The Most Dangerous Man in the World

-

a q khan.jpg
Osama bin Laden is not the most dangerous man in the world. And while George Bush and Vice President Cheney have been reckless and imperiled America’s position in the world, they too don’t rank all that high.
But A.Q. Khan does.
And given what we know of this guy, why hasn’t an armed drone done to him what American and Israeli forces have done to lesser villains?
In part, I’m being facetious. But seriously, if Khan was out pushing sophisticated warhead designs, he ranks as one of the world’s top tier criminals.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

82 comments on “The Most Dangerous Man in the World

  1. Saad says:

    We Proud on our Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

    Reply

  2. rafey khan says:

    well im not going to say much but yes for america and israel, khan is the most dangerous man but for muslims and specially Pakistani’s he’s the biggest hero….nd if america and israel the biggest terrorists can have the right to have nukes that y not the rest of the countries,tell me where it is written that america and israel are countries full of angels.. I say well done south korea and dont care about the sanctions…Iran u r next go for it.

    Reply

  3. bob h says:

    If Mossad can kill that top Hezbollah terrorist right in Damascus, I
    would bet killing this evil man would be a much easier job and
    more germane to Israel’s security.

    Reply

  4. arthurdecco says:

    erichwwk asked: “How deep a hole can we dig before the sides cave in?
    When will Americans learn that security (and optimum economic development) is a function of sharing resources, and allowing equal access in the decision making process (a fair system of property rights)?”
    These questions deserved to be repeated…and repeated…and

    Reply

  5. erichwwk says:

    I post the above, as there is speculation circulating that the drawings the Swiss destroyed were not from Pakistan, but for the W-88, the 1/2 megaton Trident (submarine) warhead, for which LANL has recently manufactured 11 pits (essentially the plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki) and what the main fight over the US nuclear program is all about.
    (the yield of Nagasaki was in the 15-20 KT range)
    We are indeed reaping the consequences fore which MOST of the Manhattan project scientists would inevitably happen. 7 trillion dollars and 60 years later, other countries have universal health care and SS, and we have a pile of useless and dangerous junk.
    How deep a hole can we dig before the sides cave in?
    When will Americans learn that security (and optimum economic development) is a function of sharing resources, and allowing equal access in the decision making process (a fair system of property rights)?

    Reply

  6. erichwwk says:

    POA: thanks for the latest on Sibel.
    For those not understanding what Einstein meant, when he said over 60 years ago “There is no secrecy, there is no defense” here is a broader view on how “secrecy” works in the real world, from back in the 90’s, when China was our designated enemy:
    http://tinyurl.com/3lrfnj

    Reply

  7. Carl Malone says:

    A very familiar formula.
    Here is is in software form:
    1.)Demonize another country.
    2.)Start another “defensive” war.
    3.)Reap huge profits for the military businesses.
    4.)Go to 1.)

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This Horton interview with Luke Ryland and Sibel Edmonds is a MUST READ for this topic. It is beyond me how Steve can broach this subject so superficially, then walk away.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=13002

    Reply

  9. erichwwk says:

    Wigwag:
    One reply only. No interest in flaming, or “winning” an argument, only in advancing understanding.
    The long answer:
    That we think a little less from a nationalist point of view, and more as global citizens. Security is a global issue, perhaps the ultimate public good (in the sense of aggregating demands vertically, rather than horizontally as we do for pure private goods). We are either all secure, or no one is secure.
    And that we worry more about our behavior, before criticizing others. I find it preposterous that the official US policy/ perception of “which the bad states are” can be so far off a major EU country.
    George H.( and most previous presidents) knew better then to go it alone, and if others disagreed w/ ones, perhaps it is worth understanding why, before acting. Leadership and influence is built on character and reputation. A big stick is a very temporary advantage, and ALWAYS has consequences.
    The short answer:
    That our demonization of Iran is reprehensible.
    Of course our intent may well not be security, but power and appropriation of resources, two policies i find reprehensible.

    Reply

  10. WigWag says:

    So, erichwwk, what exactly is your point? Speaking of polls, maybe you saw this poll done for Stern Magazine:
    World War II | 18.10.2007
    Some Germans See Positive Aspects to Nazi Rule, Poll Shows
    “A recent poll shows that a quarter of Germans agree that Nazi rule had some positive aspects. The weekly Stern magazine commissioned the Forsa agency to conduct the poll after talk show host Eva Herman was fired from Germany’s NDR public broadcaster last month for her comments on the Third Reich and motherhood.
    Pollsters asked whether National Socialism had any good points. Twenty-five percent of the respondents said “yes,” citing the construction of the famous Autobahn or network of highways, low unemployment and crime rate and a strong sense of family as examples.”
    So 48 percent of Germans think that America is a bigger threat to world peace than Iran and 25 percent of Germans think the Nazis weren’t so bad after all. What exactly do you think we should make of that?
    Does it mean that 25 percent of Germans are dumb? Or does it mean that 48 percent of Germans are dumb? Or does it mean that maybe these polls don’t really tell us much after all?

    Reply

  11. erichwwk says:

    FWIW:
    from a Stern Mag poll:
    48% of German see the USA as a greater threat to world peace than Iran. Only 31% see Iran as the greater threat to world peace.

    In the group of 18 – to 29 year olds, 57 per cent said they considered the USA more threatening than Iran. Only 25 per cent saw Iran as more threatening..
    In German, but a nice parade puppet photo of Bush and Ahmadinejad.
    http://tinyurl.com/4zmjtg

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    JohnH, I agree with everything that you said!

    Reply

  13. JohnH says:

    Wigwag–yes, it’s about how Iran treats women and minorities. But it’s also about how Washington exploits the situation to manipulate the American people into war with no intention of doing anything about the situation. Compare and contrast the situation in Iran with the situation in the realm of one of our dearest allies–Saudi Arabia. Is the situation all that different? Probably not. But does the US EVER criticze Saudi Arabia for its human rights record. No, but Iran gets singled out plenty.
    It’s all about manipulating the public. You and I may wring our hands about the situation, but the government is not about to do anything except hype the situation when it suits their agenda. In fact, if the US goes to war against Iran, it will be the women and children who suffer most. It’s just what happens in war. But the government, dropping its bombs from 35,000 feet, intentionally won’t notice. We’re not supposed to know about suffering, unless it’s caused by someone our government doesn’t like.

    Reply

  14. Morton says:

    Paul: “Add to that the high expectations, and the disappointment
    and anger when both nations seem to be so far from fulfilling
    those expectations, promises and hopes. And add the enormous
    gap between the mythological version of Israel or USA, learned
    at school when you are 10 years old, and what we learn later.
    Then I guess you have parts of an explanation for that anger.
    Myths are boomerangs.”
    This is insightful. One of the strong threads in Zionism is that,
    with a state, Jews would become just like any other people. No
    worse and no better. Of course, there are other threads, too,
    like becoming a light unto the nations–but there is definitely
    this other thread.
    It should be noted that Israel developed a nuclear bomb because
    it was HER existence that had been threatened–and before that
    the Jewish people’s existence–and not just “threatened,” but
    attacked–not the other way around.
    Since Israel has never, to my knowledge, threatened to wipe
    anyone off the map–however you wish to interpret this
    statement–it’s a little hard to see how she sparked the ME
    nuclear arms race. In fact, she doesn’t even go so far as to admit
    she has one, even after it’s been all but proven.
    Israel’s nuclear arsenal is often cited as a PRETEXT for other
    states’ acquiring one, but I doubt it’s the real reason. India and
    Pakistan, for example, were more worried about each other and
    national pride. I don’t think Jordan or Egypt or even Lebanon,
    god help her, is all that worried about getting bombed by Israel.
    Nor do they think that possessing a bomb will help them with
    that conflict.

    Reply

  15. erichwwk says:

    .
    .
    Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi and the others interested in nuclear non-proliferation and especially nuclear disarmament:
    Don’t profess to know the details of these complicated events on which more able people than I work on essentially FT. My interest is primarily in nudging US foreign, economic, and especially nuclear weapons policy towards one that helps more people. Hence I see a US policy towards nuclear abolition essential, even if it means, as Paul Nitze has advocated for a decade, unilateral US disarmament. Having actually deployed this weapon, and having attempted to parlay the monopoly into a strategic geopolitical advantage has seriously undermined our capacity to lead in this crucial area. That having been said, I also find many of the folk that worked in this area for the US (especially the Szilard-Bethe-Franck-Rotblat contingent) of the highest ethical caliber, and unfortunately quite different from the folk that have made, and continue to make, nuclear weapon production decisions. So I would like US leadership, but see US nuclear disarmament as a prerequisite, which, if the Russian stockpile did not exist, would be easy. But it does. And this would serve the dual purpose of opening up decision making to a more meaningful process, something evident from Kratina, SS, health care, and our energy policy.
    In regards to A.Q. Khan and the international nuclear weapons market, in regards to US complicity, there is a nice NPR summary re the Trial of Gotthard Lerch and Friedrich, Urs, and Marco Tinner from mid 2006 which includes comments from Mark Hibbs, David Albright, George Tenet, and the Swiss AG which may be of interest here:
    (under 6 minutes) but rather terse, as is Mark’s style: http://tinyurl.com/6n473y

    Reply

  16. WigWag says:

    JohnH, thank you very much for referring me to the article by Farzaneh Milani in “Middle East Reports.” I read it carefully. I think that she accurately describes the books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Betty Mahmoody and Azar Nafisi, all of which I read. Do I think that their “captivity” stories epitomizes the experience of all women in the Islamic world? Of course not. In some parts of the Islamic world, women actually have to struggle to practice their religious beliefs. Right now in Turkey, religious women are fighting for the right to wear head scarves at University. (I highly recommend Orhan Pamuk’s wonderful novel, SNOW about this very subject). And as she points out, women have many rights in Iran that they don’t have, in say, Saudi Arabia. I don’t doubt that if one were to develop a scale of gender freedom in the Islamic world, Iran would probably be somewhere in the middle.
    But ultimately, I didn’t think Milani’s essay was all that useful. She closes her essay with this statement:
    “As citizens of an increasingly polarized world, we, the readers, cannot afford to suspend critical judgment and accept as fact deliberate manipulation of lives and histories. We need to question the distortions of truth, the betrayals of history, the berating of scholarship, the politics of publishing and image making. We need to examine the seductiveness and political function of Muslim women’s tales of captivity, sustained and supported by official power, recognized by the media, authenticated by hostage narratives. Should we diversify our pool of information and pay closer attention to a competing narrative of the Muslim Woman, one which is not trapped in tales of her unending captivity, one which will only gain vigor and currency when more facts about her world become known, then far from being the “captive” she is portrayed to be, she would be recognized as a moderating, modernizing force, a seasoned negotiator of confined spaces, a veteran trespasser of boundaries, walls, fences, cages, blind windows, closed doors and iron gates.”
    Milani asks us to consider an alternative narrative but she doesn’t even attempt to provide one. If she thinks Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, Betty Mahmoody’s and Azar Nafisi’s narratives are not emblematic then she should have provided us with an alternative narrative. That she didn’t, makes me wonder whether that alternative narrative actually exists.
    Remember, it’s not just about how Iran treats women. It’s how they treat minority groups in their country and it’s how they treat gay people too (remember Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University last year said there were no gay people in Iran). Iran has a rich and vibrant tradition. I am sure that the Iranian people are no worse or better than anyone else. The Iranian government is evil. People who are indifferent to them obtaining nuclear weapons are wrong.
    Thank you again JohnH for sending along that link.
    I am grateful

    Reply

  17. JohnH says:

    Wigwag–Food for thought: “We need to examine the seductiveness and political function of Muslim women’s tales of captivity, sustained and supported by official power, recognized by the media, authenticated by hostage narratives. Should we diversify our pool of information and pay closer attention to a competing narrative of the Muslim Woman, one which is not trapped in tales of her unending captivity, one which will only gain vigor and currency when more facts about her world become known, then far from being the “captive” she is portrayed to be, she would be recognized as a moderating, modernizing force, a seasoned negotiator of confined spaces, a veteran trespasser of boundaries, walls, fences, cages, blind windows, closed doors and iron gates.” –Remapping the Cultural Geography of Iran: Islam, Women and Freedom of Movement
    http://merip.org/mer/mer246/milani.html

    Reply

  18. alan says:

    Came back here and surprised to find this discussion still going on. Way back when India tilted towards Russia and got hold of nuclear technology the US turned a blind eye towards Pakistan’s efforts to get its own bomb. AQK moved around and using Dubai as a through point he did his work. His North Korean and Chinese connections helped. All this is old stuff. Once Pakistan balanced off India no one complained.
    Meanwhile nary a peep out of anyone as Israel got its own bomb: no protests, no threats, lots of nudge nidge wink wink stuff: never a question about Israel and the Bomb right there in the unusually volatile Middle East. As soon as Iran started going after its own bomb all is indignation. Suddenly AQK is a villain. Kim Jongo is bad, was bad, will be bad, and so on.
    The Bush Admin is trying out yet another stunt to gin up anti-Iranian sentiment, with Gordon Brown’s support, so as to set the stage for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. The only thing holding back the Gang in Washington is that no one seriously believes Bush. His people have lied in the past and are quite capable of lying in the future. So while there is some dread in some quraters around the world about a pre emptive strike, no one believes that Bush will ever settle the “Should Iran be allowed to build a Bomb” before he exits right off the stage.
    And the vast majority of Americans have tuned out: for them its the floods, the price of gas and food and other mundane things that matter. Iran and the Bomb? a Washington preoccupation.

    Reply

  19. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    Whatever the blame or the chargesheet the western agencies may pose against Dr Qadir, the Pakistani, nuclear scientist, the hidden truth can never be hidden and that reveals the fact that nuclear proliferation(an act of transgressing peace) has both
    officially and non officially been tendered or supported by the western agencies/ nuclear networks themselves, keeping this view in mind, one can not help questioning the validity and veracity about the western propaganda against Dr Qadir Ahmad Khan.

    Reply

  20. WigWag says:

    Bye POA

    Reply

  21. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wigwag, this exchange is over.
    I’m through helping you derail this thread.
    You’re gonna have to continue making an ass of yourself without my assistance.

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    Well, POA, how do you explain the fact that before the Americans invaded and inadvertently empowered the Iranians, Shiite women in the South could wear make up if they chose, get an education and even travel outside unveiled. It’s only since the invasion that women’s lives in the Southern provinces have deteriorated this way. I look forward to your explanation.
    While your at it, I look forward to your comments about the treatment of women in Iran itself. Consider this a test to see if you can actually say anything substantive without recourse to the aphorisms that most of us stopped using in the fourth grade.

    Reply

  23. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmmm. Interesting. I guess Wigwag’s argument is that if we remove the Iranian’s from the equation, the Iraqi Shiite majority will all suddenly convert to Christianity and start an Iraqi version of “The View”.
    Or vanish into thin air.
    Or something.
    Lunatic.

    Reply

  24. TokyoTom says:

    Steve, I like the headline, but the photo just doesn’t fit, as Khan is now rather old news.
    Why not Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocon team, Bush and enablers who seem to think that the best way to ensure fewer nukes is to make everybody want them (by increasing insecurity and trheatening use of them ourselves), and to make sure that we keep investing heavily in them?

    Reply

  25. easy e says:

    Steve’s article is a little baffling, as noted by many of the excellent posts.
    Subodh: Most of these reports never really pull together the big picture. Sounds like Khan is a convenient scapegoat. – – – AGREED
    Paul Norheim: Before such meetings are even suggested, this targeting of “Rogue states” and “dangerous regimes” are not credible. – – – AGREED
    Mr. Murder: Look closer to home. For true proliferation, to occur we have to take part in it. See also Bechtel, etc. – – – AGREED
    Erichwwk: Steve, nuclear warhead design is NOT a big deal…” – – – AGREED
    JohnH: The real question is, why does the US find it necessary to have the option of invading Iran, thereby motivating Iran to seek deterrence? Ah, yes–Operation Iranian Liberation (OIL). – – – AGREED
    Vachon: I dunno, this article has surfaced for a reason. Iran? – – – AGREED
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    One needn’t look any further than the U.S. Military Industrial Complex to find the world’s top tier criminals. Unfortunately, Khan is a scapegoat as the PNAC gameplan continues to advance through this type of manipulative press. Looks like more fearmongering and setting stage to attack Iran.

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Great contributions you’ve made to this thread today, Wigwag. You should treat yourself to a carrot, or perhaps some oats.
    Good night all.

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    “It is the Shiite religion that is suppressing them, not “the Iranians”. So why did you seek to imply it was the Iranians that are influencing this trend towards the suppression of women?”
    POA you define the word jackass. If there was any doubt, this quote proves it. Do you know the official name of Iran, POA? It’s the Islamic Republic of Iran. Do you know what form of Islam is the official religion of Iran, POA? That’s right, it’s the Shiite version of Islam. Do you know who the Supreme Leader of Iran is, POA? That’s right, it’s a Shiite religious leader.
    POA, it’s time for you to go to bed before you humiliate yourself anymore with your ignorance. Ask yourself, do you really want to go through life this stupid? My guess is that you’re not totally hopeless. Start using your brain. You might find it actually feels good.

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Here it comes–the Iran war run-up”
    With these monsters in the White House, that might be the BEST case scenario for this particular scam. The worst case scenario is that this is the run up to a false flag nuclear attack on one of our cities, FOLLOWED by an attack on Iran. That would pretty well give them the excuse to use their unprecedented executive powers to suspend the Constitution and remain in power, wouldn’t it?
    Sorry, but yes, I DO believe Cheney is capable of this.

    Reply

  29. WigWag says:

    I reject your premise entirely, Carroll. I don’t think Israelis kill teenagers just because they’re Arab. But your reaction to my comment demonstrates that you don’t really care about that Arab teenager anyway. A person who cared about teenagers being murdered for being Arab would care equally about teenagers being executed for being gay. The fact that you don’t get this, makes a mockery of your supposed concern about that Arab teenager. It’s not him you care about at all. It must be something else that motivates you.
    Are you really comparing women’s rights in Israel with women’s rights in Iran? You think the behavior of a few disgusting religious zealots is the same as the ideology of a country that systematically oppresses women?
    You’re comparing executing a teenager for being gay with the terrible lynching of James Byrd, Jr.? The three men who lynched James Byrd were convicted of capital murder after a trial in the State of Texas. The killers of the gay teenagers was the state of Iran.
    And yes, Carroll, there are far too many hate crimes against gay people in the United States. But Massachusetts approved gay marraige last year. The first legal gay marraiges in California took place today. If you can’t see the difference between how gay people are treated in the United States with how they are treated in Iran, then you are mind numbingly ignorant.
    Maybe you should move to Iran, Carroll. You sound alot like an Ayatollah yourself. No wait a minute, that wouldn’t work. Women ayatollah’s aren’t allowed.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmericans says:

    You ARE a jackass, aren’t you? Aren’t very good at recognizing faceciousness, are you?
    Where do you see me denying that Iraqi women are worse off? In fact, I have pointed that very fact out here on a number of occassions. My point was that it is ridiculous to blame the Iranians for the plight of Iraqi women. It is the Shiite religion that is suppressing them, not “the Iranians”. So why did you seek to imply it was the Iranians that are influencing this trend towards the suppression of women?
    But you knew that. Truth is, Wigwag, you’ve made a complete ass of yourself on this thread. You really started digging the hole furiously when you made the absurd assertion the the media here has a pro-iranian slant, and since you’ve just dug the hole deeper. If I was you, I’d catch a few z’s, and get up to a fresh start tomorrow, you’re in serious danger of losing control of your vocal cords, and spontaneously issuing forth with uncontrollable braying and snorts.

    Reply

  31. Don Bacon says:

    Here it comes–the Iran war run-up:
    ——————
    NBC News
    Does Iran have blueprints for a miniature nuclear warhead?
    U.S. officials are downplaying reports in the New York Times and Washington Post that Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan may have given Iran–and other nations–blueprints for a miniature nuclear warhead first developed for his country’s program.
    The reports were based on a study by the Institute for Science and International Security. In its study, David Albright, a former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, states that a Swiss family accused of working with Khan had the designs on their computers.”Why did these smugglers associated with the notorious Pakistani nuclear engineer A. Q. Khan have these designs, unless they had sold or intended to sell them for Khan?” Albright asked.
    ——————
    “U.S. officials are downplaying reports” — gotta love it. Dollars to donuts they’re paying Albright to write this stuff.

    Reply

  32. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And uh…..
    “Iranians are lunatics”.
    ….uuhhhhm….
    “Gays are evil”.
    Someone wanna define “bigot” for me?
    Can you imagine the loud braying that would have been emitted by Wigwag if one of us posted “Jews are lunatics”?

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    The answer to your question POA,is yes, the Iraqi Shiite women of Southern Iraq are worse off now then they were before the U.S. invaded. Why, because before the invasion, when Hussein was in power these women were far more free to puruse education and make other lifestyle choices than they are now. It was the U.S. invasion that empowered the Iranians in Southern Iraq and it is partially the influence of Iranian mullahs that are forcing women in Southern Iraq to be forced back into bondage. The fact that you don’t know this, POA doesn’t make you an idiot, but it doesn’t make you particularly well informed either.
    By the way, Al Qaeda tried to impose similar restrictions in the Sunni parts of Iraq but Iraqi tribes revolted and now Sunni women in central Iraq are far better off than Shiite women in Southern Iraq. But, of course, the Iranians don’t control Central Iraq at least not yet.

    Reply

  34. Carroll says:

    Hummm, let me think…is it worse to kill a teenager just because he is gay or to kill a teenager just because he is Arab and alive?
    Choices, choices….
    And btw, the US doesn’t need any laws regarding excuting gays, we got plenty of fanatics who regularly beat up gays and hang them on barbed wire fences.
    Still thinking…which is worse …the Israeli IDF Col who emptied his machine gun into a 12 year old Palestine girl after she was already dead or the US teenagers who dragged a black man to death behind their pickup truck?
    As for the Iranian woman thing, you can read every month in the Israelis papers about some religious group or Rabbi attacking women on the public bus system there for not wearing a head covering or for sitting in the front of the bus. Besides which Saudi has been much worse on women’s freedoms than Iran and I don’t hear much screaming about them.
    Since I am both a woman and not gay I think I’d rather take my chances in Iran…..as far as I know they don’t kill you there for not being Muslim or Iranian whereas Israel has no problem killing anyone not jewish, man, woman or child, even if they aren’t gay.
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/
    A Shooting Last Week at ‘Separation Fence’ Invokes ’48
    A savage video of the shooting (allegedly last Friday) of a Palestinian youth while protesting the “separation fence” in the Occupied Territories– the weekly Bilin protest, near Ramallah. The young man is shot in the right thigh, a grievous wound, survived it according to the text here. Seems to have been a mostly peaceful protest. Though stones were thrown. Feels very South-Africa-like. Peter Voskamp sent it along because of the last image in the film, a kid running near the ambulance with a t-shirt that says 1948 in huge numerals on the back. This is, alas, living history.

    Reply

  35. WigWag says:

    “When I talk about US media, I`m thinking of the big ones, and not the magazines or blogs that you and I may read. In these big TV-channels and news papers the myths are tainted, but not destroyed.”
    Paul Norheim, Jimmy Carter discussed his book Peace Not Apartheid on every single network Sunday show except for Fox News. Walt and Mersheimer were guests on Meet the Press.
    “After that, there should be a meeting between Israel and Iran -of course not at Camp David, USA, but in Reykjavik, Iceland. Perhaps Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries in the
    region should participate at that conference as well?”I don`t expect this to happen, but do you have any comments?”
    My comments are these: (1) Israel needs it’s nuclear weapons. I wouldn’t advocate negotiating them away. Without them the risks are too great that the 7,282,000 people in that country could meet the same fate as the Jews of Europe. (2)Israel’s nuclear weapons are useless against the Palestinians, Lebanese and probably Jordanians or Egyptians. Nuclear weapons used against any of those countries would destroy or greatly damage Israel either through their explosive characteristics or the radiation they would surely spread. (3)The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons was viewed as largely irrelevant by it’s Sunni Arab opponents for 30 years. Why? Because they didn’t feel threatened by them. Iranian nuclear weapons may or may not be a threat to Israel. The Sunni world is the group most afraid of Iranian nuclear weapons. The hatred of the Sunni Arab world for what they view as the apostates in Iran is far greater than their fear of Israel. As you know, the animosity between Persians and Arabs goes back centuries. (4)Some Israeli analysts have claimed that Iranian nuclear weapons would have a silver lining for Israel. The Sunni Arabs would be even more intent on containing Iran than they are now and this could easily accrue to Israel’s benefit. (5)In the 20th Century Civil Wars of Europe (World Wars 1 and 2)80 million people perished. Since the advent of nuclear weapons, the number of Europeans killed in armed conflicts number in the tens of thousands, not tens of millions. (6)Nuclear weapons are awful but a good case can be made that they are partially responsible for keeping the peace. (7)Nuclear proliferation is bad, especially to countries that think it’s okay to execute people for having gay sex (like Iran) but Susan (above) is probably right. Who would be surprised if Khan is, or was, on the CIA payroll. Not me.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Actually Paul, my motives are much simpler….
    My tax dollars aren’t been sent to Iran so they can kill Jews. But they are being sent to Israel so they can kill Muslims.
    Truth is, I don’t wanna spend my money killing anyone.

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “With that said, the part of the country where Iraqi women are being forced to cover up and where their rights are being most abridged is the Southern part of the country; that is, the part of the country most influenced by Iran”
    You mean the majority Shiite Muslim’s in Iraq have nothing to do with it?
    I see, its just the Iranian Shiite influencing the trend, and not the Iraqi Shiite, eh? Must be those nasty Iranian Imam’s sneakin’ over the border and imposing Sharia law, eh?
    Yeah man, its just those nasty Iranians, and if they’d quit meddling, Iraq would be one big happy Hollywood for them gals.
    You think you’re talking to idiots here?

    Reply

  38. Paul Norheim says:

    “I can’t help but wonder if the biggest critics of Israel at the
    Washington Note were confronted with the choice of spending
    the rest of their lives in Israel or Iran which country they would
    choose. I think we both know the answer to that question.”
    Yes, perhaps we do. I can`t say for sure, but probably they
    would even prefer to stay in America, the country they criticize
    most frequently.
    One aspect of all this, is that they are more familiar with their
    own country or continent – and in one sense even with Israel. I
    guess most of us feel more familiar with Israel, given some
    shared (imaginary and real) historical, political, literary and
    religious currents through history, than with Afghanistan or
    Iran. So one aspect is that this is a family quarrel.
    In a broader context, even the hostilities between Christians,
    Muslims and Jews may be considered as family issues. It`s
    easier for us to get mad at a fellow Christian, Jew or Muslim,
    than, let`s say a non-religious Chinese or a Hindu.
    If you combine this with the fact that America in a global
    context, and Israel in a regional context, simply are the most
    powerful nations, and also abuse that power frequently, you
    may be close to an answer.
    Add to that the high expectations, and the disappointment and
    anger when both nations seem to be so far from fulfilling those
    expectations, promises and hopes. And add the enormous gap
    between the mythological version of Israel or USA, learned at
    school when you are 10 years old, and what we learn later.
    Then I guess you have parts of an explanation for that anger.
    Myths are boomerangs.
    When I talk about US media, I`m thinking of the big ones, and
    not the magazines or blogs that you and I may read. In these
    big TV-channels and news papers the myths are tainted, but
    not destroyed.
    I may comment more later, but why don`t we go back to the
    topic?
    Allow me to quote from a comment I wrote above on this thread
    that, as POA correctly points out, is about nuclear proliferation:
    “David Albright should pay a visit to Dimona, just to inhalate the
    smell of smoking guns in the Negev Desert.
    After that, there should be a meeting between Israel and Iran –
    of course not at Camp David, USA, but in Reykjavik, Iceland.
    Perhaps Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries in the
    region should participate at that conference as well?”
    I don`t expect this to happen, but do you have any comments?

    Reply

  39. Susan says:

    I bet Khan is, or was, on the CIA payroll.

    Reply

  40. WigWag says:

    I’m just bringing my point of view to the party, POA. If you’re irritated, that’s your problem. Feel free to sign off anytime.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    You beat your “point” to death a long time ago.
    Now you’re just an irritating distraction.

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    “Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of us here that don’t want to live in EITHER country. Maybe, just maybe, we want to live in the good ‘ol USA without subsidizing the radical actions of EITHER of those countries.”
    Even you, POA, probably have the intelligence to understand the point I was making. The fact that you don’t choose to use that intelligence is your own decision.
    By the way, I’m not trying to do Jews or Israel any favors, I’m just saying what I think, just like you are. The fact that I can occassionally post a comment without calling other people stupid must really seem mysterious to you. You ought to try it sometime. You might find you actually like it.

    Reply

  43. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I can’t help but wonder if the biggest critics of Israel at the Washington Note were confronted with the choice of spending the rest of their lives in Israel or Iran which country they would choose. I think we both know the answer to that question”
    GADS!!!!
    Maybe, just maybe, there are a number of us here that don’t want to live in EITHER country. Maybe, just maybe, we want to live in the good ‘ol USA without subsidizing the radical actions of EITHER of those countries.
    But I’ll tell you what, you aren’t doing Israel, OR the jews, any favors with your incessant mewling bullshit. Either entity would be well served if you’d just stick a cork in it.

    Reply

  44. WigWag says:

    John H, you’re right about Iraqi women but you’re wrong about Afghan women. With all due respect, if you don’t think Afghan women are dramatically better of today then they were under the Taliban, you haven’t been paying attention. Of course, our intervention in Iraq was a stupid and awful act. With that said, the part of the country where Iraqi women are being forced to cover up and where their rights are being most abridged is the Southern part of the country; that is, the part of the country most influenced by Iran.
    I rest my case.
    POA, you use the word jack ass alot. The word seems to be on your mind so often. You must be reminded of it everytime you look in the mirror.
    I didn’t know you were assigned to moderate this thread. As far as I know, you don’t get to determine the subject matter of the comments posted here. If you’re anxious to do that, start your own blog. I’d show up a take a look. I’m always ready for a good laugh.

    Reply

  45. PissedOffAmerican says:

    To imply that the American media has a pro-Iranian slant is absolutely the most asinine, ignorant, and removed from reality comment I have ever read here.
    You have anything to say about nuclear proliferation? Or are you going to just waste another thread with this horseshit?

    Reply

  46. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim, let me try to respond to the points you make one by one:
    1) I just disagree with your premise that the American media is obsessed with the bad acts committed by Iranians and Hamas but indifferent to bad acts committed by Israel. I think the American media is full of commentary by critics of Israel incluidng Jimmy Carter, Walt and Mersheimer, Tony Judt, Anthony Lewis and others. I am not as conversant with European media, although I do try to read several European newspapers every day. The news in your part of the world seems to lean much more in the direction of being critical of Israel. I must confess that since the London attacks and the Danish cartoon incident, this has begun to change. As I have stated previously, no one should be surprised that on a continent, that in living memory acquienced in the killing of essentially all its Jews, that few supporters of Israel can still be found. Regardless of any of this, many Washington Note readers seem indifferent to horrendous acts committed in the name of fundamentalist Islam but accutely aware of and anxious to comment about Israeli behavior.
    2)In my comment I referenced how Iran treated gay people (executing gay teenagers). I also mentioned to Don Bacon that I could site other examples about how Iran treated minority groups including Jews, Christians and Bahai’s. But of course, predictably, in responding to me, Don only referenced Iran’s treatment of Jews. This seems very much in keeping with the obssession with Jews and Israelis that so many Washington Note readers have. I don’t throw around allegations of anti-Semitism lightly and I did not call Don Bacon’s comment anti-Semitic. But you would have to be obtuse not to notice that the country that seems to be most held in special contempt by many Washington Note readers is Israel. Whatever the merits of the criticism of Israel that you find here, criticism of the behavior of other players in the Middle East is almost completely absent. Pointing this out is not secret code for anything; it’s just pointing out the reality of what’s so prevalent at the Washington Note.
    3) There is a difference between being anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic. Illegitimate claims of anti-Semitism are intellectually lazy and is designed to suppress debate. If I weren’t interested in intelligent debate I wouldn’t be here. That’s one reason I don’t believe in flippantly making claims of anti-semitism.
    Believing that Jews are biologically programmed to be conniving is Anti-Semitic. Believing in Jewish cabals controlling the world is anti-Semitic. I can think of only two regular commentators on this site who have freqenthly advanced those repugnant and bigoted views.
    I don’t think I’m being coy and I don’t think I’m alluding to anything inappropriate when I point out that people who criticize Israel but can’t be bothered to even criticize the execution of gay people in Iran are morally blind.
    I can’t help but wonder if the biggest critics of Israel at the Washington Note were confronted with the choice of spending the rest of their lives in Israel or Iran which country they would choose. I think we both know the answer to that question.

    Reply

  47. POA (One of the "usual suspects") says:

    You know, I don’t have feelings one way or the other for “jews”. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to tell you exactly what the term “jew” means. And ideologically, I have no idea what the difference is between a “jew” or a “Christian”. I tend to just take people as individuals, and go from there. Really, I consider it an adevantage, my lack of knowledge in this area, as I am not trapped by the boring history lessons and the heated disputes about ancient territorial possessions and powers.
    But I certainly am prejudiced against jackasses. Be they jew, Christian, Muslim, black, white or purple.
    And only a jackass would take this thread and insert some asinine reference to the alleged Iranian treatment of gays, as if the entire Iranian population is a bunch of slobbering homophobes. It would be just as stupid to imply that all jews in Israel think that women should be covered head to foot and give up their seats on the bus to the males because a few Hasidic jews have exhibited that kind of radical behavior on the public transportation in Israel.
    Its a friggin’ thread about nuclear proliferation. And to fail to mention Israel while discussing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is ludicrous. Israel’s nuclear arsenal has virtually GUARANTEED a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It was ISRAEL that developed said weapons in underground bunkers, secretly. It is ISRAEL that has threatened nieghbors with nuclear weapons through strongly worded insinuations.
    So yeah, I’m a real bigot. I have a real problem with jackasses. And any person that thinks that including Israel in a discussion about nuclear proliferation in the middle east is “anti-semitic” is truly, irrefutably, realistically, and eternally, a jackass.

    Reply

  48. DonS says:

    Not to deny Steve’s unarguable thesis — would that “bad guys” could just be disappeared given a certain degree of proximity to the hypothesized deeds — I am once again drawn to the extrapolations of Moon of Alabama who suggests that the evil men do in their lives, far from being justly interred with their bones, is not necessarily self evident. That is, he smells the CIA’s fingerprints all over this.
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/06/cia-khan-and-th.html

    Reply

  49. JohnH says:

    Wigwag–you’re right. When it comes to executing a gay teenager, which I find morally reprehensible, or presiding over the deaths of a million people, there is no comparison.
    It’s sad, however, that you’re willing to be manipulated by those who hype the death of a teenager as a means for ginning up opposition to a foreign regime. Of course, the manipulators have no intention of ever doing anything about the conditions that caused the death of the teenager. They just want another war and the deaths–well, they don’t count, as long as they’re foreigners. If you don’t believe it, just inquire about the status of Afghan or Iraqi women today, seven years after our invasion and their ‘liberation.’ They were treated badly then, and their lives are worse now.

    Reply

  50. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    you ask me:
    “Whenever a post dealing with this subject matter comes up, the
    usual suspects take it as a license to wax eloquent about the
    immorality of Israelis or of Americans or of American Jews. The
    purpose of my comment was to point out how strange it is that
    the behavior of the Iranians or Hamas, or fundamentalist Islam
    of all stripes seems so uninteresting and unimportant to many
    Washington Note readers. Why do you think that is?”
    Well, my first thought is that most of the US media seem to be
    much more interested in all the horrible things that Iranians,
    Hamas, etc are doing, and not all the horrible things the
    Americans and Israelis are doing. So, the latter also has to be
    expressed, to create a counter weight. A very simple example: If
    most people only talk about Palestinian terrorist acts, someone
    has to shout about the Israeli occupation, don`t you think?
    The climate in my country is very different: here I sometimes
    have to tell nice things about Israel or America, to create a kind
    of balance – especially among very young people. This is
    unfortunate.
    In your comment to Don Bacon, you say:
    “Instead of criticizing my so called obsessions, maybe you
    should reflect on the obsessions of many of the people who
    post here. You know who I mean, Don, the people who
    comment obsessively about the supposed misbehavior of
    Israelis and American Jews but never obsess on, let alone
    mention, the truly horrendous behavior of Iranians, Hamas, the
    Saudis and yes, those who practice female genital mutilation in
    Ghana.” (WigWag)
    I can`t see where Don Bacon mentions any “obsessions” from
    your side, WigWag (please correct me if I have overlooked it).
    But I`m sure you remember very well myself mentioning
    arthurdecco`s “obsession” (my formulation) with “the Jews as a
    whole” (his formulation) in a recent thread, where I documented
    some very regrettable signs of ressentiment against Jews in his
    thinking, behind, or in addition to his critical view of specific
    policies and acts on the contemporary political and cultural
    scene.
    When you now ask Don to “reflect on the obsessions of many of
    the people who post here (…) the people who comment
    obsessively about the supposed misbehavior of Israelis and
    American Jews but never obsess on, let alone mention, the truly
    horrendous behavior of Iranians, Hamas, the Saudis”, you seem
    to want to associate them with my claims on the above
    mentioned thread. These people do in your view have a
    unbalanced view of USA/Israel versus Iran/Hamas/the Saudis
    etc. and thus it seem to me that you are trying to make a
    connotation to anti-Semitism?
    Sorry WigWag, I don`t follow you there. As I have said several
    times before, there is a huge gap between someone who
    criticize USA and Israel frequently and strongly, and someone
    who express a coherent view on Jews “as a whole” and what
    they “are”, and “always” have been capable of doing.
    The latter I consider as inexcusable; the first, criticizing
    USA/Israel “frequently and strongly” almost as a duty, given
    what the governments of those two nations have shown
    themselves capable of doing recently.
    And I find it highly suspect to shout “Anti-Semtitism!” (or allude
    to it) whenever someone deliver harsh words against the current
    acts of the Israeli government or army. You do not say that they
    are anti-Semites. But you allude clearly to that (others have
    even said so with explicit words -“virulent anti-Semitism – and I
    strongly disagree). By alluding to this, you use the same tactics
    as those who accused Carter and others of anti-Semitism, when
    they actually criticized a state and a government.

    Reply

  51. samuel burke says:

    Sibel Edmonds and Luke Ryland discuss the London Times series
    on her case and the international nuclear black-market network
    surrounding A.Q. Kahn, the U.S. government’s total clamp-down
    by gag orders even against Congress, the American foreign
    policy hypocrisy of demonizing certain nuclear ambitions and
    supporting others, the military-industrial-congressional
    complex revolving door, the bipartisan lack of enthusiasm in
    pursuing whistleblower cases, the movie about Sibel’s case “Kill
    The Messenger,” and how it only takes one congressman to call
    her to testify to blow the case wide open.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5iXipi_dOc

    Reply

  52. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim, the world is full of countries with territorial disputes. Most of these geopolitical struggles do not have a moral component beyond the tactics that these countries may use to pursue their geoppolitical objectives.
    But, at least for me, how a country treats it’s own citizens is very instructive about the values that the country possesses. I just don’t believe that these values are totally irrelevant to how we can anticipate a country might conduct its external affairs.
    We all have our own values. To me, a country that executes a gay teenager for having sex is uniquely repugnant. Countries that issue death threats to authors because of what they write are uniquely dangerous. Countries that advocate violence because they don’t like a cartoon are not far behind. Nor are countries that refuse to allow women to drive an automobile or that make wives the chattel of their husbands.
    This site makes frequent reference to problems in the Middle East. Whenever a post dealing with this subject matter comes up, the usual suspects take it as a license to wax eloquent about the immorality of Israelis or of Americans or of American Jews. The purpose of my comment was to point out how strange it is that the behavior of the Iranians or Hamas, or fundamentalist Islam of all stripes seems so uninteresting and unimportant to many Washington Note readers. Why do you think that is?

    Reply

  53. PÃ¥l Norheim says:

    WigWag
    You have read a lot of history, and seem to have extensive
    knowledge about what is going on in the contemporary world
    (of course filtered through your eyes, temperament, sympathies
    and antipathies). If you look beyond Iran and other countries
    that are, or seem to be hostile to Israel or USA, and also look at
    how certain societies in the past have treated certain groups of
    its population, you can`t seriously claim that there is a strict
    connection between this, and how they think and act towards
    their neighbors?
    Perhaps one could make a general claim that empires tend to be
    more tolerant towards different kinds of minorities (especially
    religious minorities and ethnic groups) then countries with a
    strong nationalistic component. But from there to foreign
    policy?
    I can`t see any general rules there.
    Personally, I strongly believe that there are both “rational” and
    sane forces, as well as forces that we may consider irrational
    and destructive within the Iranian leadership and among
    powerful groups in the country. And if this is correct, we would
    do a serious, indeed a crazy mistake, if we regard and treat the
    Iranians as “lunatics” en bloc. But since you mentioned
    blindness, I would say that you show certain symptoms of that
    too, when you suggest that the horrible treatment of gays prove
    that they are “capable of anything” in foreign affairs.

    Reply

  54. WigWag says:

    Maybe Don Bacon if you relied on a source other than wikipedia for your references your commentary would be more interesting. I hope it didn’t take too much effort for you to google Jews and Iran and then regurgiate what you found there.
    And when you googled Iran and gay people what did you find, Don? You didn’t make any mention of that. When you googled Iran and Bahais what did you find? I guess you don’t care about the way the Iranians treat Bahais.
    Instead of criticizing my so called obsessions, maybe you should reflect on the obsessions of many of the people who post here. You know who I mean, Don, the people who comment obsessively about the supposed misbehavior of Israelis and American Jews but never obsess on, let alone mention, the truly horrendous behavior of Iranians, Hamas, the Saudis and yes, those who practice female genital mutilation in Ghana. I wonder how long gay Washington Note readers would feel comfortable living under Iranian rule or the rule of Hamas. I wonder how long it would take before female readers of this website would lose their minds living under a Wahhabi regime.
    In Iran, they execute gay teenagers for having sex. You may be comfortable with having a country that does that possess a nuclear bomb. I’m not. Most Americans aren’t. That doesn’t mean we endorse a military option. I don’t. But flip comments about the nature of the Iranian regime speaks volumes about the moral blindness of too many Washington Note readers.

    Reply

  55. vachon says:

    As a AQ Khan buff, I’m 1/4 of the way through DECEPTION: Pakistan, the United States, And the Secret Trade In Nuclear Weapons by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark. And yes, the book is as long as the name implies. It’s reviewed by Douglas Farah in The Washington Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111501950.html
    There hasn’t been any doubt about Pakistan and their nuclear sophistication since Regan: he knowingly paid for it with American millions earmarked for the muahadeen that transited through Pakistan and Bank of Credit and Commerce. Solarz amendment be damned.
    The “discovery” of a slightly compact nuclear design on a computer and Pakistan’s “shock” that Khan was selling Pakistan’s actual nuke design is crap. Pakistan knew American money would dry up after the Soviets were defeated. How else were they going to finance the continued expense? Duh. Sell it.
    I dunno, this article has surfaced for a reason. Iran? Maybe, but I doubt it.

    Reply

  56. Don Bacon says:

    WigWag,
    Perhaps you are an expert in all of the weird (to you) religious beliefs that are rife in the world, and perhaps you are full of concern about the effects of all of them on the citizens of the countries where these weird beliefs are practiced. But until you go off on a discussion of, say, female genital mutilation in Ghana, and as long as you are only concerned with Iran, only with Iran, then I have to assume that you are an agent of the Iran war run-up.
    On the subject of Iran, your Iran that is “capable of anything,” one thing that Iran is capable of is being home to a large Jewish community. Iran has a sizable Jewish population of at least 25,000 people which has resisted Israeli bribery to emigrate. In Tehran, where the majority of the community lives, there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. In addition, there is the Jewish hospital, which has a Jewish director and is funded by donations from the Diaspora, though the vast majority of its staff and patients are Muslim. Children attend Jewish schools where they are taught Hebrew and receive religious training.
    We have a tendency “on this site to give countries like Iran a pass?” Speaking for myself, no country gets a pass, particularly one that attacks other countries.

    Reply

  57. WigWag says:

    So JohnH, you don’t think the Iranians are lunatics? This is how they treat gay people. After you read it, let me know if that’s enough evidence of lunacy for you. If not, just give me a holler and I can send you some information about how they treat their Christian community, their Jewish Community and their Bahai community.
    From In These Times
    Irans Anti-Gay Pogrom
    American gay rights groups are ignoring systematic persecution in the Islamic Republic
    By Doug Ireland
    “The Islamic Republic of Iran—under the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—is engaged in a major anti-homosexual pogrom targeting gays and gay sex. This campaign includes Internet entrapment, blackmail to force arrested gays to inform on others, torture and executions of those found guilty of engaging in “homosexual acts.”
    Homosexual acts have been considered a capital crime in Iran since the 1979 revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Iranians found guilty of gay lovemaking are given a choice of four death styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword or dropped from the highest perch. According to Article 152 of Iran’s penal law, if two men not related by blood are found naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge’s discretion.
    Iran’s crackdown on gays drew worldwide protests after the hanging for “homosexual acts” of two teenagers—one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17—on July 19 in the city of Mashad. Charges against the two teens included the alleged rape of another youth. But three independent gay sources inside Mashad told Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah (an Internet zine for gay Muslims), that the teens were well known in the city’s underground gay community as lovers who lived together, and that the rape charge was fabricated. The editors of an underground Persian-language zine in Iran (who requested anonymity out of fear) also confirm that their own Mashad sources said that the rape charge was trumped up—a view now generally accepted. In any case, the hangings were illegal under international law because Iran is a signatory to two treaties that forbid executing minors. Since then, there have been reports of at least a dozen more gay victims who have been executed.”
    Some Washington Note readers may not think how Iran treats it’s gay citizens is related in any way to their nuclear policy. I couldn’t disagree more. A society that sanctions this type of behavior is capable of anything. This is a dangerous country not only for the international community but for its own citizens. I am certainly not advocating a military intervention. But the tendency of many (not all) on this site to give countries like Iran a pass while routinely criticizing in the most vitriolic terms Israel and the United States is a sign of moral blindness.

    Reply

  58. JohnH says:

    Bush/Cheney and their Israeli cheerleaders are clearly up to their usual fearmongering. But the fact is that no one except the USA has ever used a nuke. And we did it when there was no one around to return the favor.
    Bush/Cheney and their Israeli cheerleaders want us to believe that the Iranians are lunatics. The NIE begs to differ, noting that the behavior of the Iranian leadership is rational (not suicidal). Seeing as Iran/Persia has not attacked anyone for hundreds of years, their leadership tradition is a lot more peaceful, and possibly saner than ours.
    So why would Iran want a nuke? (setting aside for a moment the fact that the NIE said they have no nuclear weapons program) Well, deterrence. Iran saw what happened to Saddam and to Iraq. Just the threat of inflicting unacceptable losses on an extremely powerful invader might be enough to dissuade the attack.
    The real question is, why does the US find it necessary to have the option of invading Iran, thereby motivating Iran to seek deterrence? Ah, yes–Operation Iranian Liberation (OIL).

    Reply

  59. Mr.Murder says:

    If this song wasn’t going to be the theme song for the Denver Convention, AQ Khan could make it his….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgKZHEsWPs&feature=related

    Reply

  60. erichwwk says:

    Steve, nuclear warhead design is NOT a big deal.
    That sort of thinking [that we could slow that knowledge down enough to maintain a weapons monopoly/military advantage] is what got us into this mess in the first place. That genie is LONG out of the bottle.
    And it is not even clear to me that the designs on Urs Tinner’s laptop were for a two stage thermonuclear device, when a simple [anyone can build it] one stage device would serve anyone’s military purposes. High yield “gadgets” simply are not military weapons, they are instruments of genocide. PERIOD.
    And weapons delivered by a missile [w/ a return address] are simply not viable. Only Russia could do that. The Iranians are just jerking our chain. The real struggle is at the mental level, and knowledge of isotope separation is the first step. They can do THAT w/o giving the next step [if they were interested, which i do not believe they are] ANY thought.
    As Einstein said,
    “There is no secret, and there is no defense. There is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.”
    The Manhattan Project folks designing the simple U-235 and PU-239 bombs can be excused due to the timeline and pressured circumstances. To use it WAS criminal and continue to build better designs is even MORE criminal.
    Even Paul Nitze, who was a major player [through NSC-68] has writen:
    “The fact is, I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of nuclear weapons. To maintain them is costly and adds nothing to our security.” —Paul Nitze, New York Times, October 29, 1999
    The place to start is with the USA, not with Iran, Pakistan, etc. Until we can stop deluding ourselves, and force our government to stop its criminal behavior, we will get no where. Until then, I exhort US nuclear weapons designers to heed Hans Bethe’s admonition, delivered in an open letter at the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima:
    “… I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons; …”
    http://tinyurl.com/3k378b p.259-60
    Of course I say all this with benefit of hindsight, and hold all those who designed and built the gadgets, and signed the Franck report, in the highest moral esteem. They were good men placed in a difficult position. I learn each day by rereading the struggles they went through. The same is NOT true for the weapons designers of today. They are war criminals.
    “More and better bombs. Where will this lead . . . is difficult to see. We keep saying, ‘We have no other course’; what we should say is, ‘We are not bright enough to see any other course.”
    –David Lilienthal, first AEC Chairman, in his diary.

    Reply

  61. Bartolo says:

    I’d like to know why Cheney and Tennant did NOT sic a drone on Khan.

    Reply

  62. erichwwk says:

    An early post by jeffrey is at:
    http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1140/urs-tinner
    which lists even earlier links.

    Reply

  63. erichwwk says:

    Steve, how about having Jeffrey Lewis do a guest blog on A.G.Khan, Urs Tinner, and the CIA involvement in all this?
    What purpose is served by parroting the nuclear double standard propaganda, whereby we get to hang on to out nukes, with a proposal to build an entirely new nuclear stockpile [the Reliable Replacement Warhead scam], while we demonize others, and constantly lie to the public about our nuclear weapons policy? How we have handled, and continue to handle, nuclear weapons policy is a truly shameful chapter in American history.
    Can you seriously believe that the Swiss destruction of the Urs Tinner laptop [ which A.Q. Khan says would go a long way to proving his innocence] is anything other than protecting US complicity?
    or as Dr. Lewis says:
    “Generally, the claim is that he was a scapegoat.”
    POA is on the right track here. Until we get Sibel Edmonds, George Tenet, Jeffrey Lewis and foreign public statements into the dialogue, the discussion on “rogue: nuclear weapons will wallow in shallow nonsense.
    If a guest blog by New American Foundation fellow Dr. Jeffrey Lewis does not appear here, I encourage folks to follow this issue on HIS blog at hhttp://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
    I just notice he has a new post on this, and has followed this issue for years.

    Reply

  64. PÃ¥l Norheim says:

    If someone help their own country, as well as foreign countries,
    getting nuclear weapons, that person acts more or less like a
    spy.
    Why do spies act like they do?
    Greed? Self interest? The interest of their own country, as they
    see it? Sheer thrill and excitement? Sometimes all of these
    components motivate them, in various proportions. And
    sometimes greed is so strong that it undermines ones own self
    interest. We can only speculate.
    But the big question remains: why are we “informed” about this
    now?
    And secondly, the possible connections Sibel Edmonds have
    suggested (see POA`s comments above), and internal dynamics
    in Pakistan.
    Formulations like “The most dangerous man in the world”
    obfuscates the fact that this is all about political and economical
    connections and interests, and not about a single, evil person.

    Reply

  65. JohnH says:

    POA said, “Operating under the premise that Khan would be prone to act in the best interests of Pakistan, your theory makes sense. But if one attributes his actions to simple greed, all bets are off.”
    Actually if AQ Khan acted in his own selfish interests, he would not have sold nuclear designs to Iran. Since Pakistan is probably the only place he could expect to live safe, secure, and in comfort, any conflict between Pakistan and Iran could have made him personally a victim of collateral damage resulting from his own designs. It is precisely because he would work in his own self interest, not that of Pakistan, that I find it hard to believe that he sold nuclear designs to Iran.

    Reply

  66. alan says:

    This AQK stuff and Iran’s connections smell to high heaven. Are we seeing the beginning of a propaganda campaign to lead us down the path to a pre-emptive strike? Just saw Gordon Brown and Bush on BBC. Looks like Gordon is getting up steam to play the role of Poodle # 2.
    AQK is widely known as a seller of secrets. The diagrams found on someone’s computer??? Look in the past week two British reports on anti- terrorism were found left on trains. One British official has been suspended. Not the first time Brits have lost computers full of sensitive stuff. So let’s not blame AQH for every thing.

    Reply

  67. ... says:

    i agree with Subodh Atals post above.. A.Q. Khan is a scapegoat… http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2008/05/aq-khan-bombshells-for-musharraf-and-us.html
    A.Q. Khan Bombshells for Musharraf and U.S.
    A.Q. Khan Interviews Indicate Skids Being Greased for Exit of Pakistan’s President and Challenge U.S. Assertions of Pakistan Government Non-Involvement in Nuclear Proliferation Network
    ABC News obtained a telephone interview with Pakistan’s Dr. A.Q. Khan. For American viewers, the big news is that Dr. Khan retracted his televised “confession” that his proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea had been a rogue operation:
    As to his widely publicized confession, Khan said he was told by Musharraf that it would get the United States “off our backs” and that he was promised he would be quickly pardoned. “Those people who were supposed to know knew it,” Khan said about his activities.
    In another telephone interview with the Pakistan media outlet Dawn, Dr. Khan was more explicit:
    When asked if he had been involved in leaking nuclear secrets to any other country, Dr Khan said he was not a part of any illegal or unauthorised deal in any way.“This one sentence covers the whole thing,” he asserted.
    Khan tossed a few more anvils Musharraf’s way, offering the observation that Pakistan’s economy had “gone to the dogs” under Musharraf and indicating political support to the civilian government and, implicitly, Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N over Asif Zardari’s PPP.
    In the context of Pakistani politics, the A.Q. Khan interviews are big news.

    Reply

  68. Bob says:

    Will someone explain what a “rouge” Pakistani is?

    Reply

  69. Carroll says:

    I seriously doubt that Khan is the most dangerous man in the world…or that he is the only one capable of, or that has perfected, that particular design.
    As an examle of how lousy these planted stories are…it’s sort of silly don’t you think… that the story even mentions that the plan on the computer was “destroyed”?
    This guy has been well know for a long time and is under arrest and just recenty they discovered this on his computer?
    Please…gimme a break.
    And the Question is not why we haven’t taken Khan out with a drone but why we haven’t taken out the American neos and zios and Israelis who are setting us up for a war with Iran.
    And what is up with Albright, he criticized the adm for the Iraq info and went on and on about how everyone in his field felt “pressured’ to lie and etc. Then he hypes the Syria nuclear site in such a way that other experts laughed at him and now he is putting out this stuff? How much you suppose they are paying him for changing his tune?

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    JohnH….
    Operating under the premise that Khan would be prone to act in the best interests of Pakistan, your theory makes sense. But if one attributes his actions to simple greed, all bets are off. It seems we are too prone to attributing political motives to many of these actors when in fact their motives may be far simpler, and founded more in self-enrichment than in loyalty towards state.
    Heck, if you doubt it, just cruise on over to TPMuckraker and digest the long list of scumsucking Washington politicos caught with their fingers in the till while masquerading as statesmen and patriots.
    Regardless, it seems these monsters in Washington are bound and determined to hand us a nuclear incident, and are certainly laying the groundwork through which to explain a future event, and where to place the blame.
    Personally, I have no doubt this crew of Cheney’s wouldn’t hesitate to incinerate a few hundred thousand people to maintain their grasp on power.

    Reply

  71. Steve Clemons says:

    Greetings all…sitting on a plane at SFO riddled with mechanical problems. There may be something amiss in this news, not sure. And POA has a point that the cabal in power earlier did throw off what was left of a reasonably stable global equilibrium — and many, many have died because of this Iraq mess. Still, nuclear warhead designs are a huge deal. I need to go read again the chapter in Jim Risen’s book about our own efforts to seduce Iran into absorbing nuclear designs with an error in them. More on that later. But thanks for the constructive commentary.
    best, steve

    Reply

  72. JohnH says:

    The whole idea of A.Q. Khan or any other Pakistani selling nuclear secrets to Iran is patently absurd. People simply don’t sell dangerous stuff to those who one day might make you their target. North Korea and Libya are plausible markets, because they don’t share borders or compete strategically in any way. But Iran? Give me a break! The Bush administration is either losing its lie fabrication expertise, or is getting desperate, clutching at straws to indict Iran.

    Reply

  73. Mr.Murder says:

    Our own military had an Air Force General resign over sending warhead components to Taiwan mistakenly.
    Look closer to home. For true proliferation, to occur we have to take part in it. See also Bechtel, etc.

    Reply

  74. Paul Norheim says:

    Until Bush & Cheney leaves office, I will not listen to any rumors or “facts” regarding Iran and nuclear weapons.
    David Albright should pay a visit to Dimona, just to inhalate the smell of smoking guns in the Negev Desert.
    After that, there should be a meeting between Israel and Iran – of course not at Camp David, USA, but in Reykjavik, Iceland. Perhaps Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries in the region should participate at that conference as well.
    After that, there should be a disarmament meeting between Pakistan and India, also in Reykjavik.
    Then EU and Russia. USA and China. Etc, etc.
    Before such meetings are even suggested, this targeting of “Rogue states” and “dangerous regimes” are not credible.

    Reply

  75. Subodh Atal says:

    There were news items in the past couple of weeks that Khan is implicating senior Pakistani officials. Even Benazir is reported to have hand carried some nuclear secrets to North Korea.
    See this report in the Washington Post (June 1, 2008):
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102122.html
    Most of these reports never really pull together the big picture. Sounds like Khan is a convenient scapegoat.

    Reply

  76. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Justin Raimondo over at WRH, advances an interesting, and quite plausible, theory….
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR2008061402032.html
    Smugglers Had Design For Advanced Warhead
    The drawings, discovered in 2006 on computers owned by Swiss businessmen, included essential details for building a compact nuclear device that could be fitted on a type of ballistic missile used by Iran and more than a dozen developing countries, the report states.
    Posted Jun 15, 2008 10:15 AM PST
    Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS
    Raimondo’s comment about the article above…..
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/
    “I smell a rat here. Note how Iran gets more mention than anyone else in this story.
    The NIE released earlier this year reported the unanimous conclusions of all 16 US Intelligence Agencies that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since at least 2003, and nobody is really sure whether they were doing so prior to that. This makes a false-flag nuclear attack on the US to kick off a new war a problem unless a plausible case can be made for Iran skipping all the R&D and going straight from uranium centrifuge to working weapon. This story appears to be an effort to create such a case”

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    November 21, 2005
    Plame, Pakistan, a Nuclear Turkey, and the Neocons
    by Christopher Deliso
    balkanalysis.com
    While it’s well known that the war party’s fateful “outing” of CIA agent Valerie Plame was partly revenge against her husband, Joseph Wilson, for his 2003 New York Times article, it may have also been motivated by a desire to neutralize Plame’s investigations into rogue nuclear trafficking. The long and storied history of indiscretions of powerful neocons in and around the Bush administration gives us reason to consider this possibility.
    continues at….
    http://antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091

    Reply

  78. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/why-bush-wants-to-legalize-the-nuke-trade-with-turkey/
    Why Bush Wants to Legalize the Nuke Trade with Turkey
    Exonerating Neocon Criminals
    by Joshua Frank / January 25th, 2008
    According to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds there is a vast black market for nukes, and certain U.S. officials have been supplying sensitive nuclear technology information to Turkish and Israeli interests through its conduits. It’s a scathing allegation which was first published by the London Times two weeks ago, and Edmonds’ charge seems to be on the verge of vindication.
    In likely reaction to the London Times report, the Bush Administration quietly announced on January 22 that the president would like Congress to approve the sale of nuclear secrets to Turkey. As with most stories of this magnitude, the U.S. media has put on blinders, opting to not report either Edmonds’ story or Bush’s recent announcement.
    The White House Press Release claims that President Clinton signed off on the Turkey deal way back in 2000:
    However, immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received information that called into question the conclusions that had been drawn in the required NPAS (Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement) and the original classified annex, specifically, information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation. Consequently, the Agreement was not submitted to the Congress and the executive branch undertook a review of the NPAS evaluation … My Administration has completed the NPAS review as well as an evaluation of actions taken by the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish government’s attention).
    What “private entities” the Press Release refers to is not clear, but it could well include the American Turkish Council, the “entity” revealed in the Times article. The Bushites seem to be covering their own exposed backsides, for the timing of Bush’s call to sell nuke secrets to Turkey is certainly suspicious, if not overtly conspicuous.
    It appears the White House has been spooked by Edmonds and hopes to absolve the U.S. officials allegedly involved in the illegal sale of nuclear technology to private Turkish “entities”. One of those officials is likely Marc Grossman, the former ambassador to Turkey during the Clinton Administration who also served in the State Department from 2001-2005. Grossman has been named by Edmonds who claims he was directly involved in the nuclear smuggling ring that she says has allowed the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Israel and Turkey to operate in the U.S. with impunity. Totally complicit in the nuke trade, the U.S. government, according to Edmonds, has known of the expansive criminal activities of these foreign nations’ presence in the States, which has included all sorts of illegal activities like drug trafficking, espionage and money laundering.
    Edmonds says “several arms of the government were shielding what was going on” which included an entire national security apparatus associated with the neoconservaties who have profited by representing Turkish interests in Washington. As Justin Raimondo recently reported in Antiwar.com:
    …this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz, chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J. Feith; Feith’s successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key administration adviser … Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology, funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
    Is the Bush Administration seeking to exonerate these “officials” with its plea to allow Turkey to obtain U.S. nuclear secrets? Besides Grossman, who else was involved in Edmonds’ grim tale of the nuke-for-profit underground? As the news that U.S. officials have allegedly been supplying Turkey with nuclear technology begins to creep in to the mainstream media, the Bush team appears to be moving to legalize the whole shady operation.
    If Congress does not block or amend Bush’s legislation to sell nukes to Turkey within 90 days, it will become law automatically, likely acting retroactively to clear the alleged crimes of Marc Grossman and his neocon, nuke-trading friends.

    Reply

  79. Don Bacon says:

    This is hot! Something found on a computer two years ago, now brought to light by David Albright, an anti-Iran physicist whose latest “draft report” is now brought to us by the Washington Post and Fox News. How does Iran figure in? The warhead design is “better suited [to] the missile capabilities of countries such as Iran.” We await the Albright final report with bated breath.
    What great timing, just in time for the Iran war run-up, being led as always by the Post/Fox faction to which war is the health of the state.

    Reply

  80. PissedOffAmerican says:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2005/8/10/did_speaker_hastert_accept_turkish_bribes
    AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, we contacted Congress member Hastert’s office, the Speaker of the House, as well as the Turkish embassy, for comment, they did not return our phone calls. But what are you alleging about the Speaker of the House?
    SIBEL EDMONDS: As I said, Amy, I have been giving all the details to the appropriate channels. And they have been confirmed. And what I have said all along is the fact that as far as the 9/11 is concerned, September 11 is concerned, these departments—and when I say “these departments,” the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense—have intentionally blocked the investigations of real—the real criminals in this country. And we are talking about countries involved. The Vanity Fair article points out to Turkey—countries. And it’s very interesting. To this date, we are not hearing anything about targeting, you know, certain Central Asian countries. They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda’s funding is not through these charity organizations. It’s through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.
    AMY GOODMAN: Could you name names?
    SIBEL EDMONDS: I have named names. I have given it to those people who are supposed to be representing this country through the Congress. I have given it to the Inspector General’s office, and the report doesn’t name names because everything was classified, but they are saying that my reports, my allegations, have been confirmed and have been supported by other witnesses, documents and evidence. I have given it to the 9/11 Commissioners, and interestingly, the 9/11 Commissioners after having the meetings with me, they went ahead and they had certain meetings and decided to only refer to I.G. report and ask them to classify the I.G. report so it wouldn’t come out before their report comes out. Now, we have to ask the questions: Why are they going to this length, to such a length to cover up and to gag and to classify and to invoke State Secret privilege? What are they covering up?

    Reply

  81. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gosh, Steve, you’re sticking your neck out here.
    Really, do you honestly feel you can give this subject justice without discussing Sibel Edmonds, Dennis Hastert, or Wolfowitz’s recently acquired position?
    Something is rotten here Steve, and Turkey is right in the thick of it.
    Also, the recent shuffling in the Air Force leadership must surely tie in somewhere. I recently saw a MSM article citing the shuffling, and it mentioned the “six” nuclear warheads that were flown over the United States. Was it five, or six, Steve? It seems our media can’t figure it out.
    Considering the great lengths that this Administration has gone to to cede itself unprecedented powers in the event of a national emergency, would you care to join me in a betting pool of which American city may soon dissappear into an irradiated mess of silica sand? Or perhaps we will be treated to a media extravaganza, outlining our heroe’s nick of time aversion of a nuclear disaster, complete with the actual evidence of an “Iranian manufactured” nuclear device?
    Khan is not the only inexplicable example of this Administrations apparent neglect to actually give teeth to their carefully choreographed stage production known as the GWOT. The story of Mahmud Ahmed is equally inexplicable, and certainly gives one pause when considering whether or not these pieces of shit in this criminal Administration are serious about our security.
    But carry on, brother. I am waiting with bated breath to see how this thread progresses without Wolfowitz, Turkey, Edmonds, Hastert, and Plame becoming an integral part of the issue. If you can pull this off with all those omissions, you oughta give the White House pressroom a holler, as you’ve missed your calling.
    BTW, Steve, Bhutto believed that Bin Laden is dead. Do you find Bush and Cheney more credible than Bhutto?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *