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.
GoinFawr's picture

Anon is making a pretty accurate generalisation from where the rest of the world stands.

Sure you're not just pissed because he points his finger where it makes you squirm?

It sounds like you see in Anon something you don't like about yourself.

I mean, for all you know Anon is an US citizen trying to incite his fellow countrymen to act by shaming them... something you seem to enjoy doing on a regular basis. 

At least you, unlike others, are open about why you so desperately want to know his place of residence: deflection.

akak's picture

More broad-brushed anti-American blame, this time from a hyper-politically-correct Canadian socialist --- color me unsurprised.  Just what I would expect from a smug, hypocritical, malignantly nationalistic, group-thinking, insecure Canadian statist.  Or is it just a reflection of your inherent "Canadian citizenism"?

AnonymousAsshole is making NOTHING but sweeping and absurd generalizations, and condemnations, of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of an entire population based on the actions of that population's government --- is this what you consider sound logic and intellectualism?  His specious aspersions cast against each and every American based on the policies and actions of their unaccountable political and financial elite reek of the worst and most puerile sort of collectivist mentality, the exact same kind of undiscriminating, kneejerk, group-based "thinking" and hatred that sent millions of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Ukrainians, Cambodians, Hutus, Tutsis, Bosnians, Kosovars, Indian Muslims, Indian Hindus, Armenians, and others to their deaths in the last century based solely on collective prejudice and the inability to distinguish individuals (and individual rights) as opposed to the herd, and more importantly, to distinguish the differences between the herd and the herd's leaders.

GoinFawr's picture

'Smug', well you got that one right, anyway. Congrats, that's better than your average.  But who on earth would blame me for being a bit smarmy when faced with a dyed in the wool projectionist like you? Excepting, of course, the other delusional ranters like yourself who would reflexively go on record asserting that the political climate in contemporary Norway is on par with that of eastern Europe under Stalin...Call me a 'socialist'; shitman, it's plain as the fat between your ears that you don't have the faintest idea what the word means.

Heh, and 'kneejerk', 'groupthink' 'malignantly nationalistic'. that's rich considering your jingoistic sensitivity has such a predictable, typically USian, cunt hair trigger.

Nobody is claiming that you are responsible for the heinous actions of others. But if you're a witness to them, and in a position to act but you don't, that makes you complicit.

It's hardly 'collectivist' to make an obviously valid generalisation like 'Americans speak English', you dolt.

john39's picture

the US media is obviously brainwashing the public on this issue.  this morning i listened to a long piece on the radio about how sanctions against iran would be sucessful even with countries like china ignoring the sanction.  obvious spin to cover for NWO failure.   even more blatent however, is the running assumption that sanctions are either warrented or proper.  No discussion or analysis, just taken as an accepted fact that the U.S. should anything in its power to screw with Iran.    I agree with you GW, no evidence of a weapons program, this is Iraq 2.0, designed to destroy another country that is a threat to U.S./Israel hegenomy and colonialism. 

SAT 800's picture

Yeah, so; let's get on with it. enough talk about the ground offensives and the human waves, already; we need a lot of muslim fanatic casulties; a lot.

Mesquite's picture

Just another move (sadly) on the big chessboard..


lakecity55's picture

Israel is supposed to have 50-200 various types of nuclear weapons. Advanced, strategic, tactical, sub-launched, missle capable, bomber capable. They in fact have the Triad.

Their conventional capabilities are as good as NATO.

Who, exactly, do they need to fear?

The Iranians? Give me a break.

Americans, your gravest threat is your own government!

You have a greater chance of a meteor falling on you than a terrorist. The guys the PTB send against us can't even light their undies or shoes on fire! Whoaaaaa, I' so scared.

The real terrorists occupy Congress, the Senate, the White House and the civil service. They have all abandoned their Oath for lucre.

"In the land of Zombies, Lead is King."


honestann's picture

I think all those up votes for you should clue you in to the fact that most everyone here already knows the federal government is the biggest baddest bunch of terrorists in history.  Except the term "terrorist" is just a bunch of BS.  They are predators.

lakecity55's picture

Thanx. I stand adjusted. One man's terrorist is another man's Bankster- or predator.

Fuck 'em all. Free Enterprise, Checks and Balances, and follow the damn instructions (Constitution).

DaveyJones's picture

you're right, the instructions have been damned

outofhere's picture

"and follow the damn instructions (Constitution)."

Apparently TPTB can't read.  Must be products of the educational system THEY created.

honestann's picture

Oh, they can read just fine.  They know perfectly well they are predators and guilty of treason.  But they also know the predators-that-be and predator-class they put in place will protect them from harm.

mkkby's picture

Spot on.  Obama is the constitutional lawyer.  Remember?  But that doesn't mean he protects it.  It means he's an expert at working around it.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Exactly like the brainwashing that took place with Iraq.

The sanctions were really working, the French and Russians didn't really corrupt the food for oil program and the press just needs to stop their brainwashing.

Seriously, was Achmed23 taken?

Aslam Alekem Brother.

DaveyJones's picture

how's the weather in that alternative universe?

trav7777's picture

the sanctions were working well to kill children.

All to eliminate a WMD program...which...didn't...exist.

NO EVIDENCE was found after the invasion to suggest Iraq had ANY WMD PROGRAM of ANY kind!

WTF did we find, ONE centrifuge that had been buried for 20 fucking years?  Some gas masks?

Ranger4564's picture

Not to defend the war in Iraq or the current Iran policies, because that's not my point... what if there really were WMD's in Iraq, but only because the US gave them to SH?  What if the accusation was correct because the US leadership knew of the transactions, even if SH was not intending on using them?  What if the reason we "did not find" WMD's in Iraq is because we did not want to be revealed to have developed so and so weapons, so even if it loses face in supportive evidence for the war, it's still a win because it retains secrecy of the weapons themselves which the US does not actually acknowledge, as far as I am aware.  What if. 

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

No what if, that is 100% the case, the US obviously sold him the stuff 30yrs ago, either he used them all vs the Kurds or shipped them out prior to the invasion. Not buying they found them and kept quiet afterall that would be an obvious abdication of power. 

The folly is that they never existed to begin with.


Commander Cody's picture

Agreed.  The US of A cannot let other countries act in their own best interest when it conflicts with ours.

DaveyJones's picture

silly, our interest is their interest. The dollar and our weapons prove it.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Not only is the US media brainwashing the people, sadly, so are many American churches.

Excellent post.  Keep up the good work.

Gold N Glocks's picture

blah blah blah.  If Iran has or is near to having nukes, we must take the threat out.  If they don't, we need to keep it that way.

DaveyJones's picture

if you have or are near to committing a crime, we need to take you out, to take the threat out. If you aren't about to commit a crime, we need to keep it that way

Gold N Glocks arrested for thought crime.


outofhere's picture

Guess you blah blah blah the Second Amendment also.

Quintus's picture

Time to get Colin Powell out of retirement to present an extensive (if fictional) dossier of evidence proving that Iran does actually have nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and that we really can't afford not to level the entire country looking for them.

HamyWanger's picture

Even if you're a commie, I tend to agree with you on that point George ...

Ahmadinejad does not really want war with the US.... or I hope he does not... because he knows deep inside himself that Iran is a shitty thrid-world country which is no match to the US military might. 

One American crusader emerges in the Straits of Hormuz, and lights out for all the little iranian speedboats. 

downrodeo's picture


the guy might be a sociopath or a narcissist but i don't think he is suicidal

hard to get much more obvious than that i suppose

lakecity55's picture

YES! Our Founders detested Standing Armies. That's why there is a Second Amendment, so a Citizen will always have his rifle to join the militia and defend the Republic. Obviously, you have to make room for current times, but you get my drift. We need to stay Armed to the Teeth and Also stay in our own yard unless there is NO choice.

I forgot to add the same said Amendment is a Dead Man's switch to allow us to overhtrow a Tyranny.

Molon Labe.

akak's picture

Warvangelists are NOT "conservative" --- except in their own tortured (and torturing) minds.

honestann's picture

The war mongers are neo-con-jobs.

And "con" doesn't stand for "conservative".

Transformer's picture

Yep, we got big aircraft carriers with more firepower than the whole Iranian air force.  Those little speedboats and all them missiles are helpless against the might and right of the US of A!!!!

mkkby's picture

Those aircraft carriers are mere dozens of miles from hostile shores.  Thousands of missles could be sent at once from multiple directions, along with torpedoes from subs.  What if those missiles are Russian and Chinese, with a decent chance of hitting something?  Who would we even fire back at... trucks scattering around in the dark.  Remember how few of Sadaam's Scud-firing trucks were found.

Russian and Chinese torpedoes can have tactical nukes.  Just getting within a half mile of the fleet coud take it out.

Troy Ounce's picture




Your cruise missiles, massive firepower, defense budget of a few Trillion US$ and star wars project did not stop 9 guys with box cutters on 9/11, did it?

Worse, this event caused you to lose your marbles completely.

And forget arguments about your "right": you get what you deserve.





Transformer's picture

By the way, it was 19 guys.  I bet you're from some little country who has to do what we say.  Right?


Look, you just keep sending us your foreign goods and we'll give you dollars for them.  Shows how smart you are, huh?

Sudden Debt's picture

If they can take out 5% of American forces, America would pull out give up.

So a shock and awe against the american fleet could do the trick. Especially just before elections.

SAT 800's picture

The Nazi Fascists; your conquerors, did take out 5% of the American Forces; think again; little country person. They were destroyed and signed the surrender documents.

GoinFawr's picture

haha! Check it out, this guy still thinks it's 1945!

George, your posts never fail to bring out the  lumpy ones. Keep it up!

AbruptlyKawaii's picture

sopa/pipa is back,  it's geting folded into another bill and amended


Déjà Vu in the form of OPEN -- The New Anti-Piracy Bill

As an alternative to SOPA-PIPA, Representative Darrell Issa (CA-R), and 24 co-sponsors introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 on Wednesday, during the Internet blackout.

From PCWorld:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that "willfully" promote copyright violation.

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill's wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing an infringing site, it starts with those "that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name," but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that "conducts business directed to residents of the United States."


zhandax's picture

"that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name," but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that "conducts business directed to residents of the United States."

You mean like our Alma Mater here?

Timmay's picture

Selling your oil for Gold to India???  Sniff, sniff, I think I smell a nuke Iran.

StychoKiller's picture

But, but...they wear towels on their heads!  They don't eat pork chops!  How can you trust such people? </sarc>

chubbar's picture

Exactly, this is about dollar hegemony and central banking with the Rothschilds. It has nothing at all to do with Nuclear weapons.

dick cheneys ghost's picture

the dollar---china---russia

mkkby's picture

Panetta is just Obama's whore, who himself is the banker's whore.  The flip flopping over Iran is purely political.  Yesterday they were building nukes, but today Obama remembered the election -- so no nukes after all.