“A month after the election, Pyle arrived for a meeting with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Deputy Secretary Sherwood-Randall, and Knob­loch. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who was then on leave from MIT and who had served as deputy secretary during the Clinton administration, is widely viewed, even by many Republicans, as understanding and loving the DOE better than any person on earth. Pyle appeared to have no interest in anything he had to say. “He did not seem motivated to spend a lot of time understanding the place,” says Sherwood-Randall. “He didn’t bring a pencil or a piece of paper. He didn’t ask questions. He spent an hour. That was it. He never asked to meet with us again.” Afterward, Knob­loch says, he suggested that Pyle visit one day each week until the inauguration, and that Pyle agreed to do it—but then he never showed up. “It’s a head-scratcher,” says Knob­loch. “It’s a thirty-billion-dollar-a-year organization with about a hundred ten thousand employees. Industrial sites across the country. Very serious stuff. If you’re going to run it, why wouldn’t you want to know something about it?”

“There was a reason Obama had appointed nuclear physicists to run the place: it, like the problems it grappled with, was technical and complicated. Moniz had helped lead the U.S. negotiations with Iran precisely because he knew which parts of their nuclear energy program they must surrender if they were to be prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. For a decade before Knob­loch joined the DOE, in June 2013, he had served as president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I had worked closely with DOE throughout my career,” he says. “I thought I knew and understood the agency. But when I came in I thought, Holy cow.”

Deputy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall has spent her thirty-year career working on reducing the world’s supply of weapons of mass destruction—she led the U.S. mission to remove chemical weapons from Syria. But like everyone else who came to work at the DOE, she’d grown accustomed to no one knowing what the department actually did. “When she’d called home, back in 2013, to tell them that President Obama had nominated her to be second-in-command of the place, her mother said, “Well, darling, I have no idea what the Department of Energy does, but you’ve always had a lot of energy, so I’m sure you’ll be perfect for the role.” “The Trump administration had no clearer idea what she did with her day than her mother. And yet, according to Sherwood-Randall, they were certain they didn’t need to hear anything she had to say before they took over her job. Pyle eventually sent over a list of seventy-four questions he wanted answers to. His list addressed some of the subjects covered in the briefing materials, but also a few not:

Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings?

Can you provide a list of Department employees or contractors who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in the last five years?

That, in a nutshell, was the spirit of the Trump enterprise. “It reminded me of McCarthyism,” says Sherwood- Randall.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046909)

“This is in no particular order,” he says with remarkable patience. “But Iran is somewhere in the top five.” He’d watched Secretary Moniz help negotiate the deal that removed from Iran the capacity to acquire a nuclear weapon. There were only three paths to a nuclear weapon. The Iranians might produce enriched uranium—but that required using centrifuges. They might produce plutonium—but that required a reactor that the deal had dismantled and removed. Or they might simply go out and buy a weapon on the open market. The national labs played a big role in policing all three paths. “These labs are incredible national resources, and they are directly responsible for keeping us safe,” said MacWilliams. “It’s because of them that we can say with absolute certainty that Iran cannot surprise us with a nuclear weapon.” After the deal was done, U.S. Army officers had approached DOE officials to thank them for saving American lives. The deal, they felt sure, had greatly lessened the chance of yet another war in the Middle East that the United States would inevitably be dragged into.

“At any rate, the serious risk in Iran wasn’t that the Iranians would secretly acquire a weapon. It was that the president of the United States would not understand his nuclear scientists’ reasoning about the unlikelihood of the Iranians’ obtaining a weapon, and that he would have the United States back away foolishly from the deal.† Released from the complicated set of restrictions on its nuclear-power program, Iran would then build its bomb. It wasn’t enough to have the world’s finest forensic nuclear physicists. Our political leaders needed to be predisposed to listen to them and equipped to understand what they said.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046940)

Author: Sir Incelot

Can we get that money back Obama paid to Iran?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046876)

"After the deal was done, U.S. Army officers had approached DOE officials to thank them for saving American lives. "

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046996)

You were fine with Obama funding terrorism, but all of a sudden come out against it when Trump funds the Saudis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047068)

Right now, SA is the only country that can counter balance Iran in the ME.

I’d prefer a Saudi Arabia controlled by a despotic monarchy, than a Saudi Arabia run by insane wahabi clerics. The price we pay for this is looking the other way when they abuse their people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047133)

Yes, Saudi clerics have spread wahabism. Wahabism is a part of what helped create Al Qaeda and ISIS. That exported wahabiism is the equivalent of letting off some steam. If the Saudi Royals crack down too hard on the Clerics, then they will have a religious revolt and the cooker will explode, resulting in Saudi Arabia run by insane clerics.

This is similiar what happened in Iran. The clerics overthrew the Shah and now we have religious fanatics exporting their insanity all over the middle east through groups like Hezbollah.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047220)

Yes, the deal opened up Iranian markets and resulted in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) receiving tons of cash. They used this to support militias in Syria and Iraq and to buy infkuence all over the Middle East.

The deal had a 10 year expiration date on Iranians enriching uranium. Obama knew that the deal would benefit the Ayatollahs/IRGC in the short term, but naively believed that Iran would change their ways in 10 years. It was a stupid gamble based on a naive hope. Just like trading with China didnt result in democrzcy (or even a more accmodating China), trading a short term nuclear weapons ban wouldnt change Iran’s behavior.

We also gave up the multilateral sanctjons that took a decade to get into place and will never again find the international consensus to reinstitute.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047286)

Not opposed to some deal with Iran to give up pursuing nuclear weapons, but the deal Obama made was not a good one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047329)

aren't we splitting hairs here?

also, do you think breaking this deal positions us poorly with north korea and other states with nuclear ambitions?

also, are you comfortable with america doing israel's bidding?

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4957463,00.html

I would like to go back to your years as defense minister in the Netanyahu government, I said. You and Netanyahu pushed for an Israeli military operation against Iran. What did you really want? Three possibilities come to mind: First, you wanted a war; second, you thought that the Israeli threat would make the Americans aggravate the sanctions; three, you thought that a limited Israeli military operation would force the Americans to enter an extensive war with Iran.

“The intention," Barak replied, "was both to make the Americans increase sanctions and to carry out the operation. I was more of a hawk than Netanyahu

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047347)

saudi interests are not american interests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046869)

Sure, Persians are generally good people with a great and rich history. But the ayatollahs that run the country are anything but.

If the chill Persians manage to take back their country, then I’d happily support them over the Saudis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047082)

edit:

don't really care, just trying to explain the reality of the situation to you

we can be friends again

edit 2:

oh look, now he's going to lie about me. are you Shiite?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046887)

this is really disappointing from you, purposefully distorting and arguably lying in order to save face.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046901)

why do i need to 'save face'? My argument is (1) the saudis clearly killed that guy and (2) the Saudis are a huge source of bad action in the world and the US shouldnt be so cozy with them. These aren't particularly controversial points.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046917)

I really, really don't fucking care if they killed him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37046969)

these are great people, let me tell you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047155)

nations have friends based on history, culture, and shared values.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047339)

That applies to only a select few countries, such as the UK (and Commonwealth countries) and France. It has nothing to do with countries like the KSA, Israel (yes, seriously), Turkey, etc. all of which we are in good diplomatic relations with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37064520)

No dignity whatsoever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4109340&forum_id=2#37047251)