U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons development in 2003

[Bitogno]

Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 and the program remains on hold, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment released Monday. (Click here to read the report) (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf)

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," states the summary of the report.

The findings are a change from two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran was determined to develop a nuclear capability and was continuing its weapons development program.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif Advertisement
U.S. intelligence officials pointed to the findings as evidence that international pressure on Iran was working. "It suggests that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic pressure," the official said.

"This is good news in that the U.S. policy coupled with the policies and actions of those who have been our partners appear to have had some success. Iran seems to have been pressured," one of the officials said. "Given that good news we don't want to relax. We want to keep those pressures up."

The National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran's ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," the New York Times reported.

Despite the suspension of its weapons program, Tehran may ultimately be difficult to dissuade from developing a nuclear bomb because Iran believes such a weapon would give it leverage to achieve its national security and foreign policy goals, the assessment concluded.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell decided last month that the key judgments of NIEs should as a rule not be declassified and released. The intelligence officials said an exception was made in this case because the last assessment of Iran's nuclear program in 2005 has been influential in public debate about U.S. policy toward Iran and needed to be updated to reflect the latest findings.

To develop a nuclear weapon Iran needs a warhead design, a certain amount of fissile material, and a delivery vehicle such as a missile. The intelligence agencies now believe Iran halted design work four years ago and as of mid-2007 had not restarted it.

But Iran is continuing enrich uranium for its civilian nuclear reactors. That leaves open the possibility the fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to make enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb.

The amount of fissile material Iran has is closely linked to when it can produce a weapon. Even if the country went all out with present enrichment capability, it is unlikely to have enough until 2010 at the earliest, the officials said. The State Department's Intelligence and Research office believes the earliest likely time it would have enough highly enriched uranium would be 2013. But all agencies concede Iran may not have sufficient enriched uranium until after 2015.

Iran would not be capable of technically producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015, the report states. But ultimately it has the technical and industrial capacity to build a bomb, if it decides to do so, the intelligence agencies found.

According to Israel's intelligence assessments, Iran could produce a nuclear bomb as early as 2010. The difference in the American and Israeli assessments is derived not from different information but rather different approaches ? Israel focuses on the worst case scenario, while the U.S. approach assumes that, once acquiring the necessary technology, Iran will still have difficulty implementing it in order to produce the bomb.

This national intelligence estimate was originally due in the spring of 2007 but was delayed because the agencies wanted more confidence their findings were accurate, given the problems with a 2002 intelligence estimate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. They also got a late influx of new data that caused changes in their findings.

"There was a very rigorous scrub using all the trade craft available, using the lessons of 2002," a senior official said.

At the White House, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the findings confirm that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a serious problem.

"The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically without the use of force as the Administration has been trying to do," Hadley said. "And it suggests that the president has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests, while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran."

"The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution," Hadley added.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/930707.html

[Bitogno]

To the mod, I've just noticed there is already a thread on the same subject on general topics. Could you merge the threads please.

[GazB]

because Iran believes such a weapon would give it leverage to achieve its national security and foreign policy goals, the assessment concluded.


Interesting that the same intel sources saying Iran wants a nuclear bomb also state they want it for national security and foreign policy goals.

Interesting because people like GWB who come out and claim Iran wants a nuclear bomb usually follow it up with they want it to fire ICBMs at the US or to destroy Israel with. When according to the people saying they are developing nuclear weapons they really want it for the same reasons the US needs Nuclear weapons... and Russia, and China, etc etc

[Turkish-Power]

Most of the countries have nuclear weapons like USA, Russia China so why can't Iran have them If USA doesn't want iran to complete their nuclear program then US has to stop producing more nuclear bombs as well agree?

[Smok]

Most of the countries have nuclear weapons like USA, Russia China so why can't Iran have them If USA doesn't want iran to complete their nuclear program then US has to stop producing more nuclear bombs as well agree?

Becuse aggresive countries, which started many wars (Russia versus Afghanistan, USA versus Iraq) can have nuclear weapons, but countries which didn't start any war in last 50 years can't have, because they are terrorist countries.
Is it clear?
USA have nukes, because this country spreads freedom and democracy (using bombs, marines, tanks and F-16). Iran can''t have, because America doesn't like it.
Russia have nukes, because this country brings freedom to Chechens etc.
This is our world.

[muck]

U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons development in 2003
No WMDs? No problem, they'll find another reason.

[DaveDash]

Becuse aggresive countries, which started many wars (Russia versus Afghanistan, USA versus Iraq) can have nuclear weapons, but countries which didn't start any war in last 50 years can't have, because they are terrorist countries.
Is it clear?
USA have nukes, because this country spreads freedom and democracy (using bombs, marines, tanks and F-16). Iran can''t have, because America doesn't like it.
Russia have nukes, because this country brings freedom to Chechens etc.
This is our world.

1) The definition of Many is 'More than One'. Before the 2003 Invasion, the U.S. was in a cease-fire with Iraq from a war that Saddam started. Please provide evidence of 'many' wars the U.S. have been involved in recently that they started

2) Russia, the U.S.A, etc, are party of many nuclear treaties that Iran is not part of.

3) The less countries that have nuclear weapons the safer it is for the planet. The more countries that have nuclear weapons the higher the chance some one day go missing and end up being used.

4) For all your bitching and moaning about the former Soviet Union and the U.S.A neither of them have used Nuclear Weapons against their enemies save for the U.S. during WW2 against Japan. This proves that they are not gung-ho about unleashing their nuclear weapons against other countries and have proven restraint.

Now I'm not part of the Iranian government is crazy band wagon that many people are on, but I for one would quite like to keep countries from unstable governments who are not signatories of specific treaties getting Nuclear Weapons. Now is Iran unstable as it's going to attack the west or Israel? Highly unlikely. It IS however unstable from internal pressures and a country like that with Nukes is a security threat, just like Pakistan is at the moment.

I guess however that one day we are all going to have to face a world where many small countries are armed with nuclear weapons. The U.S. realises it, which is why they are working so hard on Missle Defence at present.

What many of you seem to lack understanding of is that it's all just saber rattling and counter saber rattling. Iran accuses the great satan of this and that for domestic consumption and that plays right into the U.S. hands to keep military spending and forceful foreign policy on the up and up. The U.S. lost a lot of power over the 90's due to comparative pacifism (Somalia, etc) and all sorts of people started thinking she was a paper tiger - hence 911. Countries like Iraq, Iran, etc go a long way into helping the U.S. show that it actually has some teeth and is willing to use them. There was no use in the U.S. trying to back up it's foreign policy when it's running away like a nancy girl from 3rd world ****holes after 19 soldiers are killed, or firing cruise missiles into empty camps, etc.

After Iraq, the U.S. doesn't have to invade Iran, North Korea, or whatever because it's proven that it's willing to use force and is willing to stay the cause. Whether you agree or disagree is a moot point but having such a country (or two) generally makes the world more stable than unstable, which is why we havn't had another WW2 in a while. Pax Americana if you will.

[Snoshi]

No WMDs? No problem, they'll find another reason.

Iran have WMD's...

And i dont see whats so "surprising" about this report.. So we should let them continue the nuclear work until they reach a certain stage when they will be able to produce nuclear arms?

They will get nuclear power and one day Khamenei will say that we need nukes and after a months Iran will get a nuclear warhead..

[Big Lebowski]

anymore predictions in your wizard ball?

[Snoshi]

anymore predictions in your wizard ball?

You dont need to be "wizard" to predict all that..

Btw can you debunk my post?

[Jobu]

The intel analysts were wrong about Iraq's WMD programs.
They were wrong about Russia's nuke program.
They were wrong about India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea, etc.

Why put any faith in this estimate?

[Kilo]

war stories: Military analysis

Nuclear Meltdown
We're not going to bomb Iran.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Dec. 3, 2007, at 5:31 PM ET


If there was ever a possibility that President George W. Bush would drop bombs on Iran, the chances have now shrunk to nearly zero.
In one of the most dramatic National Intelligence Estimates ever, the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded today "with high confidence" that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons" four years ago, in the fall of 2003.


The NIE (http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf), which was released this afternoon, also judges "with moderate confidence" that Iran won't be "technically capable" of producing enough materials for an atom bomb—much less the bomb itself—until 2010-15 or possibly later.

The report also concedes that Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear-weapons program "suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."


It was in 2005 that the intelligence agencies released their first, more alarming NIE, which concluded that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons despite international pressure.


The new report—which incorporates intelligence information as recent as Oct. 31, 2007—now finds evidence to the contrary.


President Bush and the administration's hawkish faction, led by Vice President **** Cheney, can take some solace (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/04irantext.html) from the new intelligence estimate. For instance, the NIE states, again "with high confidence," that until the fall of 2003, the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons. It also notes that they are continuing civilian work "related to uranium conversion and enrichment." Most significant, perhaps, it concludes that the Iranians halted their weapons program "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."


But one implication of this last assessment is that Iran's leaders are not so hermetic—that, as the NIE puts it, "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issues than we judged previously." The Bush administration's campaign of pressure—the smart sanctions that it imposed and rallied other nations to join—appears to have had an effect. By the same token, inducements might spur further progress.
The NIE is strikingly explicit on this point:

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressure, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. [Italics added.]


The report grants, "It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be." But the point is this: The chiefs of the U.S. intelligence community are recommending a mix of pressure and diplomacy—sticks and carrots—as the best way to keep the A-bomb out of Iranian hands.


A little context is necessary to understand this report's full significance.
For the past two years, various factions in the Bush administration have engaged in internecine skirmishes over how to deal with the anticipation of an Iranian atom bomb. Cheney and his associates are the prominent hawks, in favor of stepping up the pressure and, if the time comes, attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps pre-emptively. President Bush has sometimes seemed to take this side, at least rhetorically, as when he said recently that failure to keep Iran from gaining the ability to build A-bombs could trigger "World War III (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/17/asia/prexy.php)."


Opposing this faction is … well, nearly every other agency and high-ranking official that deals with national-security policy. And ever since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense one year ago, the pro-diplomacy wing has grown increasingly outspoken.


In his confirmation hearings (http://www.slate.com/id/2154941/), Gates was asked by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., whether he favored attacking Iran. Gates replied that he did not, adding, "We have seen in Iraq that when war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable."


Earlier this month, in an interview with the Financial Times, Adm. William Fallon (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=30790&sectionid=351020101), commander of U.S. Central Command, said, when asked about an attack on Iran, "Another war is just not where we want to go."


A week later, Adm. Michael Mullen (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEcRvNgMUMhcu4Wy7eQUcydZxoKQ), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked the same question, replied, "I would never take the military option off the table," but noted that this "doesn't mean it would be used," adding, "Diplomacy is very important."


Finally, Maj. Gen. James Simmons (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXGJ7kNlqOpq2FPlLvO4KuWv66Eg), an Army deputy corps commander in Iraq, said, during a press briefing in Baghdad, that the Iranians seem to be keeping to their "initiatives and their commitments" to stop the flow of IEDs into Iraq.


Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has pushed for diplomacy over confrontation, when it comes to Iran, ever since she took the job at the start of Bush's second term.


And now, with today's NIE, we see the entire U.S. intelligence community not only, in effect, coming down on the side of the doves but concluding that the threat animating the hawks doesn't even exist.


There is another caveat here. At his confirmation hearings last year, Gates pledged to be independent and to give the president his unvarnished advice. "But," he emphasized, "there is still only one president of the United States, and he will make the final decision."


In other words (and many people make a mistake in neglecting this fact), Bush really is "the decider." Then again, in previous disputes within the administration, especially over decisions on Iraq, the dissenters have caved or been outmaneuvered. This time, on Iran, the leaders of the State Department, the Defense Department, the military command, and now the intelligence community are on public record as downplaying the wisdom of war—and, with today's NIE, disputing the rationale for even considering war.


Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated. If Bush were to order an attack under these circumstances, he would risk a major eruption in the chain of command, even a constitutional crisis, among many other crises. It seems extremely unlikely that even he would do that.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179084/

[Smok]

1) The definition of Many is 'More than One'. Before the 2003 Invasion, the U.S. was in a cease-fire with Iraq from a war that Saddam started. Please provide evidence of 'many' wars the U.S. have been involved in recently that they started


Laos, Cambodia, supporting Iraq during Iraq-Iran war, Cuba (bay of Pigs), supporting Contras, supporting talibans, supporting UNITA etc. Not only wars but also supporting some terrorist groups.



2) Russia, the U.S.A, etc, are party of many nuclear treaties that Iran is not part of.


And? USA isn't part of many international treaties.



3) The less countries that have nuclear weapons the safer it is for the planet. The more countries that have nuclear weapons the higher the chance some one day go missing and end up being used.


No. You say "we should have nuclear weapons and you should not". The truth is, that USA is the most aggresive country on the world. There is almost not a single war without USA in it. So the best thing to do is to disarm USA, because this is a cauntry which still makes "gunboats policy".



4) For all your bitching and moaning about the former Soviet Union and the U.S.A neither of them have used Nuclear Weapons against their enemies save for the U.S. during WW2 against Japan. This proves that they are not gung-ho about unleashing their nuclear weapons against other countries and have proven restraint.


Yes. Except Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
BTW how many countries were attacked by Iran in last 50 years?



Now I'm not part of the Iranian government is crazy band wagon that many people are on, but I for one would quite like to keep countries from unstable governments who are not signatories of specific treaties getting Nuclear Weapons. Now is Iran unstable as it's going to attack the west or Israel? Highly unlikely. It IS however unstable from internal pressures and a country like that with Nukes is a security threat, just like Pakistan is at the moment.

I guess however that one day we are all going to have to face a world where many small countries are armed with nuclear weapons. The U.S. realises it, which is why they are working so hard on Missle Defence at present.

What many of you seem to lack understanding of is that it's all just saber rattling and counter saber rattling. Iran accuses the great satan of this and that for domestic consumption and that plays right into the U.S. hands to keep military spending and forceful foreign policy on the up and up. The U.S. lost a lot of power over the 90's due to comparative pacifism (Somalia, etc) and all sorts of people started thinking she was a paper tiger - hence 911. Countries like Iraq, Iran, etc go a long way into helping the U.S. show that it actually has some teeth and is willing to use them. There was no use in the U.S. trying to back up it's foreign policy when it's running away like a nancy girl from 3rd world ****holes after 19 soldiers are killed, or firing cruise missiles into empty camps, etc.

After Iraq, the U.S. doesn't have to invade Iran, North Korea, or whatever because it's proven that it's willing to use force and is willing to stay the cause. Whether you agree or disagree is a moot point but having such a country (or two) generally makes the world more stable than unstable, which is why we havn't had another WW2 in a while. Pax Americana if you will.

Sorry but in my oppinion the biggest crazy monkey with a razor is USA. Just look on your policy - spreading "freedom and democracy", sending marines, supporting terrorists, supporting international murderers etc.
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger".

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Sorry but in my oppinion the biggest crazy monkey with a razor is USA. Just look on your policy - spreading "freedom and democracy", sending marines, supporting terrorists, supporting international murderers etc.
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger".

[golf clap] I just thought I'd cherry pick this gem and spend some time with it. I won't bother addressing the factual and temporal inaccuracies within, since they're fairly self-evident to anybody who's been paying attention over the last 20 years. I just really like it. It has the kind of in-your-face attitude that I admire in a post - reality be damned, it's gonna say what it wants. If it had a head, and a baseball cap, surely that cap would be twisted sideways in a brazen one finger salute to society.

The fact is, that all nations defend their interests. The US is part of the "west" - who's interests include expanded personal freedoms, a government run by and for the people, self-determination, and long walks on the beach. Nations like Iran (for example) also have interests - which include an autocratic un-elected theocracy, law based in an ancient religious book, and keeping society from the unparalleled evil of exposed female neck flesh. Now then - which will you choose to support? Shall both sides be equally powerful, have nukes, and duke it out to see which side God likes best? Or perhaps it's better for humanity in the long run to >gasp< unfairly pick one side and go with it. I'm scarcely able to cope with the horror of going against my over-socialized upbringing to pick sides, it's just that I hear they block internet **** in Iran, and I don't want any part of that.

[maw]

this report was published over a year ago but not released for general distribution. we now know why vp cheney's office was working so hard to delay its release.

"A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President **** Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/09/5117/

somethings never change. impeach the ****er already.

[maw]

The fact is, that all nations defend their interests. The US is part of the "west" - who's interests include expanded personal freedoms, a government run by and for the people, self-determination, and long walks on the beach. Nations like Iran (for example) also have interests - which include an autocratic un-elected theocracy, law based in an ancient religious book, and keeping society from the unparalleled evil of exposed female neck flesh. Now then - which will you choose to support? Shall both sides be equally powerful, have nukes, and duke it out to see which side God likes best? Or perhaps it's better for humanity in the long run to >gasp< unfairly pick one side and go with it. I'm scarcely able to cope with the horror of going against my over-socialized upbringing to pick sides, it's just that I hear they block internet **** in Iran, and I don't want any part of that.

how does any of your blurb provide basis for bombing the **** out of them?

[DaveDash]

Laos, Cambodia, supporting Iraq during Iraq-Iran war, Cuba (bay of Pigs), supporting Contras, supporting talibans, supporting UNITA etc. Not only wars but also supporting some terrorist groups.



And? USA isn't part of many international treaties.



No. You say "we should have nuclear weapons and you should not". The truth is, that USA is the most aggresive country on the world. There is almost not a single war without USA in it. So the best thing to do is to disarm USA, because this is a cauntry which still makes "gunboats policy".



Yes. Except Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
BTW how many countries were attacked by Iran in last 50 years?



Sorry but in my oppinion the biggest crazy monkey with a razor is USA. Just look on your policy - spreading "freedom and democracy", sending marines, supporting terrorists, supporting international murderers etc.
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger".

Im not going to even respond to this rubbish since you can't even see I'm not American.

The fact you automatically make the assumption I am proves that there is no point even debating anything with you.

[DaveDash]

Oh but just one little note - who supported Saddam?

Mostly the peace loving nations of France, Germany, and Russia. Germany by the way, mostly helped Saddam build his chemical weapons which were dropped with French made planes.

Let's not let facts get in the way however of a good old mindless anti-U.S. rant.

[maw]

Originally Posted by Smok:
Just look on your policy - spreading "freedom and democracy", sending marines, supporting terrorists, supporting international murderers etc.
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger".


[golf clap] I just thought I'd cherry pick this gem and spend some time with it. I won't bother addressing the factual and temporal inaccuracies within, since they're fairly self-evident to anybody who's been paying attention over the last 20 years. I just really like it. It has the kind of in-your-face attitude that I admire in a post - reality be damned, it's gonna say what it wants. If it had a head, and a baseball cap, surely that cap would be twisted sideways in a brazen one finger salute to society.

spreading "freedom and democracy" = check
sending marines = check
supporting terrorists = *cough* jundollah attacking iran from bases within afghanistan*cough*. check
supporting international murderers = pol pol, suharto, pinochet, etc. check
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger". = gotta love that pic of rummy and saddam together. check

[Hollis]

Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger".





Obviously your just pissin' propaganda. Look at Saddam's Weapons and Weapons systems. Mostly all Soviet built.

BTW ever heard of the cold war?

What where the two sides?

AKs, RPGS, TU Tanks, Migs Jets, did not come from the US........


BTW Lets not derail this thread, READ THREAD NAME.... Not about Saddam.

[DaveDash]

http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/ideas_0302.jpg

1 point to guess who the guy with the mo is.
2 points to guess who the guy with the glasses is.
3 points to whoever can guess what kind of facility they are in.

If anyone is having difficulty, here's another photo to help guess the secret identities.

http://image.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2007/may/15/france/PD3090948@Baghdad,-December-197-3451.jpg

Sorry Hollis, couldnt resist ;)

[Smok]

This is what I think about all that pro-us talking.

American friendship.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/admin_uploads/2006/12/30/saddam_Rumsfeld_and_death.jpg

[maw]

Obviously your just pissin' propaganda. Look at Saddam's Weapons and Weapons systems. Mostly all Soviet built.

BTW ever heard of the cold war?

What where the two sides?

AKs, RPGS, TU Tanks, Migs Jets, did not come from the US........

BTW Lets not derail this thread, READ THREAD NAME.... Not about Saddam.

HOLLiS, the purpose for that now famous meeting (the one that spawned the photo) was for rummy to assure saddam that although congress was issuing statements condemning the use of mustard gas, the white house was with him all the way. i believe this hypocritical duality is what Smok is referring to.

with regards to the original thread, i think some posters (including myself) are feeling a strong sense of deja vu. i know that previously some members of this board have stated that they didn't believe the pre iraqi invasion intel was doctored. other members (including myself), don't share that sentiment. so when we see cheney delaying the release of a report regarding the status of iran's nuclear progress we feel compelled to call foul.

[Hollis]

MAW, do you not understand, what it means to: DO NOT derail the thread?

Saddam/iraq has been discussed in a number of other threads. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THREADS.

[Smok]

maw

Yes! That is my point.
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan - it is all that same ****. First friends and later enemies. Normal USA strategy. Firrst shake hands, later bombard because of "freedom and democracy".
Some things are OK if you are US friend, but later these same things are crime, because USA doesn't like you anymore.

[DaveDash]

Can we please have an IQ test before entering this part of the forum. Well. It is labelled 'rants'. Nevermind.

All your points are absolutely moot because the U.S. isn't bombing Iran nor does it intend to. There goes your little theory lads.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

spreading "freedom and democracy" = check
sending marines = check
supporting terrorists = *cough* jundollah attacking iran from bases within afghanistan*cough*. check
supporting international murderers = pol pol, suharto, pinochet, etc. check
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger". = gotta love that pic of rummy and saddam together. check

If only typing "check" actually meant something. Let me try it.

maw eats dirty underpants for breakfast = check

Hey that's fun! Why would you do such a thing?

Now if you're interested in a serious conversation about the items you bring up, I'm glad to play along. But if you're going to deal in half-truths and distortions, I'm afraid that's been done to death - I don't have the time.

Overall, the broken logic on parade in this thread is quite breathtaking. We have the same people complaining that the US has supported certain governments (which they say is a bad thing) ...and also complaining that the US withdrew support for said governments (which apparently is a good thing but they're complaining about it anyway)....except that they also complain that the US switched positions..which...I've lost track now was that supposed to be good or bad? Were we supposed to stick with them no matter what...or were we supposed to pick nations out of a hat and never support them no matter what?

I am enjoying the logical calisthenics that some are having to execute in order to gin up some outrage about this latest report. Somehow, by hammering it into shape and crushing it in a press, this can be made to be a bad thing, and of course you-know-who is to blame. No, not Iran, the one who has refused IAEA inspectors and was developing a nuclear weapon in secret. Silly. No, it's Bush/Cheney - the ones who acted like big jerks. That's what's important. Not nuclear weapons. Eliminating the reality of a religious dictatorship with a nuclear weapon is nothing - we must not appear unpleasant! It makes us feel icky.

Just to recap what has apparently happened - for those too invested in their own positions to notice - we got what we wanted without bombing anybody. If you can make that a bad thing - well be my guest.

[DaveDash]

Well you know 2Sheds_Jackson

The next time a big war comes along, maybe the U.S. should sit it out and not be so 'aggressive' like they clearly were in the past - such as Korea, or WW2, and let the peace loving nations of Europe sort it out.

They're damned if they do bomb a country (and spend billions rebuilding it, mind you), and damned if they use diplomacy.. so I think it's about time that some other countries stood up and resolved issues such as nuclear proliferation from non-treaty signing countries. Show the U.S. how it's done and all.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well you know 2Sheds_Jackson

The next time a big war comes along, maybe the U.S. should sit it out and not be so 'aggressive' like they clearly were in the past - such as Korea, or WW2, and let the peace loving nations of Europe sort it out.

They're damned if they do bomb a country (and spend billions rebuilding it, mind you), and damned if they use diplomacy.. so I think it's about time that some other countries stood up and resolved issues such as nuclear proliferation from non-treaty signing countries. Show the U.S. how it's done and all.

I don't want to point my finger at anybody - and I think Europe has apparently done at least "enough" to get this latest crisis averted. Hopefully. The US did it's best not to paint it as a US vs Iran issue. It was Iran vs the UN. I just feel like some people have never had to choose between two really sh*tty alternatives. No matter what you do - things are going to suck, so you try to pick the one that sucks a bit less.

[ElHombre]

Bush is having (another) credibility problem, this time involving the NIE. It seems The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf's claim this morning to 'only have been told of (Iran stopping its weapons program back in '03) last week' isn't supported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120302210.html?nav=rss_politics&sid=ST2007102501235) by the facts.


President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

Now comes the fallout from his earlier statements. Recall that when growing up your parents told you not to lie? There was a reason for that...


The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

The Bush admin just handed a major propaganda victory to Iran.

Worst. President. Ever.

[budgie]

In the light of the leadup to Iraq 5 years ago, I dunno whether to call this news on Iran an intelligence success or a marketing failure...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The reality here is that all intel amounts to is a guess. Iran is a black hole. They could roll a shiny new nuke out next year for all we know...and then this NIE instantly goes from saving the day to a disaster. Intel is not monolithic - different agencies constantly supply differing opinions. Bush has been told from day one of his administration that Iran was not working on nukes. He was also told from day one that Iran was working on nukes. Who gives a rat's ass who told him what when - if they can all still be completely wrong? What counts is the decision at the end of the process.

In fact, if we are to be fair, we need to all sit here and pick apart this NIE report as being every bit as politically spun as the intel that led to the Iraq war. You know - smoke and mirrors - lies put together to support the policy the administration wants, etc. Where is that assessment from you anti-Bush people? Hell, where is the scrutiny from the Media? It's completely missing, because this paper supports the action they choose to support - therefore it is above any criticism. I continue to be amazed at the tenacity of our resident Cap'n Ahabs who continue stabbing at the heart of Moby **** & company. Whatever will they do when he's submerged forever - yet our friends in Iran et al still remain?

[maw]

huh, dirty underpants? wtf? you've outdone yourself this time.

spreading "freedom and democracy" = check - is that not the newest neocon mantra?
sending marines = check - last i checked marines were in both iraq and afghanistan.
supporting terrorists = *cough* jundollah attacking iran from bases within afghanistan*cough*. check - discussed by many sources including a jundollah commander, google is your friend.
supporting international murderers = pol pol, suharto, pinochet, etc. check - are you saying we didn't support and prop up these individuals?
Who supported Saddam during his war with Iran? And what did Saddam do during that war? He used WMD, but it was OK for USA. USA said "we have clear hands - we didn't pull the trigger". = gotta love that pic of rummy and saddam together. check - this is pretty much accepted as the historical record.

the iranians see several of these examples of our policy and plan accordingly. when you look at the topic from the iranian view perspective, nuclear deterrence becomes a very attractive proposition. what's the difference between north korea and to say libya or iraq? the iranians see the writing on the wall. they're in a corner.

i also don't believe we have the right to use their form of government as a basis for our aggressive posture. it's their country, let them **** themselves up. if enough of them want change it will happen. when seen from outside, ours isn't exactly a stirling model either.


If only typing "check" actually meant something. Let me try it.

maw eats dirty underpants for breakfast = check

Hey that's fun! Why would you do such a thing?

Now if you're interested in a serious conversation about the items you bring up, I'm glad to play along. But if you're going to deal in half-truths and distortions, I'm afraid that's been done to death - I don't have the time.

Overall, the broken logic on parade in this thread is quite breathtaking. We have the same people complaining that the US has supported certain governments (which they say is a bad thing) ...and also complaining that the US withdrew support for said governments (which apparently is a good thing but they're complaining about it anyway)....except that they also complain that the US switched positions..which...I've lost track now was that supposed to be good or bad? Were we supposed to stick with them no matter what...or were we supposed to pick nations out of a hat and never support them no matter what?

I am enjoying the logical calisthenics that some are having to execute in order to gin up some outrage about this latest report. Somehow, by hammering it into shape and crushing it in a press, this can be made to be a bad thing, and of course you-know-who is to blame. No, not Iran, the one who has refused IAEA inspectors and was developing a nuclear weapon in secret. Silly. No, it's Bush/Cheney - the ones who acted like big jerks. That's what's important. Not nuclear weapons. Eliminating the reality of a religious dictatorship with a nuclear weapon is nothing - we must not appear unpleasant! It makes us feel icky.

Just to recap what has apparently happened - for those too invested in their own positions to notice - we got what we wanted without bombing anybody. If you can make that a bad thing - well be my guest.

[haze99]

Well maw, which country is the sterling model, who would be quailified to handle this situation? Zimbabwe? Or Burma?
I think you and 2sheds actually agree at the end of the argument on Iran. Your main point of contenison is for what purpose is the US Government gathering the intelligence? One, to start another war for the "Neo-Cons". Or two to avert Islamic terrorists from getting this type of weapon?
Personally, I don't care at this point. It won't be problem if/when the Iranian's deploy nuclear weapons. It will be Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Jordan, and Israel's problem! Nah!


I knew it! I knew it! I knew at some point, someone (a Pole, of all people!) would use the Atomic Bombing of Nagaski and Hiroshima as some sort of disquailifier! What logic! Appearantly, history only began that day in August 1945! (Nevermind how the Japanese ended up on the receiving end of Fat Man and Little Boy, in the first place!) Tsk, tsk!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

the iranians see several of these examples of our policy and plan accordingly. when you look at the topic from the iranian view perspective, nuclear deterrence becomes a very attractive proposition. what's the difference between north korea and to say libya or iraq? the iranians see the writing on the wall. they're in a corner.

i also don't believe we have the right to use their form of government as a basis for our aggressive posture. it's their country, let them **** themselves up. if enough of them want change it will happen. when seen from outside, ours isn't exactly a stirling model either.

I realize it makes for a speedy reply ...but you keep saying the same things over and over. Just an FYI there, if I don't buy it the first time, repeating it twice more won't shore up your argument in my eyes.

Something to ponder... did the US have the right to go to war with Germany in WWII because of their form of government? Had Nazi Germany attacked us? Should we have waited and allowed them to develop a nuclear weapon? Were they justified in having one, simply because they were a sovereign nation, and wanted to have one? Would it have been smarter to wait until they had the weapon and a delivery system to get it over NYC before deciding to go to war with them? Based on your answers to those questions, why would the answers be any different for Iran (or insert your choice of any despotic regime)?

I'll save you the trouble - nobody wants Iran with a nuke...except Iran. Not the US, not the Arabs, not Europe, not Russia and not China. The UN is united on that issue - the sticking point is the mechanism to be used to keep it from them. As usual, the same players are using the issue as a political pry bar to force the US to expose itself financially and militarily - for their own gain - but there is no disagreement regarding the sanity of allowing Iran to have nukes.

[ViktorNavorski]

Bush is having (another) credibility problem, this time involving the NIE. It seems The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf's claim this morning to 'only have been told of (Iran stopping its weapons program back in '03) last week' isn't url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120302210.html?nav=rss_politics&sid=ST2007102501235]supported[/url] by the facts.



Now comes the fallout from his earlier statements. Recall that when growing up your parents told you not to lie? There was a reason for that...
The Fallout from the Iran Nukes Report (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690515,00.html)

[...] But the truth is that the finding underscores the complexity of the Iran nuclear issue in a way that undermines efforts to paint it as a fast-moving peril on the horizon — especially to an American public that feels it was already duped once on Iraq's supposed WMD. President Bush made headlines six weeks ago by warning that Iran's nuclear activity could be the cause of World War III. Even then, his words (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html) were carefully chosen: Bush did not say World War III would be the consequence of Iran attaining a nuclear weapon; he said, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Bush's warning makes clear that the red line, for his Administration, is not an Iranian bomb program per se, but rather Iran's attaining "the knowledge necessary to make" such a weapon — by which he means mastering the technology of uranium enrichment. Enriched uranium is a key component (although hardly sufficient, by itself) for a nuclear weapon. But enriching uranium, to a far lower degree, is also an integral part of any civilian nuclear energy program — and, it's entirely legal for any signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in good standing to enrich uranium under IAEA monitoring. Iran is a signatory of the NPT, although it has been ordered to suspend uranium enrichment because of its non-compliance with some transparency requirements in its previous nuclear activities. The suspension, therefore, is envisaged as a temporary requirement, until such time as Iran can satisfy concerns raised by the IAEA.

Washington, however, hopes that Iran can be prevented from enriching uranium at all, out of concern that once the technology is mastered, Tehran could simply withdraw from the NPT — as North Korea did — and proceed to build a nuclear weapon within a matter of months. The NIE notes that the civilian nuclear infrastructure Iran is building would put bomb-making capability within easy reach, should Tehran take a political decision to do so.Read Key Judgments A, probably four or five times for you to get past the blinder.

The Bush admin just handed a major propaganda victory to Iran.

Worst. President. Ever.
Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report? (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html?xid=rss-topstories) I find your lack of...presidential history...disturbing.

[RxOnco]

Hadn't seen this point yet...mostly accusations of the Evil Bush Empire.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp


NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar (http://www.dni.gov/aboutODNI/organization/Analysis.htm) gave the following testimony (http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony.pdf) before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010946) Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention (http://www.nysun.com/article/67479) to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)


Hell, up until this report came out, 'ole Mahmoud had been bragging about how many centrifuges he had and how many he would have in the very near future. This, along with the fact that he still isn't allowing the IAEA access to his nuclear facilities.

[ElHombre]

Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?[/URL] I find your lack of...presidential history...disturbing.

I have thought about that possibility. If even remotely true, it would mean even more trouble than previously thought. The POTUS has to go behind his staff's back to halt Cheney's march to war with Iran. Which means the President can't control his Vice-President.

[RxOnco]

I find it laughable when over the last couple of years, there's been a steady acceptance that Iran was attempting to build its nuclear program. Recently, (after the supposed 2003 timeline of when Iran halted their weapons program) the same "intelligence" reports were saying that Iran fully intended on constructing and obtaining a nuclear weapons program. Just like Iraq, all the top Dems were on board with this opinion. They never doubted that it was there. They simply wanted "dialogue" in lieu of military action. That's it. I don't recall any of them saying that they doubted the "intelligence" reports at the time.
Well, once again...just like Iraq...we get a new "guess" as to what Iran is doing and the Dems jump ship and join the Media in saying that this was another Bush/Cheney rush-to-war job.
Why is it that nobody in the national media has questioned the fact that this most recent report directly contradicts numerous reports from the past?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government...

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0018
..as well as check Iran and North Korea’s progress on nuclear weapons and prevent them from increasing their nuclear arsenal...

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050526-remarks_of_senator_barack_obam/
...The nuclear programs of nations such as Iran and North Korea threaten to destabilize key regions of the world...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17526-2005Feb11?language=printer
...The last published intelligence report on Iran's program, released publicly in November, said that "Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." It went on to say, "The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program in contradiction to its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty."
^^^ ^^^
That would be a full year after Iran supposedly halted their program.

Oh, what short memories we have.

[sinophile]

Pieces are falling into place with this...


(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPp6is6KqkHE_fadGbNQDcmvgaow)
Putin tells Iran to freeze uranium enrichment: Interfax


18 hours ago MOSCOW (AFP) — President Vladimir Putin has urged Iran to freeze its controversial uranium enrichment programme, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday, Interfax reported. In a meeting Tuesday with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, Putin repeated his "call for freezing work on uranium enrichment," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.

The NIE a US declaration that at least until 2009 military action is off the table. Iran has its security agreement signed the US intelligence bureaucracy. Not a bad thing.

The quid pro quo and opening confidence building gesture was a stop in Iranian led insurgency in Iraq. Who brokered that is anyone's guess, possibly the Saudis. This was after the US and Iran went to brink in border skirmishes and threats.

Now that the US has laid down its gun, in chorus with China and Russia the call is made for Iran to do the same. I kinda called this in a previous post (humor me while I gloat just a little).

So what now? Well Condoleeza Rice looked too happy when she was recently interviewed on CNN during the Annapolis summit. Olmert looked miserable, and a Russian fleet is parked near the Israeli coast for this first time I think since the 1973 war. Israel's got no further vote to cast in this thing. I wouldn't be surprised if in February some type of security guarantee is announced between the US and Israel. Iran may get one from Russia or China.

Like Stratfor and others (http://www.armscontrowonk.com) have said, it smells like a deal. Scope is unclear but instability is bad for business and bad for oil prices. That's ultimately bad for everyone.

I'm looking for peace agreements jammed down the throats of the Israelis and the PA before Nov 08. I'm seeing a tacit peace agreement with Iran now. Stick a fork in Iraq, its as done as its going to be for the next few years. IAEA inspectors in Iran in 2008 or 2009.

Okay, flame away.

[Shellshock1918]

[golf clap] I just thought I'd cherry pick this gem and spend some time with it. I won't bother addressing the factual and temporal inaccuracies within, since they're fairly self-evident to anybody who's been paying attention over the last 20 years. I just really like it. It has the kind of in-your-face attitude that I admire in a post - reality be damned, it's gonna say what it wants. If it had a head, and a baseball cap, surely that cap would be twisted sideways in a brazen one finger salute to society.

The fact is, that all nations defend their interests. The US is part of the "west" - who's interests include expanded personal freedoms, a government run by and for the people, self-determination, and long walks on the beach. Nations like Iran (for example) also have interests - which include an autocratic un-elected theocracy, law based in an ancient religious book, and keeping society from the unparalleled evil of exposed female neck flesh. Now then - which will you choose to support? Shall both sides be equally powerful, have nukes, and duke it out to see which side God likes best? Or perhaps it's better for humanity in the long run to >gasp< unfairly pick one side and go with it. I'm scarcely able to cope with the horror of going against my over-socialized upbringing to pick sides, it's just that I hear they block internet **** in Iran, and I don't want any part of that.


*sigh* ....

[maw]

Well maw, which country is the sterling model, who would be qualified to handle this situation? Zimbabwe? Or Burma?
I think you and 2sheds actually agree at the end of the argument on Iran. Your main point of contenison is for what purpose is the US Government gathering the intelligence? One, to start another war for the "Neo-Cons". Or two to avert Islamic terrorists from getting this type of weapon?
disregard my snide comment regarding the stirling model, discussion for another day. as to the purpose of intelligence gathering, i feel that the culture of the current intelligence apparatus is neither for nor against war with iran, they just do their jobs. i believe the push for the war (or posturing towards a war to receive concessions) is coming from the neocons and the release of this report almost represents a revolt by robert gates and the pentagon against cheney and the war mongers.

here's pat buchanan emotional tirade on the topic:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/05/morning-joe-scarborough-and-buchanan-want-hearings-over-nie/


Personally, I don't care at this point. It won't be problem if/when the Iranian's deploy nuclear weapons. It will be Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Jordan, and Israel's problem! Nah!
of course it's not our problem, iran has no long range delivery mechanism that even remotely threatens us. this fear of war by proxy (iran arming hamas) is crap, nukes are extremely traceable. iran launching anything against isreal is suicide.
the two main reasons iran would want nukes is to keep the us from attacking and to change the power dynamic in the me, thereby forcing isreal to make concessions to the pali's.

[maw]

the reality here is that that you're living in a bubble or that you're selectively choosing what to see. suddenly intel amounts to a guess? the intel in this report represents the consensus of 16 intelligence agencies. if you'd been paying attention you'd notice that sy hersh has been writing leaked information from this report in the new yorker for almost a year. if he saw snippets of the report over a year ago, how is it that the president only saw it a couple of weeks ago?
however, what's most troubling is the administration's attempt to delay the release of this report, there are now cia officers willing to go on the record stating that analysts have had to change the wording of this report because of pressure from the white house.

""The White House wants a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy," says Giraldi (former CIA Officer). Despite pressures on them to change their dissenting conclusions, however, Giraldi says some analysts have refused to go along with conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence."

negroponte hinted at the content of this still classified report back in april of 06 when he said it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade." the white house immediately released it's attack dogs in the form of robert g. joseph (a cheney crony) who the following day said: iran's nuclear program was nearing the "point of no return". then frank gaffney (a perle crony) came after negroponte by saying: "negroponte was absurdly declaring the iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons". he was now off the christmas card list and on jan 5th of this year he was replaced by vice admiral mcconnell.

the white house has been trying to squish this report since last year and as recently this statement by tony snow in september:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15024576/

this report while not perfect is the best we have and will largely be apolitical in its bias. the vast bulk of the political spin you mentioned will probably be infused by "Moby **** & company".

finally, that infamous leaked downing street memo that was made by the british intel resources referred to their white house counterparts saying "they fix the intelligence around the policy" is now resonating, hence my comment about deja vu.


The reality here is that all intel amounts to is a guess. Iran is a black hole. They could roll a shiny new nuke out next year for all we know...and then this NIE instantly goes from saving the day to a disaster. Intel is not monolithic - different agencies constantly supply differing opinions.

Bush has been told from day one of his administration that Iran was not working on nukes. He was also told from day one that Iran was working on nukes. Who gives a rat's ass who told him what when - if they can all still be completely wrong? What counts is the decision at the end of the process.

In fact, if we are to be fair, we need to all sit here and pick apart this NIE report as being every bit as politically spun as the intel that led to the Iraq war. You know - smoke and mirrors - lies put together to support the policy the administration wants, etc. Where is that assessment from you anti-Bush people? Hell, where is the scrutiny from the Media? It's completely missing, because this paper supports the action they choose to support - therefore it is above any criticism. I continue to be amazed at the tenacity of our resident Cap'n Ahabs who continue stabbing at the heart of Moby **** & company. Whatever will they do when he's submerged forever - yet our friends in Iran et al still remain?

[haze99]

Who's on first, you say? So Bush is planning on using this report as a "green light" to start bombing Iran in 2008?
If said agency doesn't have a human contact on the ground to verify what is happening, then what else are you going to say you have? Hard data?
If the Iranian's have armed Hezbollah with coventional arms, what is to stop them from giving nuclear or radioactive material? Do you trust the Iranian Govt, to that end? Why get nuclear weapons to pressure Israel to make concessions? They have already been making concessions to the "Palestinians" since 1993! (all spearhead by the US Govt under Clinton and Bush!) Hell, we have done a better job of shrinking Israel, than the muslims could have ever hoped for, even with all the Russian weapons in the world!
Refresh my memory, list the Neo-Cons, so I can begin to link all this disinformation, before it was information to someone in particluar.

[pistol]

Something to ponder... did the US have the right to go to war with Germany in WWII because of their form of government? Had Nazi Germany attacked us? Should we have waited and allowed them to develop a nuclear weapon? Were they justified in having one, simply because they were a sovereign nation, and wanted to have one? Would it have been smarter to wait until they had the weapon and a delivery system to get it over NYC before deciding to go to war with them? Based on your answers to those questions, why would the answers be any different for Iran (or insert your choice of any despotic regime)?



Your analogy is false. We had the right to go to war with Germany because they declared war on us and Congress, to whom the Constitution gives the power to declare war, issued a declaration of war in response.

[Kilo]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/i/logo_time_print.gif (http://www.time.com/time)

Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007
Iran's Nukes: Now They Tell Us?

By Joe Klein

The President looked awful. He stood puffy-eyed, stoop-shouldered, in front of the press corps discussing the stunning new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran halted its nuclear-weapons program in 2003. He looked as if he'd spent the night throwing chairs around the Situation Room. A reporter noted that he seemed dispirited, and the President joked, "This is like — all of a sudden, it's like Psychology 101, you know?" He added, "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited, pretty good about life, and I made the decision to come before you so I can explain the NIE." And then, defiantly, "And so, kind of Psychology 101 ain't working. It's just not working. I understand the issues, I clearly see the problems, and I'm going to use the NIE to continue to rally the international community for the sake of peace." And then he walked out.

In truth, Bush seemed as befuddled as everyone else about how and why the nation's intelligence community — the 16 federal agencies charged with spying — had issued an NIE that so profoundly undermined his provocative rhetoric toward Iran. As recently as Oct. 17, the President had said Iran's bomb-building program could be a precursor to "World War III." It was a statement that was both outrageous in its extravagance and very strange. Bush acknowledged that he had first heard in August that a new intelligence analysis of Iran's nuclear-bomb program was imminent, but — and here comes the strange part — he hadn't bothered to ask the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, what it might contain. "If that's true," Senator Joe Biden opined soon after, "then this is ... one of the most incompetent Presidents in modern American history."

The moment certainly seemed historic. This was, quite possibly, the most assertive, surprising and rebellious act in the history of the U.S. intelligence community. The Administration seemed to have lost control of its secrets. Gone were the days when spymasters would come to the White House for morning coffee and whisper the latest intelligence to the President, and the rest of the world would find out decades later, only after numerous Freedom of Information requests had prized the buried treasure from the CIA vault. Now the latest intelligence evaluations were being announced worldwide, nearly in real time. "It's just mind-boggling," a former CIA officer told me. "The impact of the Iraq WMD fiasco is coming home to roost. The intelligence community was badly burned by that. And the various players never want it asked of them again, 'Why didn't you stand up to the Administration and tell it the truth?'"

The truth about Iran appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House's bomb-Iran brigade — and especially that of Vice President **** Cheney, who had been stumping haughtily for war. It was a political earthquake, reverberating through the presidential campaign. Within hours, Hillary Clinton was under renewed attack by her Democratic opponents for voting for a bellicose anti-Iran resolution in the Senate this year. But the unintended damage was to the credibility of the Republican presidential candidates, all of whom had noisily rattled sabers about Iran. Once again the black-and-white neoconservative view of the Middle East region had been proved wrong. At first the antique neocon Norman Podhoretz actually insisted, "The intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations." Soon, even Podhoretz was in retreat.

But it wasn't just the intelligence community that had been trying to prevent the war hawks in the Administration from bombing Iran. The Secretaries of State and Defense and the leaders of the uniformed military had decided that diplomacy was the best way to deal with an admittedly hostile and dangerous foe in Tehran. Almost exactly a year ago, after the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, the President met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the "Tank," the Pentagon's secure facility. Bush asked the Chiefs about attacking Iran. He was told that a bombing campaign could do severe damage to Iran's military and nuclear facilities, but the Chiefs said they were opposed to such a strike because of the probable "blowback." The Iranians, Bush was told, could make life very difficult for the U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. They could shut off the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby creating a global economic crisis. And they could use the threat of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks on the American homeland
At about the same time, a new NIE on Iran was meandering through the intelligence community. A senior U.S. intelligence official told me last week that the report was prepared to say with a "moderate" degree of certainty that Iran had stopped its nuclear-weapons program, but the information wasn't very conclusive. That finding would have put the U.S. in the same camp as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — deeply concerned about the Iranian efforts to enrich uranium but skeptical about the regime's efforts to fashion that uranium into a bomb.

The intricacies of nuclear proliferation can get very complicated very quickly, but under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nations have the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but they must do it in a transparent manner, under international supervision. Iran was, and is, a matter of real concern to the IAEA because it had been caught hiding part of its enrichment program — and because it was widely believed that Iran had a secret bomb-building program (which indeed it had, as of 2003). Even after the new intelligence assessment, Iran's uranium-enrichment program remains troubling to the international community because enrichment is considered the most difficult part of building a nuclear bomb. Iran claims it is enriching the uranium for a peaceful nuclear-power program, but — given its ocean of oil — most international observers don't believe it.

Iran has an opaque and nearly impenetrable government structure, and it's hard to know who exactly controls the levers in that country. There are two of everything. There is a popularly elected President (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and a — more powerful — Supreme Leader (Ayatullah Ali Khamenei). There is an Iranian army and a — more powerful — Revolutionary Guard Corps. As recently as two years ago, a senior U.S. diplomat told me, "We don't know anything about what goes on inside that government." But that has changed fairly dramatically in the past year. A special CIA Iran-analysis group, which calls itself "Persia House," was split off from the agency's Middle East regional analysts. A major effort was made to recruit human intelligence sources inside Iran. And then, in June and July, the new Iran assets began to pay off. Some of the information may have come from an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps general named Ali Reza Asghari, who defected to Turkey in February. But a senior U.S. intelligence official assured me, "It was multiple collection streams. You don't get a 'high' degree-of-probability assessment without multiple sources."

In August, National Intelligence Director McConnell ordered CIA Director Michael Hayden to have ready by Labor Day a new intelligence estimate reflecting the latest information. Hayden said he needed more time. McConnell set a Nov. 30 deadline. Because some of the information sources were new, Hayden decided to launch a "red team" counter-intelligence operation to make sure that the U.S. wasn't falling for Iranian disinformation. In late October, the Persia House and red-team analysts offered their findings to Hayden and his deputy, Steve Kappes, around the coffee table in Hayden's office. The red team found that the possibility of Iranian disinformation was "plausible but not likely." That assessment led two of the 16 intelligence agencies, but not the CIA, to dissent from the final "high" degree of certainty that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003. On the other hand, there was general agreement on a "moderate" finding that Iran had not restarted the program. The National Intelligence Board met and reached its conclusions on Tuesday, Nov. 27. "The meeting took a little more than two hours," a senior intelligence official told me. "There have been times when it has taken multiple meetings that went on for hours and hours to reach a consensus, especially when dealing with one of Iran's neighbors."

Hayden and his senior Iran analysts briefed President Bush on the new NIE on Wednesday, Nov. 28. But it seems apparent the President made little effort to figure out how his Administration could leverage the shocking candor of the intelligence report to his advantage in dealing with Iran. "He could have said to the Iranians, 'This document shows that we're not rushing to war. We're not out to get you,'" said Kenneth Pollack, a National Security Council staff member during the Clinton Administration and author of The Persian Puzzle. "'But we — and the rest of the world — are very concerned about your uranium-enrichment program, and so let's sit down and talk about it.'"

Oddly, Bush didn't seem to ask for a delay in the release of the report. He could easily have requested a few weeks for his Administration to chew over the import of the NIE, discuss it with our allies, organize a new diplomatic initiative to negotiate with the Iranians. As it was, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns briefed the U.N. Security Council members who had been considering a new round of sanctions against Iran about the same time that word of the NIE broke in the press. When it did, the Chinese, who had seemed surprisingly ready to approve the sanctions, started backing away from that position.

There was one key finding that the President didn't discuss and wasn't asked about during his White House press conference: that Iran had stopped its weapons program "in response to international scrutiny and pressure." Several intelligence sources told me they considered this the most important finding in the report. "Iran isn't impervious," said one. "Diplomatic pressure works. That's something we simply did not know before."

But diplomatic pressure has been embraced only reluctantly, if at all, by Bush and Cheney. Even when the President does get behind an initiative, as he did with the recent Annapolis conference to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, there is an ad hoc, unprepared quality to the effort — a transparent, last-minute rush to cobble together a legacy. What the NIE makes plain is that diplomacy, combined with the threat of international sanctions, has much greater potential when applied to the Iranians than it has ever had in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To be sure, dealing with the Iranians isn't easy. In 2000, President Bill Clinton tried to stage a handshake at the United Nations with then President of Iran Mohammed Khatami — but at the last minute Khatami was ordered to back down by his superiors in Tehran. The truth is, the Iranian mullahs have often been as reluctant to negotiate with the U.S. as Bush has been to deal directly with them — although there may have been an Iranian initiative in 2003, when it appeared that U.S. armies would soon be perched on two of Iran's borders, in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a dispute in the intelligence community about whether that démarche, which came to the U.S. via the Swiss embassy and promised broad-ranging negotiations, was a freelance effort by Iranian moderates or had been approved at the highest levels of the Iranian government.

The NIE represented another promising opportunity missed. Imagine if the President had said, "This report means we don't want war. We want to talk, and everything — including lifting of the economic sanctions and our acknowledgment that you are a major regional power — is on the table so long as you put everything on the table too. That means not only your uranium-enrichment program but also your support for terrorist organizations." How could Iran have said no to that?

But that would have required some other President. This President appears to lack the desire, creativity and patience to engage in the most important diplomacy that a nation can face — with its enemies — over issues that could mean the difference between war and peace.


Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1691625,00.html

[Pars]

If the Iranian's have armed Hezbollah with coventional arms, what is to stop them from giving nuclear or radioactive material?

Yes, because arming someone with conventional arms and arming someone with nuclear weapons is practically the same thing :roll:

[Snoshi]

Yes, because arming someone with conventional arms and arming someone with nuclear weapons is practically the same thing :roll:

Well. Right now Iran can only hurt Israel by using Hezbollah and it might as well give HA the a nuclear warhead to "stay" alive.

[Pars]

Well. Right now Iran can only hurt Israel by using Hezbollah and it might as well give HA the a nuclear warhead to "stay" alive.

Yes, that makes perfect sense as well. A well known tactic used to enforce proxies...

[Clayton Gold]

Yes, because arming someone with conventional arms and arming someone with nuclear weapons is practically the same thing :roll:

So you're saying that Iran arming Hezb. is no big deal ?

True colours finally showing p-)

[Snoshi]

Yes, that makes perfect sense as well. A well known tactic used to enforce proxies...

So you are compleatly ruling out this idea?

You can go on and say that arming HA is not a big deal.. But there is a difference between financing and arming a "proxy" by giving it money and small arms and by giving it long-range missiles... That can be used to carry chemical, biological and nuclear warhead

[Clayton Gold]

But there is a difference between financing and arming a "proxy" by giving it money and small arms and by giving it long-range missiles... That can be used to carry chemical, biological and nuclear warhead

.... to be fired at civilian targets.

No, not a big deal at all :roll:

[Lion of War]

Why can't we arm some Lebanese wing nuts.

[Lion of War]

.... to be fired at civilian targets.

No, not a big deal at all :roll:

US supplied weapons to Israel are not fired at civilians....Wow...

[Clayton Gold]

The US armed the Taliban wing nuts.Why can't we arm some Lebanese wing nuts.

DAOTW right here ^

Edit:


US supplied weapons to Israel are not fired at civilians....Wow...

Wow - 2 in one thread !

[Pars]

So you're saying that Iran arming Hezb. is no big deal ?

True colours finally showing p-)

I'll take that as a joke. No, of course not. I'm just trying to say that arming someone with conventional weapons does not equal arming someone with nuclear weapons. The idea is far fetched at best.

[Lion of War]

So far they have been wrong on every thing from the Iraq WMD scandal to the latest reports coming out from Iran.Yet we are still dangerous boggey men trying to arm some Arabs in South Lebanon with nukes...What next we have a death star and are a imminent threat :)
http://www.eyeonstarwars.com/trilogy/vehicle/images/death_star.jpg

[Snoshi]

So far they have been wrong on every thing from the Iraq WMD scandal to the latest reports coming out from Iran.Yet we are still dangerous boggey men trying to arm some Arabs in South Lebanon with nukes...What next we have a death star and are a imminent threat :)


Oh please... Noone said that you armed Hezbollah with nukes.. But Iran can as well do it.. Not only that Iran is supporting terrorist organisations to kill civilians but it also armed a "proxy" in a independent country with ballistic missiles . If you belive think that it does not prove that Iran is dangerous then i dont know what to think, not to mention rhetoric of your president.

[Clayton Gold]

================================

[2Sheds_Jackson]

the reality here is that that you're living in a bubble or that you're selectively choosing what to see. suddenly intel amounts to a guess? the intel in this report represents the consensus of 16 intelligence agencies.

The report is the result of consensus, because it's a guess on the part of each agency. Intel is always a guess. Better intel simply results in a more accurate guess.

You and I have no way to know whether this report is any more accurate, or any more spun than the hundreds of reports over 12 years that led to the Iraq war. You simply choose to believe this one because it supports the action (or inaction) you support. The report has not been savaged in the press, because it supports the action (or inaction) that those in the media support.

But it's the same intelligence agencies, staffed by the same people, using the same printing presses as the "faked" intel that led to war with Iraq - yet this report is somehow gospel while the first was shameful fakery. If you're being intellectually honest, you must conclude therefore that they must both either be equally as accurate, inaccurate, or faked.


Your analogy is false. We had the right to go to war with Germany because they declared war on us and Congress, to whom the Constitution gives the power to declare war, issued a declaration of war in response.

The Constitution says that Congress can declare war, not that they must declare war. The right to go to war is not derived from a legislative process - it rests with the consensus of a people who believe they are legitimately defending themselves - whether or not Congress formally declares war. That's been US policy since 1945.

Now whether or not it's wise to base that go/no-go decision on intel (i.e. a guess) is another matter. How smart is it to base a decision to go to war on a guess? I don't know...but on the flip side - how wise is it to wait until we or our interests have actually been attacked?

One thing's for sure - this makes for great theater. As this NIE report moves on and sinks in, watching the very same people who have worked so hard over the last 7 years to discredit everything that comes out of this administration suddenly turn on their heel and believe what they say simply because it's what they want to hear...well it's just great stuff.

[Snoshi]

The report is the result of consensus, because it's a guess on the part of each agency. Intel is always a guess. Better intel simply results in a more accurate guess.

You and I have no way to know whether this report is any more accurate, or any more spun than the hundreds of reports over 12 years that led to the Iraq war. You simply choose to believe this one because it supports the action (or inaction) you support. The report has not been savaged in the press, because it supports the action (or inaction) that those in the media support.

But it's the same intelligence agencies, staffed by the same people, using the same printing presses as the "faked" intel that led to war with Iraq - yet this report is somehow gospel while the first was shameful fakery. If you're being intellectually honest, you must conclude therefore that they must both either be equally as accurate, inaccurate, or faked.

Yep... If the next day same agency would release a report saying that Iran is thinking of restarting a nuclear program then it would be called US propaganda and compared to the Iraq-war Intel..

[afreu]

http://lenny.liquid-skill.de/D4907WW0.jpg

[maw]

The report is the result of consensus, because it's a guess on the part of each agency. Intel is always a guess. Better intel simply results in a more accurate guess.

You and I have no way to know whether this report is any more accurate, or any more spun than the hundreds of reports over 12 years that led to the Iraq war. You simply choose to believe this one because it supports the action (or inaction) you support. The report has not been savaged in the press, because it supports the action (or inaction) that those in the media support.

But it's the same intelligence agencies, staffed by the same people, using the same printing presses as the "faked" intel that led to war with Iraq - yet this report is somehow gospel while the first was shameful fakery. If you're being intellectually honest, you must conclude therefore that they must both either be equally as accurate, inaccurate, or faked.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3424/1185713140395vp0.jpg

couple of things. google operation merlin (we were selling nuclear secrets to the iranians to determine just how much they knew), this is just once source, the tip of the ice berg so to speak. don't assume we have no humint coming out of iran. read some sy hersh, in a round about way he describes some of the "on the ground" intel work that's been going on. we now have a couple of microwave frequency surface scanning radar satellites, we can map the surface of iran down to the millimeter, if a truck makes a delivery of falafels to a "shut down" enrichment site we know about it. you need to give our intel apparatus more credit then you do rather than conveniently dismissing their findings as guesses because the report doesn't fit YOUR bias.

finally, we've covered the topic of the pre-iraq invasion data manipulation before. i'm aware of your position. however, personally i now have no doubt that the white selectively picked away at the intel. i'm not here to convince you, but the information about this is out there. i'm just waiting for the senate report to come out and confirm this. but the pattern of data manipulation by the white house (as noted in the downing street memo) is consistent with what we're seeing here with the nie report.

trying to be as non-subjective as possible the facts appear to show that the white house received this report over a year ago and has been instrumental in attempting to delay and/or heavily edit the content of the report.

nowhere in the white house's strategy have they chosen your approach, namely mock the intelligence apparatus, instead they preferred the sweep it under that carpet and sit on it tactic. when that didn't work (because of leaks) they decided to go heavy with the edits, this leak/release is a backlash by the intel community against the heavy handed editing strategy. if the intel community had gone along with the edit's they would have been implicit in another war.

in september the president justified not releasing the report because it could "expose agents in the field". but going back as far as august one can observe that president has been toning down his rhetoric regarding the existence of an iranian bomb. it's as if they knew the cat was clawing its way out of the bag.

as far as i can see, the only defendable position regarding the white house's actions is that they were playing a giant game of bluff with the iranians. i take issue with this, first of all from everything i've read, the administration was absolutely committed to striking iran and then use the inevitable iranian retaliation as a basis for an escalation of force. secondly, looking at the precedent (i.e. the iraq war), why is it that when saddam backed down from our bluster (wanted a billion in cash and a life in paris) didn't we take the offer? because we were committed to the invasion. i see the same pattern unraveling with iran, not just the intel manipulation but also the pre-conflict posturing that forces the outcome towards military action.

[slug]

Your analogy is false. We had the right to go to war with Germany because they declared war on us and Congress, to whom the Constitution gives the power to declare war, issued a declaration of war in response.

Agreed, to say that Iran today is equivilant to Germany during WWII is almost as stupid as claiming that Iran will cause WWIII. Iran has not invaded any of it's neighboring countries or initiated mass genocide--we are not preventing a fascist domination of the world or the next holocaust here. Fear mongering and propoganda only work if people believe in the threat... and can stop laughing at your claims.