It’s hard to wade through the lies we’re being told about Iran. Much of what I’m hearing is reminiscent of what we were told about “weapons of mass destruction” leading up to the Iraq War. On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq possessed and was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction.
“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources — solid sources," Powell said. "These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again — against his neighbors, and against his own people.”
Powell used information that intelligence officials assured him was credible. There were reconnaissance photos, elaborate maps and charts, and even taped phone conversations between senior members of Iraq’s military. Powell had been a critic of intervening in Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from dictatorial leadership. He was the perfect spokesperson for making the case for going to war. A month and a half later, the U.S. led a coalition of nations to battle against Iraq. All that we thought we knew was based upon lies. What I’m hearing about Iran sounds highly similar, from far less credible sources.
I could tell you about the history of lies from the mouths of Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, Bebe Netanyahu, and Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran. If you aren’t already convinced they’re liars, stop reading right now and save yourself the time and trouble.
The theory was that the United States could use its B-2 bombers and the “bunker-buster” bombs designed to burrow up to 300 feet into the ground before detonation. Only America possessed such a weapon that might reach the nuclear facilities Iran used to produce nuclear fuel. Iran says they were enriching uranium to power nuclear power plants and had no interest in making nuclear weapons.
Ninety-nine percent of what is dug from the ground is uranium-238. To become weapons-grade, it must be enriched by removing a few neutrons to become uranium-235, which is capable of a fission chain reaction. Most nuclear power plants use uranium-235 enriched to 3–5%. The nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the U.S., Israel, and other nuclear powers contain uranium-235 enriched to about 90%. Iran possessed uranium-235 enriched to 40% which allegedly could be converted to 60% in a matter of days or weeks. Having enriched uranium is not the same as having a nuclear bomb. The immediate threat requiring the bombing of Iran is little different from the threat of six months ago. It is much greater than it was when Iran was governed by the terms of the nuclear treaty between Iran and America, which Trump tore up. Under that agreement, Iran was enriching uranium to a 4% level.
Nuclear spillage is what you get when nuclear radiation gets out into the atmosphere, dirt, and water. You might think of Three-Mile Island, Church Rock, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, which were all accidents. I think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were intentional. One could argue we didn’t know the damage atomic bombs, less powerful than nuclear weapons, would cause. The 400 kilograms of enriched uranium Iran was supposed to possess were enough for 5–7 nuclear weapons. What would be the impact of the United States blowing up that material? America has never apologized to Japan for the devastation it caused, yet the world knows that only America has deployed atomic bombs against another nation. Do we want to be the nation responsible for releasing nuclear spillage throughout much of Iran, making the air, water, and soil unusable for decades?
Like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no way to tell precisely what the damage would be in Iran when blowing up enriched uranium. Would it cause a fission chain reaction, rendering much of Iran useless while contaminating the air and water of surrounding nations? The only way to ensure such a reaction wouldn’t occur is if the enriched uranium was removed before the bombing, which is precisely what I submit happened. Trucks were seen removing material from the sites that were gone by the time of the bombing.
The uranium-235 enriched by Iran has yet to be accounted for. Vice-President J.D. Vance, when asked about it, said, “That’s not the question before us.” Later, he said he thought the uranium was buried, but did America really take a chance on destroying much of Iran’s ecology, not to mention possibly killing hundreds of thousands of people? Could this all be a shell game to appease Israel and keep Trump from being called a TACO (Trump always chickens out)?
Iran may reasonably conclude that the only way to guarantee its safety is to finish developing a nuclear weapon, which might keep other nuclear powers from doing again what they just did. I may be wrong about Iran having moved its stockpile, but could we depend on any of the players involved to tell us the truth?
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of William Spivey's work on Medium. And if you dig his words, buy the man a coffee.