most terrible things.
That does not change the fact that of all countries who possess nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly, the US is still the only one who has ever exploded one onto the heads of human beings.
The US is also the only country who is currently occupying two nations overtly, several covertly, and about to invade and occupy another one, breaking from its tradition a bit, since the one it is about to invade actually has an army and an air force.
My point about the CIA and the “AQ Khan network” is that it is probably a good idea to be skeptical about pronouncements from Washington, and also a good idea to bear in mind that money is money, and trumps national boundaries, and the business of weapons – all weapons – is precisely that: a business.
As far as the idea of nonproliferation goes, US had a very good opportunity to assume a role of leadership and example in this regard, and made a different choice, therefore the reality is that any country that does not have at least one or two “strategic assets” as they are called in Pakistan, stashed away somewhere is just plain foolish. That is the only chance any nation has of deterring US aggression, and just how good a chance even that is, we may shortly see, or we may not. They say the blast is very quick.
That does not change the fact that of all countries who possess nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly, the US is still the only one who has ever exploded one onto the heads of human beings.
And that is why we potentially should allow others to follow? I don’t think it is very wise to just sit back and let fate take its course, waiting to see whether if and when the next nuclear equipped country are going to strike.
My point about the CIA and the “AQ Khan network” is that it is probably a good idea to be sceptical about pronouncements from Washington,(…..)
You should, in my opinion, be sceptical to anything you read, period, and try to verify facts through many different sources, but most sources have an agenda and thus would be somewhat tilted, no matter what.
As far as the idea of non-proliferation goes, US had a very good opportunity to assume a role of leadership and example in this regard, and made a different choice, therefore the reality is that any country that does not have at least one or two “strategic assets” as they are called in Pakistan, stashed away somewhere is just plain foolish. That is the only chance any nation has of deterring US aggression, and just how good a chance even that is, we may shortly see, or we may not.
Well the only thing I can say to this is I am in total disagreement with you. I come from a region where all countries have chosen not to engage in research or development of nuclear weapons, both because we are signatories of the NPT and because we are not craving for a nuclear power status.
If we are to follow your logic, the NPT would be dead and buried and every nation on Earth would sooner or later have their little “strategic asset” and thus increase the chances of use, accidents or further proliferation ten folds, a most irresponsible policy in my opinion.
would be a good idea. However, I don’t think the US has positioned itself well to be considered for taking an active role.
Disarming the US would make the whole world safer, including the region which US considers its European territories.
Disarming the US would make the whole world safer, including the region which US considers its European territories.
Yes, I do agree with you that in an ideal world that would be the best, but since that is not a viable scenario in the short term we have to focus on preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
That does not mean that we should stop working for a continues disarmament of countries that already got nuclear weapons. A disarmament of all Nuclear powers must be the ultimate goal including the US and the nuclear powers in Europe.
Nor is an armed US compatible with the continuation of human life on earth – in the short term.
I understand that Washington is very anxious to bring its European territories more solidly on board with the expansion of the crusade to Iran, and I understand that this would indeed expedite operations and streamline costs.
And there is no question that this can be brought about, perhaps if the recent operation to that end may have been a bit ill-planned, we may assume that there are other, more skilled personnel who will be able to bring about the desired result more efficiently, and without resulting in increased honoraria to native overseers in client states, however in my opinion, this expansion will in and of itself also involve some “wild card” elements, and even if I were a supporter of US policies, I would advise against this particular operation at this time.
Nor is an armed US compatible with the continuation of human life on earth – in the short term.
Well, we have been living with an armed US since 1945 and survived. We have even been sheltered by it in a joint cooperation within NATO during the Cold War.
I don’t think it is realistic to say that an armed US is a threat to the humanity of the world, but it would be a safer world if no one had nuclear weapons.
which while they may have gone unnoticed by many in the west, have converged to present a most urgent situation at the present time, here in the middle of World War III.
You may recall Einstein’s famous quote, to the effect of he did not know with what weapons WWIII would be fought, but WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.
As for nonproliferation, in order for it to be meaningful, it must be accompanied, even preceded, by disarmament. And once the 800 pound gorilla is removed, it should be the highest planetary priority, in my opinion.
Think of it as having to clean out a very messy, overstuffed closet. The first thing you do is remove the largest, most visible item that has already fallen and hit several of your descendants upon the head.
which while they may have gone unnoticed by many in the west, have converged to present a most urgent situation at the present time, here in the middle of World War III.
Well, some people might think the War on Terror equals WWIII, but I am not of that opinion.
As for nonproliferation, in order for it to be meaningful, it must be accompanied, even preceded, by disarmament. And once the 800 pound gorilla is removed, it should be the highest planetary priority, in my opinion.
I disagree with you on this point. First of all, it is easier to prevent some one in getting hold of nuclear weapons than it is to take them away from countries that have already developed them. Second if you focus on disarmament and neglect prevention then, disarmament will have no meaning, because while you may have managed to disarm a few states in the process, a dozen new countries have developed new ones, thus the prevention bit have to get first priority since it is easier to achieve and it will have the greatest effect in limiting the development of nuclear weapons in the short term.
In the medium-and long-term perspective nuclear disarmament is of course the next step.
As a terrorist, I oppose the war on terror. We are on opposite sides.
However the good news is that idredit has had the kindness to start a thread dedicated to the expansion of the crusade into Iran, or more accurately, to decovertisize and expand activities in the Iran theatre.
Please allow me to invite you to proclaim your zeal here:
Is US Attack on Iran Imminent?
As a terrorist, I oppose the war on terror. We are on opposite sides.
I see you have a sense of humour and that is good, in the midst of all the seriousness.
That is not something you do if you want to convince some one of your peaceful intentions, especially not when it comes to WMD’s.
So when does the USA/West begin to convince the world of it’s peaceful intentions? And, who will verify those intentions since the IAEA is not allowed to inspect in the USA?
So when does the USA/West begin to convince the world of it’s peaceful intentions? And, who will verify those intentions since the IAEA is not allowed to inspect in the USA?
Well, first of all I have to say that I do not buy into the notion of the “West’s” eternal sin and the blame game.
There is no need to convince the world of the “West’s” peaceful intentions when talking about nuclear weapons, the proof is in the fact that they have never used their “strategic assets” neither during peace nor in war, after WWII. Iran has never had them and is not entitled to them either, and why take the risk of letting them acquire them? the NPT is there for a reason.
Western countries have done many ill deeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future, just as Middle-Eastern countries will continue doing bad things too. You seem to use the word “the West” indiscriminately, something I obviously can not subscribe to, just as I can not accept the use of the terms “Arabs” or “Muslims” indiscriminately. The “West” is not a monolith politically, neither are all “Muslim” or “Arab” countries.
It is time to move on and not continue to live in the past. Just because the US and some other countries have got nuclear weapons doesn’t entitle other countries to develop them. As I have said before two wrongs doesn’t make something right. What we can do is to try to prevent such wrongs from happening in the future, starting with the NPT.
You are right about calling any formation of nations a monolith politically and I was just using a term of art here. Henceforth I’ll call the nations of a certain formation the Prevailing Powers. Read it however you wish.
My point wasn’t to say the Prevailing Powers are bad, it was to point to the matter of trust. Why would any nation accept guarantees from the Prevailing Powers to limit their desire for nuclear weapons if those same Prevailing Powers do not uphold their end of bargains, i.e., invade to secure resources?
My point wasn’t to say the Prevailing Powers are bad, it was to point to the matter of trust. Why would any nation accept guarantees from the Prevailing Powers to limit their desire for nuclear weapons if those same Prevailing Powers do not uphold their end of bargains, i.e., invade to secure resources?
Because this, in my opinion, is not a matter of the Iranians trusting the “West” or, the world, since it is not only the “West” who is worried but also Iran’s neighbouring countries, but rather the IAEA, as the guardian of the NPT, trusting Iran when it has admitted acquiring blueprints on nuclear warheads. And last I checked many European countries opposed both the rather amateurish attempted from the Bush administration to convince the UN Security Council of Iraq’s WMD’s and even refused to join the “coalition of the willing” when they invaded Iraq back in 2003. So I can not, in all honesty, say that the matter of mutual trust do apply on many of the countries that are now distrusting Iran.