Contrary to Widespread Claims, There Is NO EVIDENCE that Iran Is Building a Nuclear Weapon

George Washington's picture


Even Israel Admits that Iran Has Not Decided to Build a Nuclear Bomb


Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said:

Are they [the Iranians] 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.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing – following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2011 – that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”

Mohamed ElBaradei – who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA – said that he had not “seen a shred of evidence” that Iran was pursuing the bomb.

Six former ambassadors to Iran within the last decade say that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that Iran is complying with international law.

The International Atomic Energy Agency states:

All nuclear material in the facility remains under the Agency’s containment and surveillance.

In other words, all nuclear fuel is accounted for and is being controlled and monitored by the international agency tasked with nuclear non-proliferation.

What about Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%? The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and “a fully adequate isotopic barrier” to weaponization. In other words, 20% is well within the legal guidelines for developing a program of nuclear energy.

Indeed, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is acting in a wholly legal fashion. As the six former ambassadors cited above note:

In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States may be less assured than is generally believed.




Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a “threshold country”, technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but abstaining from doing so for now. Again, nothing in international law forbids this ambition. Several other countries are close to, or have already reached, such a threshold, with a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.

Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt – former fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences, scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, and frequent contributor to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – points out:

Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability — or a “nuclear option.” If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector — which the NPT actually encourages — it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a “nuclear option” — they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full “Additional Protocol” IAEA inspections.


The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA’s “Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements,” is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years that they have no evidence that any such program exists.

But didn’t the latest IAEA report say that Iran was trying to build a bomb?

Not really. The latest IAEA report states that Iran’s research program into nuclear weapons:

Was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order’ instruction issued in late 2003.

While there are some allegations about documents found on a laptop, those documents apparently came from a terrorist group with zero credibility.

In any event, the current accusations against Iran by hawks pushing for an attack cannot be taken in a vacuum:

  • The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq based on false statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. See this, this and this
  • The U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability (and the U.S. apparently helped fund the Iranian nuclear program)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950?s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the Bush administration (and especially Dick Cheney) helped to fund terrorist groups within Iran (see confirming articles here and here)
  • The New York Times, Washington Post and others are reporting, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former national security adviser Fran Townsend and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey – who all said that the terrorists were going to get us if we didn’t jettison the liberties granted under the Bill of Rights – are now supporting terrorists in Iran
  • The war against Iran has already begun. See this, this and this



It has been widely report that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”. However, numerous experts in Iranian language and culture say that this was a mistranslation.

I speak no Farsi, know nothing about Iranian culture or idioms, and don’t like Iran’s president or hardline Mullahs. So I can’t weigh in one way or the other.

However, Iran has not attacked another country in hundreds of years. (In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was the initial aggressor.) As such, it is unlikely to start one now.



There is a simple solution to the escalating rumors of war. Specifically, a fuel swap would end the tensions. As Butt writes:

[A commentator] proposes a fuel swap to resolve the nuclear standoff: Iran would curtail its enrichment in exchange for foreign-supplied 20 percent enriched uranium fuel plates for its research reactor. In fact, in 2010, just such a deal was brokered by Turkey and Brazil but the United States could not take “yes” for an answer. Though Iran has just accepted an offer of new talks brokered by Turkey, new sanctions passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama have made it even more unlikely that the two sides can reach an agreement.



Even if Iran were trying to build a bomb, American military and intelligence chiefs say that attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
honestann's picture

The elimination of DC wouldn't be much of a loss?  Frankly, that would be a HUGE gain.  That would probably put the economy of the USSA into a huge boom cycle.  Hopefully the states would then be smart enough to say "no problem, we made a huge mistake when we created the federal government and this is the perfect time to rectify that mistake, so we hereby officially dissolve that mutated abortion".

Element's picture

US Govt is aMutated abortion?!! ... goodness Honestann you make it sound like it's the co-equivalent of the EU commission or something

... oh ... ... wait! ... ... sorry, disregard.


And whatch out for black choppers 'ann, they're really out there - check this crap.





 DECEMBER 2nd 2011

As a government, we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence, regardless of who inspires it. At the same time, countering al-Qa’ida’s violent ideology is one part of our comprehensive strategy to defeat al-Qa’ida. Over the past 2½ years, more key al-Qa’ida leaders—including Usama bin Laden—have been eliminated in rapid succession than at any time since the September 11 attacks. We have strengthened homeland security and improved information sharing. Thanks to coordinated intelligence and law enforcement, numerous terrorist plots have been thwarted, saving many American lives.
—President Barack Obama, August 2011

Law enforcement and government officials for decades have understood the critical importance of building relationships, based on trust, with the communities they serve. Partnerships are vital to address a range of challenges and must have as their foundation a genuine commitment on the part of law enforcement and government to address community needs and concerns, including protecting rights and public safety. In our efforts to counter violent extremism, we will rely on existing partnerships that communities have forged with Federal, State, and local government agencies. This reliance, however, must not change the nature or purpose of existing relationships. In many instances, our partnerships and related activities were not created for national security purposes but nonetheless have an indirect impact on countering violent extremism (CVE).

At the same time, this Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) also includes activities, some of them relatively new, that are designed specifically to counter violent extremism. Where this is the case, we have made it clear. It is important that both types of activities be supported and coordinated appropriately at the local level.

Sadly, the threat of violent extremism in America is nothing new. Throughout our history, misguided groups—including international and domestic terrorist organizations, neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic hate groups—have engaged in horrific violence to kill our citizens and threaten our way of life. Most recently, al-Qa’ida and its affiliates have attempted to recruit and radicalize people to terrorism here in the United States, as we have seen in several plots and attacks, including the deadly attack 2 years ago on our service members at Fort Hood. As a government, we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence, regardless of who inspires it.

President Barack Obama, August 3, 2011



I wonder who they mean by all that poop ... ?

fajensen's picture

Just like the edicts from EU commision it means - whatever they need it to mean. Its gobbledegook that is open to any interpretation.

honestann's picture

As a government, we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence, regardless of who inspires it.

Well, I guess they'll arrest Obama, his whole administration, the entire congress minus RonPaul, the supreme court and just about everyone else in every semi-high-level position in the federal government.  After all, it is they who caused and inspired anger in all decent humans by blatantly and intentionally violating the holy crap out of the constitution on a daily basis.  So I'm all in favor of them preventing themselves for screwing everyone over and making them mad.  As for me, I left the USSA to make sure I don't get tangled up in their predatory behavior.  I have no intention to be violent, and I've never been violet.  I have every intention to stay as far away from those cretins as possible.  Many thousand miles.

WTFx10's picture

We could only wonder what life would be like after?

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Kind of like losing France and Swedenistan hasn't been much of a loss either.

Benjamin Glutton's picture

thanks again for rubbing their evil faces in the stinking truth.


Jan. 24, 2012

The United States this year is heading three entities expected to establish and carry out nonproliferation policies for the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations, the State Department said on Monday (see GSN, Jan. 23).

Washington is the 2012 chair for the multilateral organization.

The G-8 Nonproliferation Directors Group, which "provides the opportunity for G-8 representatives to consult on key issues concerning the nonproliferation of primarily nuclear -- among other -- weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems," is set to convene in Washington on Wednesday under the leadership of Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman.

Separately, participants in the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and representatives from 10 other multilateral groups were slated on Tuesday to begin a two-day meeting headed by Bonnie Jenkins, coordinator of threat reduction programs for the State Department (see GSN, May 31, 2011).

In addition, the G-8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group is expected to meet in the U.S. capital on March 7 and 8. The 10-year-old entity is intended "to provide technically informed strategic policy advice on the safe and secure use of nuclear energy worldwide," the State Department said (U.S. State Department release, Jan. 23).

lakecity55's picture

Libya decides to pass up petrobucks and use gold. NATO attacks.

Iran decides to pass up petrobucks and use gold. NATO attacks.

When will these people learn to obey the Zionist Banksters and avoid an obliterating NATO Mafia assault? These ungrateful Persians have rejected the kind, paternalistic hedgemony of The Fed and The City. They have been provided crisp, green fiat to exchange oil with! How un-bilderberger of them! Use Gold? They Do Not Have Permission!

Right now the Banksters are on the phone to their puppet in the oval orifice.

There will be blood.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Afghanistan decides to pass up petrobucks and use gold. NATO attacks.

Iraq decides to pass up petrobucks and use gold. NATO attacks.

Oh wait not quite.

In the last 40yrs even with the creation of the Euro, the percent of global commerce conducted in petro dollars has plummeted from 72% to 64%. 

Real reason to go to war.




non_anon's picture

the United States gov. is a blight on the world

covert's picture

if you understood the history of iran then you would know that they are making covert efforts.


CompassionateFascist's picture

All GW's facts and arguments are valid, and all irrelevant. Israel wants Iran taken down, US has no sovereignty vis a vis Israel, so Iran will be attacked and devastated. All we can hope for is Iran doing some counter-devastation, esp re the price of oil, and downfall of the dollar. About that, I'm optimistic.  

john39's picture

doncha know, luciferianism is the new thing...  problem is, most of you stupid cattle are necessary to support the masters... you don't get to part of the club.

Eisenhorn's picture

Of course Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon....they don't have the technology or fissile material yet.

THEY ARE developing the technology and materials IN ORDER TO create a nuclear weapon.

Regardless of your stance on this issue, trying to argue that Iran doesn't WANT a nuclear weapon is patently absurd.

Will they ever build one?  If they can they will.  It is the ultimate bargaining chip.

Who is going to attack Iran when they can drop a nuke or two on the largest oil fields in the middle east?

And there, in a nutshell, is also the Israeli strategy to date as well.

"Better come to our defense.  Our nukes aren't aimed at Riyadh and Tehran, they are aimed at the oil refineries and fields.  If we go down, we're taking the oil with us."

You now know everything you need to about why we are such a "staunch" supporter of Israel.

Element's picture

"... they don't have the technology ..." Eisenhorn



We know they have the technology, because AQ Khan admitted selling it to Iran.

They aren't 'developing' anything, as that's the wrong tense also.

Nuclear weapons have been DEVELOPED.  That is the correct tense.

john39's picture

the sampson option strategy is something that you expect from a country run by religious fanatics...  ironically, this is the rational put forth by israel as to why Iran can't have a nuclear weapon...  so who is really the country run by fanatics again?  gets confusing.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Hi Achmed,

so who is really the one outnumbered here?

The zionistas or the radical islamic muzzies?

It is very confusing, no doubt about it.

Some kill gays and treat their women as sub humans and they are NOT the fanatics.

again I ask, was Achmed23 taken?

Bringin It's picture

Hey NumbNuts - re. Some kill gays and treat their women as sub humans

Do we really need to dig up all the murder, maiming, theiving, dehumanizing activities your action-heros have dealt to all the men, women and children in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.?  

This is like making the 72 virgins claim when you have all that hate-goyim garbage in your Talmud.  I'd much rather live in Iran than sit in the evil-entity with your nasty blood-soaked hands.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Numbnuts! Good one! So move to Teheran and as I have already offered if you care to wander down Main St with an anti Mohammed sign I will foot your funeral bill.

Some don't kill gays and treat their women as sub human it is the law of the land.

As if it compares to treating half the population as sub human.

Otherwise excellent contribution.


DaveyJones's picture

Iran women enjoy more rights in Iran than Saudi Arabia. They hold seats in the parliment have been driving and voting...Otherwise excellent contribution

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

arabs oppress the shit out of half their population.

No shit Sherlock.

Excellent contribution.

john39's picture

yes, those crazy religious fanatics... good thing only uncivilized Muslims abuse women. /s

akak's picture

C'mon Stycho -- you know that to the typical fearmongering, Israel-first warvangelist, everybody between the Mediterranean Sea and the Himalaya (with the exception of "God's chosen people") are all the exact same "towel heads", regardless of nationality, language or history.

GoinFawr's picture

Then kind of like how you see the First Natio.. sorry, 'Indians' of the Americas, you mean? 

akak's picture

No, I realize that there are (or at least were) significant differences between the many different native groups in North America.

(And yes, I did say "native", even though I know that is a capital crime in hyper-politically-correct Canada.)

GoinFawr's picture

'groups'?   You mean like 'KC and the  Sunshine  Band'?

Of course anyone who calls you on your hypocrisy must be a 'hyper P-schmee Canuckistanian' or whatever, as if having a wider perspective is some sort of insult. Well you can rest easy, on this one I'm simply correct, politically.

You say you realize the differences, hunh. Yet you are on record making sweeping denigratory generalisations about what is, in your painfully narrow Western European view, their 'lack of political organisation'. Using your faulty standard you go on to conclude they didn't/don't deserve the title 'nation'.

Sounds pretty fucking ignorant to me. Ironic too; but I don't want to get too far ahead of you just yet...

akak's picture

Tribes are not nations, as much as that offends your Canadian hyper-politically-correct sensibilities.

SOME native American groups/ethnicities did cohere into nations to various degrees, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechua and Iroquois, but to the large majority of them, at ANY time in pre-Columbian history, the notion of nationhood would have been alien if not incomprehensible. That is not in any way a "Euro-centric" denigration of them, by the way --- most European nation-states did not coalesce until less than 1000 years ago (even Germany and Italy did not do so until less than 150 years ago), just as most African states today are not nations in the true sense of the word, but artificial collections of tribes.

Since you disagree with me (and most historians, incidentally), please tell me just what YOUR definition of a "nation" is, and just whether, today or at any time in history, there have been people who have NOT been a nation, and just who those people were.

GoinFawr's picture

But I haven't even heard yours yet, just vague references to when you think 'it' all happened for 'Europeans', and as of today some select .... er, original Americans (or does that offend your typical hyper jingoistic conditioning?). But go on, enlighten me; tell me what it takes to earn the label 'nation' in akak's world. Because as of right now I'm thinking that it's not just historians who disagree with you, but any English dictionary.


"....the notion of nationhood would have been alien if not incomprehensible."  <facepalms>

akak's picture

I can't fail to notice how, in your glaring and self-righteous hypocrisy, you managed to conveniently sidestep the specific questions that I asked of you.

Are there, or have there been, any peoples, anywhere, at any time, who did NOT constitute a "nation"?

GoinFawr's picture

I don't answer stupid questions.

This isn't about me, it's about you.

After all, you're the one who is claiming his definition of nation is 'infinitely more accurate than most historians' or whatever, so it is painfully obvious that before we can continue we're going to have to have it.

So let's have it then.

akak's picture

So move to Teheran and as I have already offered if you care to wander down Main St with an anti Mohammed sign I will foot your funeral bill.

I dare you to walk down the main street of Smalltown USA, particularly in the Bible Belt, carrying a sign saying "Jesus Kills" or "Jesus is a lie", and see how far you get.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

I'll do it tomorrow if you will do the same with Mohammed in Teheran.

Not only would I survive and you would not but I would thoroughly enjoy LMFAO at the naivete.

Have to be deluded beyond belief or just a regular at ZH to even compare the two.


GoinFawr's picture

Speaking of naive, when was the last time you visited Iran?

frostfan's picture

I have no idea what your fascination with the talmud is.  You don't even realize the hypocrisy.  Are you against Zionism or Judaism.   Zionists have pretty much never read the Talmud. 

DaveyJones's picture

you're right, when it comes to oil, we don't just kill gays and belittle women, we fuck everyone

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Yep so much oil in Afghanistan.

More Americans killed by homicide in Chicago and LA then in both war zones combined over the same time interval.They must think there is oil there.


DaveyJones's picture

no but an important pipeline plan for the stuff  and then all that opium suppression that was thowing curveballs in the under and overground economy. What happened to opium production after we routed "the bad guys?"  

Using chicago and LA homicide rates proves absolutely nothing. And you forgot the "minimal" cost to the US, the million displaced citizens and the injured soldiers (and their minimal cost) in your analysis. Mr. objective   

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

YEa important pipeline, opium hell I heard they invaded just for the sand.

Proves that more Americans were murdered in the streets of their own country than in two war zones,

that's all.

Like I posted already they must think there is oil there.

And you forgot to include the cost of dictating venue and having radical islamic muzzies blowing themselves up vs trained volunteers half a world away instead of on Main St USA.

Try Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War, pretty sure dictating venue is in the earlier chapters,

but sorry it is not a picture book.


AnAnonymous's picture

More US cheap propaganda.

As if evidences matter...

Who cares?

Not US citizens.

akak's picture

Let's make a deal here, Anonymous Asshole --- you tell us which nation YOU are a citizen of, and the rest of us here will have the unlimited right to blame YOU, along with every single one of your fellow citizens of Nation X, for ALL the crimes and policy mistakes committed by the government of Nation X. 

Until you are willing to reveal that information, please just shut the fuck up already with your specious and sweeping, hatefully collectivist condemnations of each and every American for the crimes of the US federal government. 

The fact that you so ignorantly and absurdly lump every American together into one laughably monolithic, homogenous whole betrays a total failure of logic, a pathetically crippled intellect, and your complete moral bankruptcy.

AnAnonymous's picture

US citizenism is not US citizenship.

I answered to your point many times. But you cant take my answer into account and can but loop on the same false ground.

It is absolutely legit to lump any US citizen as proponent of US citizenism in the same bag.

akak's picture

Your nonsensical ramblings and circular arguments (sic) are as untruthful and meaningless as they are malicious in their collectivist hate and unjustified, blanket condemnations of every American.

And you are a gross liar, as you have answered NOTHING, ever, so I will ask you again, point-blank: of which nation are you a citizen?
I want you to tell us that, so that we can all categorically condemn you (and every one of your fellow countrymen) for every single action of YOUR government, just as you condemn every American for the actions and policies of their own.  Sound idiotic?  Well, it is --- exactly as every one of your posts are, and for the exact same reason.


US citizenism is not US citizenship.


It is absolutely legit to lump any US citizen as proponent of US citizenism in the same bag.

This is nothing but complete gibberish.  To the extent that any meaning can even be teased from these statements, they are mutually and logically contradictory. 

Why do I even bother trying to reply to such idiocy in the first place?

Ranger4564's picture

I don't always agree with AnAnonymous, but often times I do.  I believe he's Eastern European or Russian, from the sounds of the sentence structure.  But to the point, I think the premise with which AnA argues is correct, the culture of the populace is implicated in the actions of the nation when the culture does not oppose the actions and indeed looks to defend the actions. 

If you were to see any reasonable scale opposition to the actions of the nation in protests / strikes / rallies / political action / something, then you could argue that the populace is not complicit.  But to mouth opposition but to do not a damn thing to change the course of the nation or its actions, then you become complicit by failure to depose.  Did we not condemn most of Germany / Japan / Italy / Cuba / NorthKorea / China for the "atrocities" their governments committed?  Do you not acknowledge that governments are also made up of people from the citizenry?  Do you not accept that the citizenry who oppose their government need to take action (non-violent) to oppose their government to try to change course?

Most people of most nations are guilty of the things that AnA is indicting American's of right now.  But that doesn't make him wrong, because relatively, most people are lazy cowards.  What it does is make more people guilty of cultural innertia, and to know that difference is critical towards future progress.  It's not acceptable to say everyone is the same so lets call it human nature, when you know everyone was brought up being beaten and developed far from their humanity.

I agree with him on that ground.  Most people in the USA are trapped in a culture of innertia / placated obedience, and nothing will change until we see that condition for what it is.  Even if I or he have mislabeled / misdiagnosed it.

squib's picture

I spot a grenouille from my monitor.

akak's picture

Anyone got a pot and some boiling water?

outofhere's picture

I already put a bag over his head.

Question is...  Who the hell +'d  the anonymous "IT"

akak's picture

*Crickets* from AnonymousAsshole, as I expected.

There is no way that he can logically reply to my response to him, so he flees like the cowardly (Nation X) citizen that he is, having no moral or intellectual integrity due to his "(Nation X) citizenism".

See how that little game works, AA?