Pentagon: No evidence that Iran seeking nukes

[chauncy republicans]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116141&sectionid=351020104


Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:54:08 GMT

The Pentagon's top intelligence official says there is no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons.

The chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, says the key findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear energy program are still valid.

"The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true," he told Voice of America.

The NIE report was a consensus judgment of all US intelligence agencies, which concluded that Iran halted all activities which could have allegedly led to the development of nuclear arms in 2003.

Burgess said the Pentagon had seen no indication that Tehran was planning to resume the program allegedly aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

"We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know," he said.

Burgess said the Pentagon would continue to work on verifying that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear activities.

The Islamic Republic insists its nuclear program is solely aimed at civilian purposes and rejects the West's allegations that it intends to pursue military objectives.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and US National Intelligence Estimates issued so far have attested to the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

Tehran has repeatedly called for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction from across the globe.

[skyeye]

"We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know," he said.

= blithering idiot.

[Atlantic Friend]

On this one at least, if some hawkish pundit in the near-future claims that every major intelligence agency concurred Iran was seeking nukes, he/she'd be right.

[Atlantic Friend]

= blithering idiot.

Sounds like Rumsfeld with his "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", actually.

[Rictor]

I look forward to the Pentagon being ignored or dismissed by the hawks, only to later be cited as an infallible source of wisdom when they issue the tiniest hint of anti-Iranian rhetoric.

The people responsible for the NIE, as well as this latest reaffirmation, are neither ignorant nor are they bleeding-heart lefty types. So if they say that the house is not, in fact, on fire, I would be inclined to believe them.

[LineDoggie]

Except wasn't the left complaining that the NIE under Bush was changed to suit? Now suddenly it's Infallible?

[Hollis]

Intel tends to be questimations. The other side understands the concept of OPSEC. One side puts up smoke and mirrors, the other side tries to see what is going on. Smoke and mirrors also means giving out false information, make it look like something else is going on, like a infant formula milk factory rather than nuclear reactor, etc. And this is all good stuff for arm chair quarter backs who have complete clarity with hindsight and spin artists.


Oh yeah, then we have PsyOps........... that is different part of this formula. Gets even more complicated.

[LineDoggie]

I look forward to the Pentagon being ignored or dismissed by the hawks, only to later be cited as an infallible source of wisdom when they issue the tiniest hint of anti-Iranian rhetoric.

The people responsible for the NIE, as well as this latest reaffirmation, are neither ignorant nor are they bleeding-heart lefty types. So if they say that the house is not, in fact, on fire, I would be inclined to believe them.


Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar, who helped write many estimates as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, said the authors of the report would have known that a lot was riding on the way they presented their conclusions.




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18177103

[JUNKHO]

= blithering idiot.

Only post I understood in the entire thread and kinda shakey on the "blithering". Not sure WHY it was said, just understand what it conveys.

*marks thread off notification list and opens dictionary to bli........*

[Rictor]

Except wasn't the left complaining that the NIE under Bush was changed to suit? Now suddenly it's Infallible?

That's assuming that Obama (or the heads of the intel agencies) have any reason whatsoever to skew their intelligence in favour of Iran. It's not like these guys are crypto-Islamists who have tea with Khamenei every Friday. Quite the opposite. It's not even as though Obama has made any grand attempts to reconcile with Iran, and providing biased intel would be useful in that regard.

And besides, in Bush's case (specifically Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans) there was concrete evidence of cherry-picking

[LineDoggie]

Ahh, should have known


Bush =Ebil, Obama= Light of truth directly from the lord


Is that like Obama saying 20 Million are without healthcare which now ballooned to 45 Million by the admin? that type of Skewing?

[Rictor]

But wasn't the original NIE issued during Bush's term (albeit the last year)? If you're making me out to be an apologist for Obama, you've got the wrong guy.

[BlackWarder]

I wonder how come the US intel folks keep saying that Iran does not working toward Nukes while every major European intel service says that they do....

Warder

[Atlantic Friend]

I wonder how come the US intel folks keep saying that Iran does not working toward Nukes while every major European intel service says that they do....

Warder

Next step the White House will insist on more inspections while the EU goes all fire and brimstone about regime change in Tehran and blowing things to smithereens.

[Winger]

Depending on the actual source; the idea of falling paranoid to the unkownn can be a healthy thing . The policy of "the 1%" can have its merits if properly applied. Hopefully, vigilance will remain steadfast.

[Mordoror]

I wonder how come the US intel folks keep saying that Iran does not working toward Nukes while every major European intel service says that they do....

Warder


Really ??

hum what do we say in that case ??

ah yes i remember now............................link ???

[BlackWarder]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216669

Warder

[Mordoror]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216669

Warder

hum you should read the article again
it only states that the
MI-6—are "skeptical" of suggestions, most notably by U.S. intelligence agencies, that Iran stopped work on a military program to design and build a nuclear weapon in 2003.
the Mi-6 however lost his credibility by making false WMD reports and uranium smuggling accusation toward Irak

as for other major western agencies it only states
Several U.S. and European officials said they were confident that the allied agencies—including CIA, MI-6, Germany's BND and Israel's Mossad that means that they think that it is the case and expressing their feeling as "officials" not as members of the cited intelligence services. Concerning the intelligence services, On the four cited you have only one neutral the BND toward Iran so i wait indepedant true BND (as well as a DGSE and Russian intelligence) report rather that "3 unkown counterproliferation officials" statements from a right wing journal

like that we will have more than a single look drown in a politic campaign under influence

[Fat Lazy American]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216669

Warder

The real reason for the divide is simple.

For Europeans, a conclusion that Iran is a nuclear weapon exists among a body politic that does not particularly feel threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons, certainly not enough so to launch strikes against the program on their own. Analysis of the intelligence can be done relatively coldly -- agencies are free to produce what their actual sense of the situation is.

For the U.S. intel establishment, once they declare that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, for all intents and purposes, alea iacta est. The vast majority of Americans believe we should bomb Iran if necessary to prevent them from developing a nuclear bomb. As a mattter of fact, such a move is even more popular in the U.S. (around 70 percent) than it is in Israel (a bit over 50 percent). A president (whether it be the previous or current, for that matter), would have trouble convincing the American public that negotiations will work or that an Iranian bomb would be acceptable.

Bush had to worry about exposing the degree to which the Iraqi invasion weakened his hand in dealing with Iran.

And Obama would appear incredibly weak if he did nothing and watched Iran develop a bomb. I'd like to think the Obama administration is, indeed, putting a lot of resources into this issue. He has to realize he wouldn't be the first Democratic president cut to one term by the Iranians flexing their muscles.

But everyone in the U.S. national security establishment knows that a full-throated declaration that Iran is obtaining nuclear weapons would mean action would likely have to follow within months -- and Iran's position would likely harden.

Iran's economy is faltering, their government is weak. There are at least some smart people in the U.S. administration who think this can be dealt with via largely economic carrots and sticks. I'm not all that sanguine about the prospects, but if there's a possibility, it does incentivize them to downplay Iranian weapons developments.

[BlackWarder]

hum you should read the article again
it only states that the the Mi-6 however lost his credibility by making false WMD reports and uranium smuggling accusation toward Irak

as for other major western agencies it only states that means that they think that it is the case and expressing their feeling as "officials" not as members of the cited intelligence services. Concerning the intelligence services, On the four cited you have only one neutral the BND toward Iran so i wait indepedant true BND (as well as a DGSE and Russian intelligence) report rather that "3 unkown counterproliferation officials" statements from a right wing journal

like that we will have more than a single look drown in a politic campaign under influence

Mate that was the result from 2 min search in google, frankly I'm not in the habit of saving news articals on the subject so I don't have a ready made archive of articals to present but I do belive that digging a little bit deeper into google search you will find much much more articals on the subject, sadly I don't have time atm to do it myself.... maybe in a couple of days.

Warder

[Mordoror]

Mate that was the result from 2 min search in google, frankly I'm not in the habit of saving news articals on the subject so I don't have a ready made archive of articals to present but I do belive that digging a little bit deeper into google search you will find much much more articals on the subject, sadly I don't have time atm to do it myself.... maybe in a couple of days.

Warder

No problem, my friend
there was no pun intended anyway...i'll try to lurk a little more but as i said i rather see it as an internal US-US service struggle through press rumor releases than an objective opinion campaign
in fact i think that Fat Lazzy Amercian gave a very good highlight of it