Clinton position on Iran Resolution

"This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region."  Senator Hillary Clinton

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

This clarification is an important part of the debate over what the US should do about Iran.  There is still a question as to whether or not Iran is actually seeking to build its own deliverable nuclear weapons.  The evidence observed so far by the IAEA does not support a conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program but the question is still open.  It  seems to me that Iran is probably about three years away from the ability to produce a nuclear explosion in a static test situation.  If that occurs then the realities of engineering and manufacturing a nuclear weapon that "mates" with a ballistic missile available to them would probably take five more years. 

There is a lot of "elbow room" in this process for diplomacy.

If, on the other hand, the beginning of strikes on Iran is to be justified on the basis of IRGC actions in Iraq, then anything is possible at any time.  pl

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561

Comments

[Jose]

"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton

"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.
- Hillary Clinton

The challenge is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.
- Hillary Clinton

She and He are professional liars and hypocrites.

Of course her integrity is in accordance to what AIPAC tells her to vote for but always with enough wiggle room to make the impossible, possible by having it both ways.

I thought not even Dumbya would be foolish enough to boom Iran but it looks like I was wrong.

Check this out from Juan Cole's blog, Hersh is usually right on these issues:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63986/?page=1

Mu apologies to Vietnam Vets who hate Hersh.

[Nicholas Weaver]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. Not only do we have to assume that Iran's program is a weapon's program, but it is the only logical explanation.

Iran is sitting on some of the largest provable reserves of natural gas and oil. If the program was about electricity, they don't need nuclear power.

Even if they did need nuclear power, if it was about electricity, they could buy a light-water reactor design and a decade or two of fuel, for a microscopic fraction of the cost.

This is about providing a complete fuel cycle which can be adapted at least to create a nuclear bomb, either through uranium enrichment or plutonium production.

At this point, it is probably more about nationalistic pride than being able to create a weapon that works, but this is a weapons-centric program.

Of course, I think at this point there is not much we can DO about it, and it would probably be a decade before Iran could get a missile-deliverable weapon, but that doesn't change the observation that the nuclear program in Iran only makes sense as a weapons, not a power, program.

[Binh]

Frankly this is the paper trail Clinton is building for herself if and when Bush does attack Iran using dubious legal justifications which will undoubtedly include this resolution. She will be able to say, "see I never authorized military action."

Nevermind the fact that we are in a GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR and declaring part of a country's armed forces a terrorist organization means they become targets in that war.

I'm waiting for Bush to start saying that an attack on Iran is necessary to stop the flow of nuclear IEDs and EFPs into the hands of Iraqi Shia militias....

[W. Patrick Lang]

NW

Iran makes the argument that it wishes to export crude and gas for foreign exchange rather than burn it for gasoline. In the absence of proof, I think that posibility should not be discounted.

In any event, the Israeli argument, echoed by Bush, is that Iran must be stopped in a putative weapons program, not from production, but from achieving the knowledge and capability of future production of weapons. pl

[Nancy]

It truly amazes me how Republicans view the Clinton's as professional liars and hypocrites, when their own party seems full to busting with liars, crooks and married men seeking love in all the wrong places.
Maybe it's time to start cleaning house in both parties, and support canidates who are for the people, and not for other countries, big business, or themselves. Wishful thinking maybe.

[Martin K]

I, on the other hand, think its really good and really important that senator Clinton states where the land lies in the fight between the administration and congress/senate. To quote Philip Carter over at intel-dump.com, the Iran-strike option is "batshit insane" if true.

As Hersh points out, the Iranis options of retaliation are almost endless. In a 20 year perspective, mr. Bush and mr. Cheney *must* be stopped from commiting the gravest strategical error in modern times. If the current trend goes on, the US is fast approaching a very nasty way of government. Mrs. Clintons stand shows that she is aware of that. Good play.

[Mad Dogs]

Shorter Dick Cheney: "Authorization? We don't need no steekin' authorization."

[Will]

@N.Weaver. It's about pride. all the arguments made apply to Brazil, which incidentally has an ethanol miracle on sugar cane. Not only does Brasil enrich uranium b/ does so in a proprietary process they don't disclose to inspectors.

Will any nation with right type of reactors divert fuel for a possible bomb? hell yes, probably none so flagrantly as the Israelis did w/ Dimona. An aggressive country with 200 some nukes participating in ethnic cleansing (what's a nicer term for settlements and settler only roads and hundreds of checkpoints?) on the West Bank is a danger to the whole world. When it "controls" (control is a degree of influence) the USA, it is a global catastrophe.

Speaking of- two chilling items in the news.

1. "DEBKAfile reports: Russians employed at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor suddenly depart in a body, according to local Arab sources"

2. from the JPost "Approximately 72 percent of Israelis support the use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, according to a Canadian survey released recently."

The US presidents that have tried to link US grant money to freezing settlements have had their heads handed back to them. Ford, Carter, Bush 41.

There is simply no substitute for an imposed Peace. The trillion dollars blown on Irak would have certainly accomplished it.

[JM]

NW,

In addition to PL's points above, I have read that Iran lacks sufficient refining capability; they appear to be a net importer of refined petroleum products.

More clarity on Iran's actual power-generating capabilities would be useful, though.

[Binh]

Weaver writes: "Even if they did need nuclear power, if it was about electricity, they could buy a light-water reactor design and a decade or two of fuel, for a microscopic fraction of the cost."

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that Iran has only 1 heavy water reactor in Arak. I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong on this as well) that the rest are light-water reactors or medium-water reactors(?).

Judging by this, I would say that the main goal of the program is to generate power. The need to do this because at the rate at which their electricity needs are growing, they will become a net oil importer sometime next decade. That's right, Iran will be a net oil importer in 10-15 years if they do not get nuclear power.

I've written extensively on why Iran's rulers are hell-bent on nuclear energy, even at the risk of an American attack:
http://prisonerofstarvation.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-bush-iraq-ing-iran.html
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/pham220406.html
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/pham130606.html

They've also repeatedly and loudly declared nuclear weapons "un-Islamic" so it would be a little tough for them to pull a 180 on this issue given that they are an Islamic Republic. But even if they are secretly trying to build one a decade or two down the road, it makes a lot of strategic sense, given that they are surrounded militarily by the U.S. in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the Gulf, and that Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nukes.

[Matthew]

Col: How do you realistically stop people from "achieving knowledge and capability of future production"? Atomic weapons are a 60-year-old technology. Sounds like the proponents of this argument another, real agenda for Iran: We get to decide when and if your country develops and in what direction.

As to Mr. Weaver's argument about Iran not needing nuclear power. That is like saying America can grow lots of veggie fuel or mine coal so we don't need nuclear power either. The NPT has no "you must have no alternative to nuclear power" clause.

When we are talking about killing a lot of people, IMHO, we need a better argument than that.

[joe]

why does everyone assume that iran will use an atomic weapon? I cant believe they are any more likely to use it then say the pakistani's or north koreans or any other nuclear state for that matter.

atomic weapons are for deterrence they are a political tool and nothing more.

but we continue to hear baseless allegations that as soon as they get the bomb a shahab3 is gonna be on its way to dimona or tel aviv or there going to give the bomb to hamas. not gonna happen folks.

[J]

Cheney was in Utah this past Friday most likely briefing the Council For the National Policy (CNP) regarding the progress or lack thereof on his planned intentions to strike at Iran by hook or crook. A group that scurries from the light and refuses to disclose their membership and their intentions, such 'briefings' by elected officials like Cheney doesn't meet the 'transparency' of government originally intended by our Constitution. The CNP is NOT the people.

Hillary's statements (documented by video footage) of when she is before the AIPAC crowd is pro-bombing/strike Iran, but when confronted by the media, then espouses the opposite, I find very disconcerting.

[Andy]

It should be pointed out that the Iranian program is probably not an either-or issue to the Iranian leadership. In my view it is expressly designed to support both military and civilian objectives. Arguments that the program is clearly one or the other miss this clear possibility.

It should also be noted that Iran's ultimate intent is not clear. For example, assuming there is a military component to the program (which there is evidence, though not conclusive, to support), is the goal an actual weapon, a deliverable weapon, or simply the capability to weaponize quickly if need be?

With respect to energy production, a key question is why does Iran spend billions on a complete fuel cycle when it only has enough reserves to fuel Bushehr for a decade? In this regard, Iran's claims of a wholly domestic nuclear power program are deceptive. In other words, why spend the billions creating an enrichment infrastructure knowing you don't have the domestic reserves to supply it?

It's not definitive to be sure, but Iranian decisionmaking and resource allocation with regard to its energy sector makes little economic sense.

[Chris Brace]

Well my one question would be seeing as there has been a theme running throughout the Bush presidency of being the anti-clinton in that there has been a real desire to see anything done by a Clinton as being wrong, is this something that will act as a break on Bushes actions on Iran?

[isl]

Iran also has embarked on an effort to convert its industry to natural gas

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/iran-mandating-.html

not only for energy security, but also to maximize petroleum export currency.

Needless to say, energy security is inconsistent with importing fuel for a lightwater reactor.

Having noted that the Iranian motives could be pure, wise commentators have noted Iran would be stupid not to try and have a weapons program given their neighbors and the US behavior re: N. Korea.

However, absent an invasion, it is unclear to me if pushing the entire effort underground with no IAEA nosing around would speed things up - it has been noted by John K Galbraith that allied bombing of Nazi facilities in the war had minimal effect on munitions production.

[cynic librarian]

As I wrote nearly two years ago, the US Army War College International Strategic Studies (ISS) group issued a recommendation that seems to envision a nuclear-capable Iran. Their report, GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN, suggests ways to channel this capability in responsible ways that benefit Iran and the mideast region itself.

Indeed, this group makes a suggestion that points up something of a tipping-point in this conversation: Israel's nuclear stockpile. From an Iranian perspective, it is the height of US hypocrisy to demand that it not have nclear weapons while the US turns a blind eye to Israel's own weapons.

According to this report, the US should remedy this perception of favoritism towards Israel by:

Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. [emphasis in original] Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactor’s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in “escrow” in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran) follow Israel’s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bomb’s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years. Israel should further announce that it will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons usable fissile material to the IAEA when:

* a. All states in the Middle East (i.e., the three mentioned above)dismantle their fissile producing facilities (large research and power reactors, hexafluoride, enrichment plants, and all reprocessing capabilities).
* b. All nuclear weapons states (including Pakistan) formally agree not to redeploy nuclear weapons onto any Middle Eastern nation’s soil in time of peace. Such arms restraint by deed rather than negotiation should avoid the awkwardness of current Middle Eastern arms control proposals that would have Israel enter into nuclear arms talks with states that do not recognize it and have it admit that it has nuclear weapons―a declaration that would force Israel’s neighbors immediately to justify some security reaction including getting bombs of their own.

Such efforts, along with the other recommendations in this report, will not only go a long way in heading off nuclear confrontation in the Mideast but also provide goodwill with Iran that can stabilize the region itself.

Recently, renowned Israeli war historian (his work is textbook material at West Point) Martin van Creveld seems to echo these comments, at least as far as downplaying any overblown paranoia about Iran's nuclear threat. Creveld writes:

Since 1945 hardly one year has gone by in which some voices — mainly American ones concerned about preserving Washington’s monopoly over nuclear weapons to the greatest extent possible — did not decry the terrible consequences that would follow if additional countries went nuclear. So far, not one of those warnings has come true. To the contrary: in every place where nuclear weapons were introduced, large-scale wars between their owners have disappeared.

General John Abizaid, the former commander of United States Central Command, is only the latest in a long list of experts to argue that the world can live with a nuclear Iran. Their views deserve to be carefully considered, lest Ahmadinejad’s fear-driven posturing cause anybody to do something stupid.

But like everything else in this environment of PR and propaganda, such informed and rational views may go unheeded until it is too late.

[dan]

NW

Iran may well have substantial oil and gas deposits, but it's worth noting that its nuclear programme, a scaled-down version of which it is currently pursuing, began well before the Islamic revolution, was "blessed" by Washington, and originated at a time when US legislation did not threaten companies with major penalties for investing in the Iranian hydrocarbon sector.

I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that Iran was shopping around for a light water reactor in the early 1990's - deals with Germany, China and Russia were all spiked by US intervention. During the 2004-2005 suspension of activities, the EU-3 were supposed to include the light water reactor as part of the incentive package to Iran, but this was withdrawn when the "derisory" final offer was tabled.

Iran also has substantial Uranium ore deposits - are you suggesting that Iran should be disallowed from exploiting its resources to the maximum extent possible?

Can you also please explain to me how Iran is supposed to develop its hydrocarbon reserves further when the US reserves the right to penalise any company that invests more than $20 million per annum in Iran's energy sector, has made considerable efforts over the last 15 years to stymie World Bank project finance to Iran, and has export control rules that make civilian technology transfers by third-party countries problematic, as under ILSA definitions anything that has a 10% US input is considered to be an American product, and is subject to sanctions.

Do you think that Iran would curtail its nuclear activities if US sanctions were withdrawn?

Or, perhaps more pertinently, do you foresee any US administration being prepared to end the sanctions regime that makes it difficult for Iran to optimise its hydrocarbon potential in exchange for a verifiable limit to its nuclear programme?

[ked]

Col Lang's timeline for Iran achieving deliverable-nuclear-weapon-system status is the expert consensus.

So, why isn't the point STRONGLY made (by the Dems, Conservatives, MSM, Wall St, Allies - heck, even the Iranians!) that it would be a profound error of security policy / statecraft for an unpopular, failed & lame duck pres to engage in war-making that is not an existential emergency?

Are we THAT thick?

[cynic librarian]

As I wrote nearly two years ago, the US Army War College International Strategic Studies (ISS) group issued a recommendation that seems to envision a nuclear-capable Iran. Their report, GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN, suggests ways to channel this capability in responsible ways that benefit Iran and the mideast region itself.

Indeed, this group makes a suggestion that points up something of a tipping-point in this conversation: Israel's nuclear stockpile. From an Iranian perspective, it is the height of US hypocrisy to demand that it not have nclear weapons while the US turns a blind eye to Israel's own weapons.

According to this report, the US should remedy this perception of favoritism towards Israel by:

Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials. [emphasis in original] Israel should announce that it will unilaterally mothball (but not yet dismantle) Dimona, and place the reactor’s mothballing under IAEA monitoring. At the same time, Israel should announce that it is prepared to dismantle Dimona and place the special nuclear material it has produced in “escrow” in Israel with a third trusted declared nuclear state, e.g., the United States. It should make clear, however, that Israel will only take this additional step when at least two of three Middle Eastern nations (i.e., Algeria, Egypt, or Iran) follow Israel’s lead by mothballing their own declared nuclear facilities that are capable of producing at least one bomb’s worth of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in 1 to 3 years. Israel should further announce that it will take the additional step of handing over control of its weapons usable fissile material to the IAEA when:

* a. All states in the Middle East (i.e., the three mentioned above)dismantle their fissile producing facilities (large research and power reactors, hexafluoride, enrichment plants, and all reprocessing capabilities).
* b. All nuclear weapons states (including Pakistan) formally agree not to redeploy nuclear weapons onto any Middle Eastern nation’s soil in time of peace. Such arms restraint by deed rather than negotiation should avoid the awkwardness of current Middle Eastern arms control proposals that would have Israel enter into nuclear arms talks with states that do not recognize it and have it admit that it has nuclear weapons―a declaration that would force Israel’s neighbors immediately to justify some security reaction including getting bombs of their own.

Such efforts, along with the other recommendations in this report, will not only go a long way in heading off nuclear confrontation in the Mideast but also provide goodwill with Iran that can stabilize the region itself.

Recently, renowned Israeli war historian (his work is textbook material at West Point) Martin van Creveld seems to echo these comments, at least as far as downplaying any overblown paranoia about Iran's nuclear threat. Creveld writes:

Since 1945 hardly one year has gone by in which some voices — mainly American ones concerned about preserving Washington’s monopoly over nuclear weapons to the greatest extent possible — did not decry the terrible consequences that would follow if additional countries went nuclear. So far, not one of those warnings has come true. To the contrary: in every place where nuclear weapons were introduced, large-scale wars between their owners have disappeared.

General John Abizaid, the former commander of United States Central Command, is only the latest in a long list of experts to argue that the world can live with a nuclear Iran. Their views deserve to be carefully considered, lest Ahmadinejad’s fear-driven posturing cause anybody to do something stupid.

But like everything else in this environment of PR and propaganda, such informed and rational views may go unheeded until it is too late.

[Babak Makkinejad]

ked:

As I had written earlier in this foruwm - "this ain't about hunting".

This is about State Power in the Persian Gulf and in the Levant.

As Sa'adi wrote 700 years ago:

Two dervishes will share a blanket for a night

Two Sovereigns cannot share one Realm.

I also do not think Ms. Clinton's gyrations will make any substantial difference in the USG decision making.

Furthermore, the Congress of the United States will not impeach a war president regardless of what he does, in my opinion.

[Babak Makkinejad]

dan:

Iran also showed interest in purchasing the TRIUMPH accelerator in Canada for physics research. Even that was, as you put it, spiked.

Iran has been also a share-holder of EURODIF with zero possibility of receiving nuclear fuel from them.

Same story with heavy water.

The prestige factor of having a nuclear industry cannot be under-estimated. Brazil & Argentina have heavily invested in that as well as India. In fact, the North Koreans wanted a nuclear reactor for the same reasons as part of the Agreed Framework even though their electricity grid system could not handle the load.

In my opinion, bombing or not bombing of Iran have become irrelevant choices geopolitically.

General William S Odom has observed that with regards to Iran there is only a binary choice left (a rarity in International Relations):

A Hostile Iran with nuclear weapons

Or

A non-hostile Iran with nuclear weapons.

At the moment, US is trying to utilize the strategies of the Cold War against Iran - economic & military containment since US wants to maintain hegemony in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.

But that Cold War, as one of its corner stones, had the articulation of a plausible and positive vision of the future which US has singularly failed to do in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.

As an Egyptian commentator observed a couple of years ago: "US policy towards Iran is one of carrots and sticks and towards Arabs just one of sticks."

[eaken]

Oil is at $83/bbl and projected to go higher. In light of that, consider the following conversions:

1 lb. coal - ~10K BTU

1 barrel of crude - ~6M BTU

1 cbf of natgas ~ 1K BTU

1 lb. U238 - ~3.6B BTU

Sell the oil.

[Nicholas Weaver]

Russia has offered to host an out-of-country fuel cycle for Iran. Iran refused.

Developing the full fuel cycle is not just expensive, but not cost effective if the goal is power production.

It takes a huge amount of effort to build a reliable centrifuge cascade, but LEU would readily be available on the world market from Russia or China for purposes of a power plant.

Not to mention the focus on a fuel cycle is slowing down everything else. If Iran wanted to buy LEU, their main new reactor would probably be online by now.

But nuclear plants can't be as easily put in 20M deep bunkers like you can a centrifuge cascade, and light-water reactors aren't nearly as good for plutonium production.

Occam's razor people. There are 2 possible explanations for how Iran is persuing a nuclear program:

a) Power production

b) Prestige and nuclear weapons.

The current program just does not make sense for A.

Building a fuel cycle is highly costly, both politically and economically.

How many dollars and how much political capitol has it cost Iran already, when refusing such items as Russia's off-country fuel cycle proposal? How much money has been spent just to make the fuel cycle bomb-resistant?

Please don't mistake this for a justification for attacking Iran however. The F@#)(#*@) incompetence on the part of the Bush administration has ensured that a nuclear armed Iran is actually a better alternative then using force to stop them.

[João Carlos]

I sincerelly think the democrats need grow a spine a brains, but Immanuel Wallerstein give a less cynical explanation at http://fbc.binghamton.edu/218en.htm

They cannot be soft or the republicans will blame them, say they are "traitors" and "soft on terror".

If that is true, the adults will return to power only when the american public too behave like adults. We will see for a long time children at power making infatile "cowboy" policy.

I fear that the "Dictatorship of One Thought" is not a good thing...

João Carlos