Logical fallacies in the search for the elusive Iranian nuclear weapons

The rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear program has reached fever pitch. Almost every day, there are pronouncements from Israel that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel and "All options are on the table" with respect to Iran. This assertion is also made regularly by American officials. All the Republican presidential candidates, except for Ron Paul, it appears also cannot wait to bomb Iran.

The purpose of this article is to look at the language and the logical framework that are being used to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue. In particular, we consider some oft-repeated statements by US officials:

Iran must prove that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful.
Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
Iranian regime has not decided yet whether to develop nuclear weapons or not.
Iran is developing the "capacity" or the "capability" to develop nuclear weapons.

The first statement has often been stated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and repeated by President Obama and other Western leaders. In an address to the United Nations in 2010, President Obama said, "Iran must prove its nuclear program is peaceful." Well, let's consider what would constitute such a proof. Essentially, Iran must prove a negative. How could Iran provide such a proof? Would a swarm of inspectors visiting every corner of the country constitute a proof if they found nothing? The inspectors were all over Iraq before the invasion of that country in 2003. Yet, nothing satisfied President Bush or Vice President Cheney. It is clear that regardless of the extent of the inspections, the US might still claim that there might be a hidden site that has still not been declared. Thus, the first demand is simply impossible to satisfy.

The second statement is a prescription that is baffling. Since there is no concrete evidence anywhere that Iran has developed or is developing nuclear weapons, the contention that it will not be allowed to do so in the future is strange. How would such a prohibition be achieved? If all the pundits who claim that Iran already does have nuclear weapons are telling the truth, then this contention is already false. Thus, for example, Mitt Romney's proclamation, "I will not let Iran get nuclear weapons," is already false. If the contention is that this statement means that if Iran develops nuclear weapons then it will be bombed, then it is still false. Note that if we wait until they develop nuclear weapons it means that we have already permitted them to do so. The only option, perhaps, would be to bomb them now when we know that they are not building any. By that argument, we need to bomb numerous other countries too. Also, bombing Iran will motivate the Iranians to start on an accelerated path to bulding nuclear weapons.

The third statement may be true in a strict sense. But, what is the connotation of this statement? Since General Dempsy, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff has said that Iran has not yet made a decision to build nuclear bombs, it means they in fact do not actually have nuclear bombs. If we simply made the statement that Iran does yet have bombs, it would certainly be true. But, if we say they have not "yet made the decision" to make bombs, it implies that they are on the path to making such a decision. Well, what is the basis for such a statement? One must be a mind reader to draw such a conclusion. Since all Iranian officials have been insisting that they don't plan to build bombs, then the conclusion cannot be on the basis of something the Iranians have said. Then, how can we know what their future intentions are? Thus, the third statement is simply misleading.

The fourth statement is a new twist by President Obama to create a kind of doublespeak to confuse the listener. President Obama no longer says (most of the time) that Iran is building nuclear bombs. He merely says that Iran is building the "capability" or "capacity" to build bombs. What could be the basis for this statement? Well, certainly Iran is enriching uranium to 5% for power plants and even 20% for medical applications. Iran certainly appears to have the technology and knowledge to build bombs. But, there is no evidence that the "intention" is to build bombs. As Mohammad-Javad Larijani, the head of Iran’s Human Rights Council and close adviser to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has said, "You cannot say to a person you shouldn’t buy a knife to cut cheese, because if you get the knife, you may kill a person." One has to be a mind reader to draw the conclusion that if Iran is developing peaceful nuclear technology the real "intention" is to develop nuclear bombs. There is simply no basis for such a conclusion.

In review, most of the language used by American politicians about Iran involves logical inconsistences, exaggerations and hyperbole. Unfortunately, when elements of fear are intertwined with these statements, the ordinary person cannot understand the nuances of these statements. Specially in an election year, it does not appear that there will be any reduction in the constant barrage of inflammatory and illogical statements in this area.

The attached video presents a discussion of some of the key issues relating to the Iranian nuclear program from three different points of view. The conversation goes into far more depth than one encounters in the standard US media.