How Bill Clinton gave Iran the bomb.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's right folks, Clinton gave the Iranians the schematics to nuclear weapons technology.

April 15, 2006


Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iran Blueprints for Nuclear Bomb


Jim Kouri, CPP Last night, radio talk show host and former US Justice Department official Mark Levin shocked many listeners when he reported that President Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the Iranians in a harebrained scheme.

He said that the transfer of classified data to Iran was personally approved by then-President Clinton and that the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.

The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book "State of War" by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive.

But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and "may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA," according to Risen.

It called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet nuclear program, to offer Iran the blueprint for a "firing set" -- the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion.

He had been told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran's nuclear knowledge.

Risen said the Clinton-approved plan ended up handing Tehran "one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short."


http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/jcpp_20060415.html

Further stories on the subject:

Intel: Operation—Exposed?

Newsweek
Jan. 16, 2006 issue - Allegations of secret electronic eavesdropping on Americans aren't the only details in a new book that are causing heartburn for U.S. spies. The intelligence community is also furious over disclosures in New York Times reporter James Risen's "State of War" about a Clinton-era CIA plot, Operation Merlin. Risen writes that a former Russian nuclear scientist on the agency payroll was to take Russian nuke blueprints (acquired by the CIA) and leak them to Iran. The catch: they contained faulty info that the CIA hoped Iran would incorporate in a bomb design. But the initiative went awry when the scientist noticed the flaws and told the Iranians to look closely at the blueprints.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10755448/site/newsweek/from/RL.2/

Operation Merlin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Operation Merlin is an alleged United States covert operation under the Clinton Administration to provide Iran with a flawed design for building a nuclear weapon in order to delay the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In his book State of War, author and New York Times intelligence correspondent James Risen claims that the CIA chose a defected Russian nuclear scientist to provide deliberately flawed nuclear warhead blueprints to Iranian officials in February 2000. Operation Merlin backfired when the Russian scientist noticed the flaws and pointed them out to the Iranians. Instead, the book alleges, it may have accelerated Iran's nuclear program by providing useful information, once the flaws were identified. Critics contend Risen's citation of Seymour Hersh as well as anonymous sources make the book's claims somewhat suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Merlin

From the transcript of the episode in question:

MR. RUSSERT: Another story that was not published by The Times that has created an uproar in the intelligence community was Operation MERLIN, which you talk about it in your book. And let me show it on the screen. “Operation MERLIN has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. And it may not be over. Some officials have suggested it might be repeated against other countries. ... It’s not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by President Bill Clinton. After the Russian scientist’s fateful trip to Vienna, however, the MERLIN operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states.”

An operation where an agent would present fake blueprints to “help” Iran or another country build a nuclear bomb, but because it was fake, it would, in effect, delay their operation. The CIA has issued a very sharp comment about you, and let me read it. “It is most alarming that” the author “discloses information that he believes to be ongoing intelligence operations, including actions as critical as stopping dangerous nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Setting aside whether what he wrote is accurate or inaccurate, it demonstrates an unfathomable and sad disregard for U.S. national security and those who take life-threatening risks to ensure it.”

By revealing this operation, which you acknowledge may be ongoing, aren’t you violating national security?

MR. RISEN: No, I don’t believe so. First of all, this operation in particular took place six years ago, well before—you know, long before 9/11. And the reason that I think it’s important to talk about this is because there are people who believed that it was mishandled, and it’s possible we actually aided the Iranian nuclear program rather than try to stop it; that this operation was conducted so poorly, it reflects the larger issue of one of the issues that I deal with in my book, which is the failure of the CIA to adequately deal with weapons of mass destruction and intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction. They now have a long history of repeated failures and repeated mistakes when you deal with—on WMD issues, as we saw in Iraq. And I think that the agency’s credibility on the issue of weapons of mass destruction has to be in question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10721401/page/5/

US blunder aided Iran's atomic aims, book claims

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday January 5, 2006
The Guardian


State of War, by James Risen

The CIA may have helped Iran to design a nuclear bomb through a botched attempt to channel flawed blueprints to Tehran's weapon designers, according to a new book on the US "war on terror".
In an excerpt from State of War, printed today in G2, the author and New York Times intelligence correspondent, James Risen, writes that the abortive operation misfired when a Russian defector on the CIA payroll, chosen to deliver the deliberately flawed nuclear warhead blueprints to Iranian officials in February 2000, tipped them off about the defects.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1678134,00.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Furthermore; that kind of throws a monkey wrench into the useful idiots assertions that Iran wants nuclear technology for "peaceful," purposes, the firing mechanism has only one use and one use only and it sure as hell aint peaceful.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

bumpedy bump.



And no not this kind of bump:

Or this kind of bump:

You bunch of oversexed drug fiends, what the hell is wrong with you people?!?!?!

 

[Touchmaster]

i have to admit that i find it very scary that a country could potentially have access to nuclear weapons when it has threatened a number of sovereign countries with violence and it has a government under the control of fanatically intolerant and anti-science religious fundamentalists that wouldnt be out of place in the middle ages. It is also controlled by a corrupt elite that plunder the country's vast riches while masses of poor have to struggle to get by. It tortures and imprisons thousands of people without charge, and many of its citizens face execution. It has repressed organised labour and relentlessly attacked the freedom of the media. It harbours known terrorists despite extradition requests by other states, and indeed has sponsored many terrorist groups around the world. It has flouted countless international laws and is a pariah state.

But thats enough about the US, what about Iran?

(oh, Iran has most of these problems too, except it has never attacked another state since the revolution, whereas the US has attacked Lebanon, El Salvador, Panama, Sudan, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia in that time period... for the most part unprovoked with the arguable exception of Afghanistan and the first Iraq war)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

i have to admit that i find it very scary that a country could potentially have access to nuclear weapons when it has threatened a number of sovereign countries with violence

Soveriegn nations controlled by genocidal maniacs like Saddam Hussein? Those soveriegn nations?

and it has a government under the control of fanatically intolerant and anti-science religious fundamentalists that wouldnt be out of place in the middle ages.

I'll refer you to the first amendment, there is a very distinct separation between Church and State in this country.

It is also controlled by a corrupt elite that plunder the country's vast riches while masses of poor have to struggle to get by.

Oh yes just look at all of the starving Americans. :roll:

It tortures and imprisons thousands of people without charge, and many of its citizens face execution.

How dare we lock up and interrogate members of an organization who flew planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How dare we sentence people to death under the rule of law who gave no such quarter to their victims.

It has repressed organised labour and relentlessly attacked the freedom of the media.

Relentlessly attacked the freedom of the media and repressed labour unions? Cite specific examples please.

It harbours known terrorists despite extradition requests by other states, and indeed has sponsored many terrorist groups around the world.

I take it you consider the Contras to be terrorists eh? And what were the Sandanistas? Innocent victims perhaps?

It has flouted countless international laws and is a pariah state.

But thats enough about the US, what about Iran?

(oh, Iran has most of these problems too, except it has never attacked another state since the revolution, whereas the US has attacked

Lebanon,

Actually the U.S. was attacked in Lebanon when they bombed our Marines Barricks who were their on a peace keeping mission.

El Salvador,

Actually we supported the legitimate government of El Salvador against the Marxists supported by Cuba who were attempting to destroy the Salvadorian Republic.

Panama,

Noriega was a dictator who refused to relinquish power when he lossed the elections; furthermore, he was trafficking drugs into the United States.

Sudan,

The Sudan was harboring Bin-Laden who was using it as a base of operations to launch attacks against the U.S. ie the U.S.S. Cole, not to mention engaging in ethnic cleansing which continues to this day.

Colombia,

We helped train the Columbian forces of the legitimate Columbian government to fight against the Medelin cartel.

Iran,

Iran is a state sponsor of terror, ie Hezbollah, furthermore they have consistently sponsored attacks against the U.S. and her allies.

Iraq,

So you support Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime?

Afghanistan,

So you support the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and O.B.L.?

Nicaragua,

So you support the Sandanistas?

Grenada,

The illegitimate Marxist rebels took U.S. college students as hostages.

Yugoslavia,

So you support Milosevich?

Libya,

Libya was responsible for the bombing of a German disco tech, it was a retalitory air-strike not a first strike.

Somalia,

We were there as peacekeepers on a humanitarian mission and for our troubles our troops were dragged naked through the streets and mutilated.

Haiti

Sending in peace keeping forces are akin to attacking a nation now?

and Bosnia

You support Milosovich?

in that time period... for the most part unprovoked with the arguable exception of Afghanistan and the first Iraq war)

Let's see in your little list you took the side of terrorists, genocidal maniacs, and communist dictators. You keep good company.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... Iran wants nuclear technology for "peaceful," purposes, the firing mechanism has only one use and one use only and it sure as hell aint peaceful.

Perhaps you mean, "...Iran wants nuclear technology solely for "peaceful," purposes."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Perhaps you mean, "...Iran wants nuclear technology solely for "peaceful," purposes."

Well their claims that they want nuclear power while they sit on a lake of oil are just a smokescreen to hide their true intentions. They obviously want nukes.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well their claims that they want nuclear power while they sit on a lake of oil are just a smokescreen to hide their true intentions. They obviously want nukes.

Sure they want nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean they don't also want nuclear power. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Wanting nuclear energy doesn't preclude a desire for nuclear weapons anymore than a desire for nuclear weapons precludes a desire for nuclear power.
If they can sell some of the petro currently used for domestic production for more money than the costs of what it takes to replace it with another energy source, then it just makes economic sense to do so. Mo money makes the world go round.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure they want nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean they don't also want nuclear power. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Wanting nuclear energy doesn't preclude a desire for nuclear weapons anymore than a desire for nuclear weapons precludes a desire for nuclear power.
If they can sell some of the petro currently used for domestic production for more money than the costs of what it takes to replace it with another energy source, then it just makes economic sense to do so. Mo money makes the world go round.

So do you think that Iran should be allowed to go nuclear?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So do you think that Iran should be allowed to go nuclear?

I don't think that Iran (or any other country for that matter) needs to start producing nuclear weapons. IMHO as a child of Cold War, there're already more than enough of them to go around.

Why do you ask?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't think that Iran (or any other country for that matter) needs to start producing nuclear weapons. IMHO as a child of Cold War, there're already more than enough of them to go around.

Why do you ask?

Yes but the fact remains if we allow them to build nuclear reactors they're going to use it to make bombs, it's not even a question.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Interesting article.

But it also raises many issues.

So Bill Clinton may have approved the idea of giving dodgy plans to the Iranians. But the article also proves that the Iranians are interested in nuclear techonology....

My gut feeling is that the Iranians would have got nuclear plans from the black market, in just the same time as getting it from the you guys.

But this little scheme by the CIA proves that the Iranians are interested in nuclear energy making it a lot easier for the current Washington administration to prove the Iranians real intensions.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes but the fact remains if we allow them to build nuclear reactors they're going to use it to make bombs, it's not even a question.

[nitpick]IIRC, reactors don't make bombs.[/nitpick]

Once or twice I heard a few whispers somewhere that there were folks who're concerned about Iran and nuclear weapons. So, I'm not entirely unaware that the concerns exist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

[nitpick]IIRC, reactors don't make bombs.[/nitpick]

.

Actually nuclear reactors are necessary to create plutonium, modern nuclear weapons use plutonium not uranium.

Pu-239
Main article: Plutonium 239
Plutonium-239 is one of the two fissile materials used for the production of nuclear weapons and in some nuclear reactors as a source of energy. The other fissile material is uranium-235. Plutonium-239 is virtually nonexistent in nature. It is made by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Uranium-238 is present in quantity in most reactor fuel; hence plutonium-239 is continuously made in these reactors. Since plutonium-239 can itself be split by neutrons to release energy, plutonium-239 provides a portion of the energy generation in a nuclear reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Its not rocket science to make a nuke. The principle is fairly simple and the technology has been around for 60 years now. To say that "Clinton gave Iran the bomb" is moronic. Iran could get basic plans for a basic nuclear bomb in an encyclopedia. You have to remember that the author of this book also makes the ridiculous claim that the terrorists did not know they were being subject to electronic surveillance until it was revealed in the New York Times. I work as a Systems Administrator, anyone in the IT industry would know that Terrorist internet traffic would have been subject to packet sniffing and anyone in the IT industry would know how that worked. Just like the basics of how to build a nuclear weapon, its not some closely guarded secret.

Any nation on earth could easily acquire the technical expertise to manufacture basic nuclear weapons. The problem is in getting the materials.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

My gut feeling is that the Iranians would have got nuclear plans from the black market, in just the same time as getting it from the you guys.

They did. They got them from our ally in the GWoT, Pakistan, IIRC.

But this little scheme by the CIA proves that the Iranians are interested in nuclear energy making it a lot easier for the current Washington administration to prove the Iranians real intensions.

I don't think that anyone really doubts that Iran wants nukes. The questions are about what they are actually doing toward that end. From what I can tell (and I may well be wrong), many folks think they are pushing the limits of their dual use infrastructures as far as they can w/o quite crossing the line into blatantly single use (weapons use only) items. They have multiple rewards for doing so that relate to both domestic and external pressures.

The Iranian people want Iran to have The Bomb.
That's a fact that has to be figured into the calculations. Any democratically legitimized govt of Iran will pursue The Bomb. The Iranian people want to have nukes. Regime change won't change that.

This is central to one of the main sticking points re military action.
Outside of unconscionable, genocidal operations all military action's likely to do is delay things while stirring a major international pot of **** that is expected to draw in Russia and one of our major banker/creditors, China.
We're having very intimate relations w/ China right now. We need them to fund our record setting deficits and bloated budgets. They have us by the balls on that. If they suddenly chose to stop we'd be screwed. Of course China needs us to keep paying them back on all the money we've borrowed. If we suddenly stopped China'd be screwed. We have each other by the balls - very intimate relations. The question is who's ****ing who?
China's particularly interested in keeping access to (relatively) affordable oil. Anything that jeopardizes that jeopardizes China's near-term and long-term national security.

So, the intricate, dangerous, and far ranging aspects of the myriad inevitable unexpected and unforseeable impacts and implications of military strikes against Iran must be weighed against the fact that military action isn't likely to solve the issue so much as merely delay its onset.

Further, since any legitmate govt of Iran would undoubtedly reflect the will of the Iranian people, (which includes the desire for nuclear weapons), actions that further inspire and instill fear and loathing in the Iranian people only serve to further exacerbate the potential dangers the belated yet inevitable Iranian nukes present to the US.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Iran's nearly as eager to detonate nuclear weapons as some folks seem to want me to think. I do think that having a real threat of military actions is essential to most any diplomatic solutions that emerge.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Its not rocket science to make a nuke.
Any nation on earth could easily acquire the technical expertise to manufacture basic nuclear weapons. The problem is in getting the materials.

I'd realy like to see some support for this contention. It has previously been my impression that while the basic principles are well known, the logistics- the practical design and engineering issues related to actually making one- are extremely complicated, intricate and precise and therefore require a major effort.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Actually nuclear reactors are necessary to create plutonium, modern nuclear weapons use plutonium not uranium.

I may be wrong.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Its not rocket science to make a nuke. The principle is fairly simple and the technology has been around for 60 years now. To say that "Clinton gave Iran the bomb" is moronic. Iran could get basic plans for a basic nuclear bomb in an encyclopedia. You have to remember that the author of this book also makes the ridiculous claim that the terrorists did not know they were being subject to electronic surveillance until it was revealed in the New York Times. I work as a Systems Administrator, anyone in the IT industry would know that Terrorist internet traffic would have been subject to packet sniffing and anyone in the IT industry would know how that worked. Just like the basics of how to build a nuclear weapon, its not some closely guarded secret.

Any nation on earth could easily acquire the technical expertise to manufacture basic nuclear weapons. The problem is in getting the materials.

Umm no it's not rocket science it's nuclear science and while the main principles are widely known the exact timing measurments and schematics for the firing mechanism are the worlds most closely guarded secrets you need a nuclear physicist to figure this **** out.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'd realy like to see some support for this contention. It has previously been my impression that while the basic principles are well known, the logistics- the practical design and engineering issues related to actually making one- are extremely complicated, intricate and precise and therefore require a major effort.

As you know, we built and used two basic nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Some 60 years ago. Do you honestly believe that 60 year old technology to build the same types of bombs is unknown to all but the nuclear powers today? We are not talking about hydrogen bombs. We are talking about the types of nuclear bombs that were exploded over Japan 60 years ago.

The book makes the claim that: "the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists"

So, a reasonable individual is to believe that these sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists have the knowledge to find the errors in the plans for a nuclear device, but they don't have the knowledge just to provide Iran with the specs and plans for a basic nuclear device.... I mean come on, I was born at night but it sure as hell was not last night.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As you know, we built and used two basic nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Some 60 years ago. Do you honestly believe that 60 year old technology to build the same types of bombs is unknown to all but the nuclear powers today?

I don't think it's a matter of technology. I said that already. I think it's a matter of very demanding specifications for a large number of high-tech, complicated items that must be precisely designed, confgured and assembled just so. And it's not like automobiles or computers, you can't just buy a nuke and then reverse engineer it.
I may well be wrong.

So, a reasonable individual is to believe that these sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists have the knowledge to find the errors in the plans for a nuclear device, but they don't have the knowledge just to provide Iran with the specs and plans for a basic nuclear device.

I'm not at all clear as to how you reached the conclusion that "a reasonable individual is to believe that these sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists have the knowledge to find the errors in the plans for a nuclear device, but they don't have the knowledge just to provide Iran with the specs and plans for a basic nuclear device."
Care to share?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As you know, we built and used two basic nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Some 60 years ago. Do you honestly believe that 60 year old technology to build the same types of bombs is unknown to all but the nuclear powers today? We are not talking about hydrogen bombs. We are talking about the types of nuclear bombs that were exploded over Japan 60 years ago.

The book makes the claim that: "the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists"

So, a reasonable individual is to believe that these sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists have the knowledge to find the errors in the plans for a nuclear device, but they don't have the knowledge just to provide Iran with the specs and plans for a basic nuclear device.... I mean come on, I was born at night but it sure as hell was not last night.

It was because the errors were so rudimentory that the Russian scientist was able to notice the ruse so easily and; furthermore, this guy Risen's inside information was apparently beyond reproach a few months ago when he broke the NSA surveliance story but now when it involves Clinton his information is suspect?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't think it's a matter of technology. I said that already. I think it's a matter of very demanding specifications for a large number of high-tech, complicated items that must be precisely designed, confgured and assembled just so. And it's not like automobiles or computers, you can't just buy a nuke and then reverse engineer it.
I may well be wrong.

I'm not at all clear as to how you reached the conclusion that "a reasonable individual is to believe that these sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists have the knowledge to find the errors in the plans for a nuclear device, but they don't have the knowledge just to provide Iran with the specs and plans for a basic nuclear device."
Care to share?

The original post to this thread had the following quote in it:

"But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said."

If Iran had access to Russian nuclear scientists, then any reasonable individual could conclude that those scientists should be able to provide Iran with the specs to build a nuclear bomb.

However, even if we are to conclude that the during the Clinton Administration, the CIA made a mistake in provide Iran with flawed nuclear plans, such a mistake would certainly not just be limited to the Clinton Administration.

If Bush Sr, had not put bases in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would have never been an issue and 9/11 would have never happened.

If Reagan had not provided Iraq with Chemical and Biological Weapons, we would not be in Iraq today.

If Eisenhower had not put the Shaw in Iran, we would not have 90% of the problems we have with terrorism today.

The list is a mile long. Every administration makes mistakes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It was because the errors were so rudimentory that the Russian scientist was able to notice the ruse so easily and; furthermore, this guy Risen's inside information was apparently beyond reproach a few months ago when he broke the NSA surveliance story but now when it involves Clinton his information is suspect?

I pointed out the stupidity in his assertion that the Terrorists would not have known they were being electronically monitored back when the whole NSA surveillance story broke. I posted on the subject numerous times on these boards.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I pointed out the stupidity in his assertion that the Terrorists would not have known they were being electronically monitored back when the whole NSA surveillance story broke. I posted on the subject numerous times on these boards.

What? He's the one who broke the NSA surveillance story so you're saying that he said the terrrorists didn't know they were being surveyed but yet he's the one who broke the story?