Just a brief update. I’m moving house tomorrow, and still have some packing to finish!
From my logs, I can see that a lot of folks have been having trouble with the reCaptcha device I was using to prevent spam. Losing valid comments makes me sad, so I’ve decided to deactivate that for now, and try a spam filter instead. We’ll see how that works out.
While I pack, I’ll see if I can come up with something to say about the western leader’s response to the NIE that doesn’t involve strings of expletives.
A little later… I had a sudden flash of inspiration! Brought on by Atrios’ constant invocation of the King of Spain. I’m a genius, I tell you!
Thursday morning: The removal men will be here in an hour. Time to dismantle my PC. Cable gets installed at my new place tomorrow. See you on the flip side!
Long term readers will know I spent some of my formative years in Indiana, watching far more US television than is now considered healthy. This would explain why when I woke up this morning, I felt a sudden urge to own one of these:
I’m moving on Thursday, from this tiny flat on the edge of a hellmouth to a little terraced house on the other side of Norwich. It would be nice, now I’ll have more space, to have a bit more greenery about my home. And what could be greener than a Chia? Sure, I could get some pot plants, but they lack pizazz. Anyone know where I can find Chia for sale in the UK? Do they even make them any more? Any of the types in the advert would do, except for the tree. Why would you go to the trouble of inventing a growable pet, only to shape it into the form of a plant? Such a Chia rebels against its own nature. Weak sauce, Chia tree, weak sauce….
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.
• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.
C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgement, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.
F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
So, the facts I take away from that are that Iran did put it’s nuclear weapon programme on hold in 2003, just like they said they did. It is true that they still have the capability to eventually develop a weapon if they choose to, but not until 2015 at the earliest, if they restarted their programme this year, which they show no sign of doing.
Thus, though there may be a long-term threat, there is certainly no imminent one. Almost certainly there will be a change of Government in Iran before then, and I would hope that this is going to result in a reduction of belligerent language from Bush, Sarkozy, Brown, and Merkel. The Iranian drive for nuclear weapons was always driven by a sense of vulnerability, rather than an intent to wage wars of aggression, and threats do nothing to assuage that.
As the report says, the Iranians are guided by a cost-benefit approach. We should offer non-aggression and defence pacts, aimed to reduce Tehran’s level of paranoia (Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?), and try to increase trade and trust between our peoples. It appears we now have several years to try the friendly carrot approach, and please, let us make good use of them.
In a related incident, Iran has offered the GCC (The Gulf Co-operation Council, comprising Bahrain, the UAE ,Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) a mutual defence and trade pact. I hope they agree, as this would also do a great deal to make Iran feel safer from random aggression, and help integrate them more positively into the local international community.
These developments leave me feeling fairly hopeful. We have a window now to pursue a peaceful path of diplomacy, and it would be a crime to waste it.
The David Abrahams illegal donation scandal ( and I do not apologise for calling it that. Proxy donating IS illegal, as anyone but a small child or a Labour fundraiser would know.) seems to have quietened down a little for now, as various investigations begin into it. The Prime Minister’s own enquiry is likely to be a whitewash, but the Metropolitan Police enquiry is somewhat more hopeful.
It was a Labour Party conference in Brighton a few years ago. It was pouring with rain. I was leaving a restaurant and asked for my coat and umbrella.
The latter was a shockingly expensive, black wooden-handled model, bought deliberately so I would remember not to lose it. Instead, I was given the sort of floral collapsible one sold by Italian street vendors for a quid. I then saw a woman leaving the same restaurant with my umbrella. She protested it was hers. I protested it wasn’t.
I pointed out that a brass collar on the shaft bore my initials. At that moment, a waiter said, “Madam, here is your umbrella”, and handed her the Italian floral job. Flustered, Harriet Harman (for it was she) said that she thought she had borrowed the gamp from her sister who, being called Sarah Jane Harman, had the same initials as me.
Looking at the two brollies, I said I could see how easily she might have confused the two. She failed to appreciate the joke. Am I surprised that she is up to her neck in effluent about dodgy donations? Am I hell.
Clearly she has a taste for the finer things in life, be they Deputy Leaderships, or finely carved umbrellas. Given the closeness of her husband, the Labour Party treasurer Jack Dromey, to the current scandal, she is in danger from two directions. As they say, when it rains, it pours. Jack has been less than forthcoming about his involvement. I suppose he’s only the treasurer, not the finder-outer, or question-asker. Treasure your job while you can, Jack.
Mr Abrahams, showing cunning if not decisiveness or integrity, donated to both Harman and Hilary Benn for the Deputy Leadership campaign, though Mr Benn insisted that Abrahams donate in his own name for a change. Thus Benn has come out of this cleanly. He’s probably practising his Deputy Leader speeches in front of his bathroom mirror as I write. Dad would be proud.
Jon Mendelsohn is certainly doomed. Apart from Greg Palast’s revelations about his appallingly unethical lobbying company before he became Chief Fundraiser for Labour, Abrahams has now revealed that he has thankyou notes for all his various donations via various proxies. The thankyou notes being addressed to Abrahams rather gives the game away. Really thoughtful of him to have saved them all, don’t you think? David Abrahams assures us that he knew it was all above board because nice Mr Mendelsohn knew all about it.
Gordon Brown prides himself on the number of people from outside the Labour party that he’s brought into his Government. That’s lucky, as at the rate they’re going he’s going to need to replace half his cabinet by Christmas. Well done, Mr Abrahams! You’ve destroyed what little credibility New Labour had left. That was, ah, your intention, I assume?
Given that he first came to light trying to trick the Labour party into letting it stand as one of its MPs by hiring a fake family to accompany him, and was found out and cast into ignomy, it is not hard to imagine that he resolved to take his fiendish revenge upon them. Imagining things is fun!
I know, let’s have a poll! They’re always fun too. If you think I’ve missed anyone from the choices you ought to be there, post in comments and I’ll add them in.
I’ve had a couple of emails about the site looking a bit strange since I switched to the new theme.
The sidebars on the right are *supposed* to be next to eachother. In certain circumstances Internet Explorer likes to stack them instead. Harmless enough, though it can make the page rather longer than it needs to be. IE also has the text input box for the comment recaptcha device slightly shifted over. Don’t worry, it might look a bit disturbing, but it still works! These days, it’s rather difficult to get a complex site to look identical in all search engines. Well, unless you’re a php wizard, which I am most certainly not.
Anyhows, the long and short of it is that this site works best in Firefox, though I do try to keep it neat looking in all browsers. It’s also the browser I use myself mostly, as it has the exceptionally useful firebug plugin, which makes debugging web pages massively more simple than it used to be.
My biggest effort at a webcomic ever! I should probably have tried to do it in something a bit better than Windows Paint.
I also completely failed at fitting it into the amount of width I have here, so you’ll have to give it a click to see it. You might also have to click magnify on it, if your browser unhelpfully resizes it so you can’t read the text. I’ll make sure I get it to fit in here next time. Probably. It’s kind of thin over here.
For non-Brits, the Lib Dem leader, mighty Vince Cable, said this week: “The House has noticed the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation in the past few weeks from Stalin to Mr. Bean – creating chaos out of order, rather than order out of chaos.
Janet Dunn, who yesterday claimed to know nothing about having been used as an intermediary for one of David Abrahams’ Labour Party donations, has had a flash of insight, and now remembers the event. I suppose she doesn’t consider it “disgusting” any more, either.
I know I’m always forgetting about having £25,000 put into my bank account, and then passing it along. You can’t be expected to recall such minor financial details. Luckily, she kept records, and checked her bank balance last night, and it all came back to her. Fortunate indeed, considering that the Labour party had obvious proof that she’d paid them with a personal cheque.
Vince Cable, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, has made a formal request for the Metropolitan Police (who have jurisdiction over all matters involving Westminster) to investigate the matter.
