Check on delivery
There’s a small but significant difference between the transcript of the speech Gordon Brown made to the Knesset today and what he actually said.
Here’s what the transcript says:
We stand ready to lead in taking firmer sanctions and ask the whole international community to join us. Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations.
Here’s what the Prime Minister actually said:
We stand ready to lead in taking firmer sanctions and ask the whole international community to join us. Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear weapons programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations.
Did you spot it? Can anybody produce any proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme?
Posted on July 21st, 2008 at 6:42pm under Brown, Iran, The coming apocalypse
| Related posts... • Monbiot: Nuking the Treaty • Blair + coffee = Iraq: suddenly it all fits • IRANWATCH: Here we go… |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 19 Comments |
Fuck that is sneaky.
No. And I find it hard to believe that if one or another intelligence agency were to have proof they wouldn’t have published it by now.
Martin’s latest blog post… Disruptive technology?
And this in a country that persecuted Mordechai Vanunu for revealing to the world its secret (and still officially unacknowledged) nuclear weapons programme. What an utter disgrace our Prime Minister is.
mike power’s latest blog post… More from the gormless ‘Community Support Officer’
In fairness, even if Brown had said “nuclear programme” we know he would have meant “nuclear weapons programme”. I don’t think that anyone is concerned about Iran gaining nuclear power stations.
In December 2007, the United States Government’s National Intelligence Estimate (PDF) stated:
‘We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program’
According to US intelligence, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons programme to ’suspend’. Now, I’m sure Gordon is as cynical as the rest of us about what comes out of these various agencies, but I’d like to see the proof to back up what he said.
Well,
“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program;”
But
“We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years (because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in the Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt in those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)”
And
“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
So I think that the NIC report is a less ringing endorsement than is often assumed, and I think legitimate suspicions abound. But that doesn’t affect my intended point; that while Brown meant to say “nuclear programme”, he always meant to mean “nuclear weapons programme”.
And I’ll say it again: where’s the proof?
No proof, but as we’re clearly talking at cross purposes, forget it.
Quinn’s latest blog post… Physical Graffiti
“Yeeees, let’s just slip that into the public consciousness.”
BenSix’s latest blog post… I’ve Finally Found That Elusive Moral Decay
I presume that you’re all going to write to Gordon to ask him to clarify what he said.
Now that is an excellent idea. I shall report back if/when I get a reply.
There we go. A letter to the Prime Minister asking him to clarify his remarks went into the post box at 9.02am precisely this morning. I’ve started my stopwwatch but not holding my breath.
I think legitimate suspicions abound.
That’s interesting, given that neither the U.S. spooks nor the IAEA have found any evidence of such a weapons program.
Especially so, given Ayatollah Khamenei’s decree forbidding the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons and Ayatollah Kashani saying the same thing.
Perhaps Justin can explain why he thinks the words of the Supreme Leader and an Ayatollah actually count for nothing in a theocracy, and spell out the basis for his numerous “legitimate suspicions”?
It’s not me who said it. I’ve noted before that an Iranian bomb has been declared unislamic by the clerics. It’s me who’s asking for proof of such suspicions not advocating them.
Justin – my apologies.
I’m too stupid to notice that a comment authors name appears before the comment, not after.
When I’ve returned from wiping egg off my face perhaps Quinn could address the point?
Oh for crying out loud. Right; this is my final word on the matter.
Firstly, in my initial comment I merely pointed out that Gordon Brown’s Freudian slip, for such I think it was, was not in my opinion all that significant, as when the UK government diplomatically refers to Iran’s “nuclear programme” what they really mean is what they believe there to be a “nuclear weapons programme”, and so I don’t believe that Gordon Brown actually saying what his government actually thinks is in itself all that significant. I wasn’t trying to endorse the UK government’s position, this was just my world weary way of saying that nothing has changed with this statement.
In my second comment in responding to Justin I merely presented evidence to show that the NIE report was not to my mind an exoneration of the Iranian position as it has often been painted, and then reiterated my initial point. That is all. I could have made my life easier by just nodding along, but it’s not in my nature.
I don’t have any evidence to show that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, but that’s fine, because I am alleging no such thing. Suspicious? Yes; while the IAEA still has a job to do, while they report questions unanswered, while Iran is not 100% compliant and transparent and until the IAEA give Iran a clean bill of health. While I may admire others’ touching faith in the word of the Iranian government I personally don’t know how you cannot be to some degree suspicious; lack of evidence does not mean lack of suspicions. And I am, in general, something of a cynic, which in practice means I tend not to take at face value the pronouncements of religious and/or political leaders, be they from the UK, US, Iran or anywhere else. That is just my way but others are entitled to their credulity, it bothers me not.
End of message.
There is a much more complicated tale than your noticing of a single word difference seems to make. The first simple point to make is this: Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means that it has undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons, but that it has an absolute right to a civil nuclear energy programme. (Israel has not signed so is not prohibited from having nuclear weapons)
The only problem with Iran’s nuclear enrichment attempts could come if there is a prospect that Iran is lying when it says they are for nuclear energy. Here’s the problem: there is not merely a prospect, but a virtual certainty, that they are lying. It’s not that Iran is not building any nuclear power stations (it is, and the first goes into energy production very soon).
Not only has Iran been constantly obstructive to the IAEA (which has never stopped civil nuclear power projects), IAEA inspectors found documents in Iranian nuclear research facilities that try to solve the problem of fashioning Uranium into a sphere, a problem which never occurs in nuclear power plants but must be solved in order to make a working bomb.
Don’t get me wrong, David, I’m not about to take as gospel the intergrity of the Irainian government. It’s just that if we’re going to rerun 2003, I’d like the facts from our governments to be just that – facts.
There must be a problem with the audio, all I hear is the sound of Brown sucking Israeli cock.