Matthew Machowski, current Visiting Research Fellow at the School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary, University of London and an experienced Middle East analyst gives the best talk on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that I’ve yet heard.
His conclusion: There is no good evidence that Iran has a “structured” nuclear weapons program as opposed to a civilian nuclear enrichment program; the regime has not made a decision to build a nuclear warhead; and it may have decided (not clear) that it wants ‘nuclear latency’ or the ability quickly to weaponize if it feels threatened.
Machowski urges us to view the conflict with Iran as already a war in progress.
I don’t think it makes sense to view it as a war. The US is engaged in a hostile domestic propaganda, and dirty-tricks program against Iran such as countries deploy against countries they later go to war with, yes.
But if it were a war, the US would have lost the war by now and would be retreating in defeat or being bled dry, just as has happened to the US in Iraq and Afganistan, only more so.
The sanctions are little different than an outright blockade. The distinction is more than a little important because this can be done without guns and the impact is little different. Its a kinder and gentler way of waging war, and one that can be backed-off of without losing…since it never was never technically waged in the first place.
The only reason I can think that Iran would need a nuclear weapon for would be to protect it’s nuclear energy program from a strike by jealous Israel.
After listening to Mr. Netanyahu’s and watching his cartoon description, I prefer this presentation. We can handle complexity; thank you.-T
Interesting 3 to 8min: the Iranian Navy has notified IAEA that it will enrich uranium (to 20-80%) for propulsion which is completely legal as long as they prove…(assume that means for ships).
Q to self: I don’t believe the US Navy will like Iran having access to world’s shipping lanes; Israel will be the least of their problems. The issue is no longer about energy production which Iran needs terribly (they can at under 20%) but opening a new set of considerations (my speculation).
At least I understand the constant reference to “20%”. Thank you.