Return of the ... One True King (XII)
In the 6th part of this series (February '04) I wrote about the ban on Americans editing Iranian works for publication. Since this is now lifted, I can now edit the Iranian NIC and NOC technical pubs for publication. So this is part VI bis.
Other items of interest. After getting Iran to agree to a suspension of its enrichment program in exchange for accession into the WTO, the US vetoed the accession talks. The Gang of Fools prefers that Afganistan enters the WTO before Iran does. No doubt this is because of Afganistan's export dominance, under American tutelage, post-Taliban, in the world heroin market. A couple of days ago (and before coffee) MB mentioned to me that Joe Corsi was going on about Iran. I said "Who?" and MB said "Oh, you know, Swift Boat Veterans." I said "Oh. I wrote about that a couple of weeks ago."
After cofee I brightened up. I realized my work would be wider read if I would just publish it three weeks after I wrote it. Here's the link. And here's another link, for the road. As far as I can tell only Peatey read it, which is one more reader than enough.
What else ... For the first time Iran has been invited to attend a session of the 25-member club of countries mastering the nuclear fuel cycle. A European delegation will visit Iran after New Year's to discuss construction of a research reactor. Details on these later.
Over at the Telegraph (or the conservative rhino if you've lived in the UK), Damien Mcelroy has a scoop. If Iran builds an anhydrous hydrogen fluoride fab facillity, and Iran currently imports "significant amounts" of AHF, which is used in the petro-chemical industry, and the AHF fab fac is scheduled to be completed in 2006, then ... (big breath in) ... its got to be part of Iran's secret plan to flush the remaining 35 tons of 'yellowcake' (U3O8) into uranium hexaflouride gas (UF6) and (we really need a flaming screaming font directive, I suppose I should write the .css) make atomic bombs!.
Only this story went up on www.mafhoum.com/press4/128P81.htm circa 22 January 2003. Woopie. I remember being amazed by the petrolium engineering discipline at Stanford circa 1970. The kind folks over at Yingpeng Chemical (Zhejiang Province, PRC) are ready to ship industrial grade anhydrous hydrofluoric acid in handy 10kg/25kg/ polythene plastic buckets or stylish 320kg/640kg steel cylinders, or by standard ISO rail tanker, to discerning buyers anywhere. And Yingpeng Chem goes the extra distance because there is a lot of competition in the inorganic acid market.
The only "secret" part of the secret plan is why anyone even squirms when the loonies shout "WEAPONIZED FROG!!!".
Make no mistake, HF can be used for enrichment. It is used in the Y-12 plant at Oakridge. The transport system at Oakridge takes the HF from the receiving dock to the reactor building (9212 B-1 Wing), where it is used in the process of HEU (uranium metal) production.
Fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine ... the hydrogen halides. That was the fun part of high school chemistry. Then there was the day I managed so set my hands on fire with phosperous in solution ... wicked good fun, but not a halogen tale. Look for droning und drooling by the highly educated media 'leets about "fluoride" and "enrichment" (or covert contamination of the nations water supply and body fluids) in the coming weeks.
Comments
Q: if an industrial development program by a rogue state has legitimate economic goals but simultaneously enables it to be more roguish in the future (either because of application of new technology of that industry or because the rogue state is now richer and less vulnerable to international pressure), should the U.S. block such industrial program?
Follow-up Q: doesn't ANY and EVERY development program by a rogue state fall under this standard? So basically, a rogue is a rogue is a rogue?
- The Wampum groupie
Posted by: Peatey | December 19, 2004 10:24 PM
FWIW, I try to read all your posts, Eric. But -- and I know this was addressed in comments a while ago -- your writing style is so dense with allusions and details beyond my subject knowledge that I rarely have anything to say even when I think I more or less get what you're saying.
Posted by: ArC | December 20, 2004 05:10 AM
Why, other than assisting in the catapulting of Reagan/Bush/Bush into the Oval for three terms (or five of seven if keeping the count and consequences current), is the Islamic Republic a "Rogue State"?
Is this colorful property also attributed to the Pahlavi Dynasty (military dictatorship hell bent on regional hegemony via militarism)?
Oh. You ment China. Sorry for the confusion. Yup. The chemical foundations for the refrigerant industry in China is something the US is Kalled By Gott to Blok. Ya Sure!
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2004 07:12 AM
ArC
Do you have a specific question? Several?
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2004 07:14 AM
EBW, I thought Iran was a pre-9/11 sponsor of terrorism. I'm very shaky here but wasn't Iran under sanctions and such? If I'm guilty of accepting the party line, please inform me.
But my question still applies to N.Korea, which I think is rogue state, and pre-OpIraqi"Freedom" Iraq. If Iraq was pursuing nuclear capability which was non-military at the moment but would aid in future military applications, should the US pre-empt it?
ArC, I think, if I don't keep peppering Eric with questions, the terrorists win. :P
-a Wampum groupie
Posted by: Peatey | December 20, 2004 08:15 AM
You ask, pre-9/11, was the Islamic Republic a sponsor of terrorism?
For most Israelies such as my partner, from a 1930s Haganh family, that is, a Israeli mil/pol elite, the Islamic Republic is the largest sponsor of terrorism on the planet. Personally I rank the Islamic Republic below the Permanent Penguin Political Authority for Maritime Antarctia. Funding Palestinian organizations is inherently "terrorism" under Israelie and American elite rules (but Israel does have a peace party, and not every Israelie is Zionist and insane, only 52% or so).
You ask if Iran was under sanctions. The answer is "yes", American sanctions. The kind of stuff Cuba is stuck with. Nothing that holds up in the International Law system.
The more fundamental question would be "EBW, do you think `Terrorism' is just a clever marketing ploy, like that sick fat America hating Michael Moore and commie academic deadbeats like Chomskey, or are you joined at the hip with PNAC and the burn-America-for-profit wing of the Iron Triangle?"
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2004 09:44 AM
Oh I know the answer to "the more fundamental question." I'm slow but I do progress after repetitive forced feeding. :P
Terrorism as a marketing ploy post-9/11 I agree with you there wholeheartedly. I'm not really sure what to think about Iran's status as 'terrorist-friendly,' though; every datapoint I have is that Iran is pro-terror, but then I never questioned the data before...
Posted by: Peatey | December 20, 2004 11:03 AM
Well, going back to the first Return of the One True King post, I have no idea what SAVAK is, or who Pahlavis are, or pretty much everyone in those seas of names. So yeah, general ignorance on my part.
Posted by: ArC | December 20, 2004 05:34 PM
SAVAK == the Shah's secret police.
Pahlavi == dynasty that begins with Reza Pahlavi, b. 1878, who staged a coup d'etat in 1921 after commanding infantry sent against the Red Army and Navy at Enzeli, where the Reds recaptured the ships and military equipment taken by the Whites from Soviet Azerbaidjan and Soviet Russia. Deposed in 1941 and forced to abdicate by the British in favor of his son Muhammad Reza Pahlavi.
Posted by: Eric | December 20, 2004 06:59 PM
EBW, I'm scared... unsent email drafts are coming! And no record of it traversing over the Internets!
---NYTimes---
http://tinyurl.com/5jf3n
Todd M. Hinnen, a trial attorney with the United States Justice Department's computer crime division, wrote an article on terrorists' use of the Internet for Columbia Science and Technology Law Review earlier this year. "There's no panacea," Mr. Hinnen said in an interview. "There has always been the possibility of meeting in dark alleys, and that was hard for law enforcement to detect."
...
In one plan envisioned by Mr. Hinnen in his law review article, a group need only provide the same user name and password to all of its members, granting them all access to a single Web-based e-mail account. One member simply logs on and writes, but does not send, an e-mail message. Later, a co-conspirator, perhaps on the other side of the globe, logs on, reads the unsent message and then deletes it.
"Because the draft was never sent," Mr. Hinnen wrote, the Internet service provider "does not retain a copy of it and there is no record of it traversing the Internet - it never went anywhere." The message would be essentially untraceable.
Would you like me to delete this? Should I delete the corresponding entries in the server logs? How about in the nightly incremental dump tapes of the server?
This is how DM, MBW and I "chat", but we're terrorists, so that's OK.
Posted by: Peatey | December 20, 2004 07:14 PM