U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

DivineComedy · 12-10-07, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

the "bomb" part is actually more a matter of formality once Iran has the knowledge and tools necessary to enrich uranium to a weapons grade level.

When I saw this topic it was the very first thing I thought, so not reading past page one, as I saw enough propaganda on page one, I just searched each page for the word, “Khan,” and found you on page seven.

Damn, you’re good.

2003: “With the international inspections of Iran's nuclear operations and the October 2003 interception of a ship headed for Libya and carrying centrifuge parts, Pakistan began seriously investigating A.Q. Khan...A.Q. Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...istan/khan.htm

I would suggest these people read “Heisenberg’s War” by Thomas Powers, the gadget is the least of the problem.

aquapub · 12-10-07, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

I for one would love to see a cite for this.
So, pretty please, with sugar on top, if you would, could you be so kind as to provide your source for this assertion?

Thank you very, very kindly in advance.

Liberals ranging from far left Princeton professor, Richard Falk, to Carter's UN Ambassador Andrew Young, to Attorney General Ramsey Clark aggressively campaigned to get the US to abandon our ally (the Shah) as Islamic radicals stirred up a revolution against him so we could let Iran "find its own path," just as Democrats did when they surrendered China to Communist butchers, just as they did in Somalia, just as they did to our allies in Vietnam.

"When the Iranian Revolution broke out in Iran, and the Shah was overthrown, the U.S. did not intervene. The Shah went into permanent exile. Carter initially refused him entry to the United States, even on grounds of medical emergency."

Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

aquapub · 12-10-07, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

The Senator Democrats kicked out of their tolerant, pro-diversity party for being only 95% liberal said it best:

"...as the NIE makes clear, the Iranian regime has neither verifiably ended nor abandoned its secret nuclear weapons program...Rather, the Iranian regime has at best made a tactical decision to halt certain elements of this program, in response to increased international pressure and scrutiny, and which it may restart at any time...As the NIE also makes clear, the Iranian regime continues to pursue its illegal uranium enrichment program, in violation of its international commitments and in flagrant disregard of the will of the international community..."

Senator Joe Lieberman: News Release

The real story here is that the NY Times ended up providing such an outrageously misleading explanation of the report, which concluded virtually the opposite of what the Times presented.

Stinger · 12-10-07, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

If they do not restart their nuclear weapon program, how long will it take them to build a nuclear weapon?

Depends on if we discovered it or not.

Same length of time it would take them to restart it if they ended their enrichment program I guess.

donc · 12-10-07, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

I find those who rant about Cheney instead of discuss the reality of the situation rather uninteresting.

"
It hasn't gone unnoticed that the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and the ensuing five years of war and occupation there and in Afghanistan strengthened, not weakened, Iran's militant Shiite Muslim rulers."

By what measure? It appears it so frightened them that they stopped the actual weapons research if we are to believe the NIE.

" It will be difficult, even for Bush, to claim that Iraq is an American victory, or a Bush victory....."

And what spin we have here trying to stake out the argument that will be used when we do have our final success in Iraq.

"Just because the Iranians appear to have halted their nuclear weapons research in 2003 doesn’t mean they can’t resume it when it suits them. The centrifuges are still whirring away in deep underground facilities, enriching uranium that can be used to fuel nuclear power plants or be further enriched and used to make nuclear weapons."

The one thing he did say that made sense..........this NIE hardly changes anything as far as Iran's threat to the region and the world.

Your disagreeing with someone that agrees with the point that you have been trying to make over the last half of this thread?

(Iran indeed bears watching, and the international effort to pressure Tehran into suspending enrichment and accepting IAEA inspection and oversight of its nuclear program should continue and be further energized.)

Could it be that you disagree with him because he realizes that the NIA consist of <16 agencies that make up the nation's intelligence community> rather than (The Thomas Fingar that you referred to in your post #147 link with this bit of paranoia.

(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 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)

The NIA consist of 16 agencies, and they all have input in the final report, how could Thomas Fingar slant any intel, and have it skate by unnoticed?

I notice that the Weaklly Slandared is Quoting the Wall Street Journal "an intelligence source” who describe Fingar and is two colleagues, as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.”

That sure nails it doesn’t it? One source, quoting another sources, unnamed source, some real quality journalism there.

<Quote

Joseph L. Galloway

McClatchy Newspapers

I< a rational world, the consensus findings of the 16 agencies that make up the nation's intelligence community would put an end to the bellicose grumbling and threats of war against Iran by the Bush administration and various neo-conservative cheerleaders. >

< stinger link

Quote (snicker ,snicker)

Posted by Thomas Joscelyn on December 5, 2007 12:01 PM

The Weekly Standard.com

(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 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)

The Weekly Standard

<The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the 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 to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday. >

Billo_Really · 12-10-07, 08:54 PM

IAEA is the only organization qualified to make the call.

And that call is Iran has not weaponized its program.

Quote:

Iran: Apology needed now that IAEA
has cleared Iran's name

Iran's president demanded on Friday that Western nations apologize to Iran for suspecting it was conducting a covert nuclear weapons program, put in doubt by a recent UN watchdog report.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in its Iran report on Thursday that Tehran had been truthful, in general, about key aspects of its "nuclear dossier," but warned the country continued to work on uranium enrichment, despite persistent international demands to fold the program.

Iran says that it needs nuclear energy for electricity generation not weapons production.

"You have passed two resolutions based on erroneous information and reports, but now when you realize your mistakes you should be courageous enough to acknowledge it and apologize to the Iranian people," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on local television.

Ahmadinejad hailed the IAEA's report as "true to life" and "largely free from pressure exerted by certain powers." He also accused Washington of pressurizing the UN watchdog for years with the aim of "using Iran's civilian nuclear activities as a reason for creating tension in the region."

The U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China were due to meet on November 19 to assess reports on Tehran's nuclear program from the IAEA and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

So put down your war drums.

Quote:

IAEA confirms the "peaceful nature of
Iran's nuclear activities"

The mainstream media has failed to report the agreement reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government in regards to the Iranian nuclear energy program. An understanding has been reached between the two. The IAEA has given Iran's nuclear program a clean bill of health.

Why is the U.S. media not reporting on this matter? Why do the U.S. and its Western allies continue to threaten Iran with punitive bombings for its alleged non-compliance, when everything indicates that Iran has a bona fide nuclear energy program and does not have the capabilities of developing nuclear weapons?

The following are highlights from the document:

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

Emphasis added

The Director-General of the IAEA has also confirmed in an interview published by Profil, an Austrian magazine that it is highly unlikely that Iran would pursue the development of a nuclear weapons program.

The document is a slap in the face for the Bush Administration. In light of these developments, it is no surprise that the Washington is now seeking to justify military action on the grounds that Iran is allegedly behind the killings of American troops in Iraq.

oldreliable67 · 12-10-07, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo

IAEA is the only organization qualified to make the call.

And that call is Iran has not weaponized its program.

It is indeed a good thing that the IAEA has determined that Iran has produced any nukes. It is not a good thing that Iran has not committed to compliance with the transparency and control specifications of the Additional Protocols.

Billo's first cite, dated November 16, 2007, is an A'jad call for an apology, touting that the IAEA has "cleared Iran's name." However, at the IAEA Board of Directors meeting on November 22, 2007, IAEA head Elbaradei said something quite a bit different:

Quote:

As you know, the Agency has so far not been able to verify some important aspects of Iran´s nuclear programme: those relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s centrifuge enrichment activities, as well as those relevant to alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications. Iran´s past undeclared nuclear activities, together with these verification issues, resulted in the Agency´s inability to make progress in providing assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and created a confidence deficit about the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. This prompted the Security Council to adopt a number of resolutions calling on Iran to clarify these outstanding verification issues, and to undertake simultaneously confidence building measures, including the implementation of the additional protocol and the suspension of uranium enrichment activities.

Elbaradei noted the Iran cooperation on several issues, some of which are mentioned in Billo's second cite. However, at the board meeting, Elbaradei went on to say:

Quote:

However, as with all States that do not have an additional protocol in force, we are unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. This is especially crucial in the case of Iran, because of its history of undeclared activities, and the corresponding need to restore confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As the report indicates, the Agency´s knowledge about specific aspects of Iran´s current programme has diminished since 2006, when Iran ceased to provide the Agency with information under the additional protocol and additional transparency measures. This relates especially to current procurement, R&D and possible manufacturing of centrifuges. I urge Iran, therefore, to resume without delay the implementation of the additional protocol. The Agency needs to have maximum clarity not only about Iran´s past programme but, equally or more important, about the present. I should note, however, that the Agency has no concrete information about possible undeclared nuclear material or weaponization activities in Iran, other than the outstanding issues I have already mentioned.

Naturally, as we go through our own investigation of Iran´s past and present nuclear programme, I continue to urge Iran to take all the confidence building measures called for by the Security Council, including the suspension of enrichment related activities.

[emphasis added]

Billo's second cite, touting the IAEA confirmation of the "peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities" is dated August 30, 2007. This report details considerable progress in the IAEA's knowledge about Iranian activities, and is referred to in Elbaradei's report to his Board of Directors. It is important to note that even with this progress, Elbaradei nonetheless concludes that "the Agency has no concrete information about possible undeclared nuclear material or weaponization activities in Iran, other than the outstanding issues I have already mentioned."

It is clearly erroneous to characterize the IAEA as having "cleared Iran's name."

Simon W. Moon · 12-10-07, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

Liberals ranging from far left Princeton professor, Richard Falk, to Carter's UN Ambassador Andrew Young, to Attorney General Ramsey Clark aggressively campaigned to get the US to abandon our ally (the Shah) as Islamic radicals stirred up a revolution against him so we could let Iran "find its own path," ...

You're definition of "installed" is remarkable, inventive, very unusual, and quite liberal. It's unlike any other I've seen. Did it take you long to fashion it?

Incidentally and off topic, the Iranian Revolution is not merely the history of Islamic radicals. It was brought about by the cooperation of a broad range of opposition groups including Islamic ones (of several stripes) as well as secular and socialist groups. A whole lot of people in Iran were not pleased with the Shah*.

If I understand you correctly, you are of the opinion that because the US did not go to war to maintain the power of an unpopular autocrat on the other side of the planet against an uprising of the citizens of that country that the Democrats "installed" the Ayatollah.

This is the interesting and unusual definition of "installed" I was talking about. You see, normally, when someone says that a govt was "installed" they mean that outside help was given - the commission of acts. However, you have creatively used the word to refer to the omission of acts - NOT sending US forces to confront the Iranian people trying to overthrow their dictator.

* Who was installed [in the boring old usual sense of the word] with the help of the US

akyron · 12-11-07, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldreliable67

It is clearly erroneous to characterize the IAEA as having "cleared Iran's name."

Well they are clearly still under sanctions for continuing to enrich towards weapons programs.

"Iran's refusal to halt enrichment, in line with UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands, leaves the country exposed to sanctions."

How can they have been cleared if they are still under sanctions?

Same old tune. Same old dance.

good analytical post btw.

akyron · 12-11-07, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

If they do not restart their nuclear weapon program, how long will it take them to build a nuclear weapon?

Are we thinking there is only one program?

Natanz [Kashan]

Its kinda fishy that this plant started kicking out uranium about the same time a "weapons" program was shelved.

"Iran has stated that it has not carried out any enrichment and that no nuclear material was introduced to the PFEP prior to the Agency’s having taken its first baseline environmental samples there. However, the sampling results which were provided to Iran on 11 June 2003, revealed particles of high enriched uranium. During the 10–13 July and 9–12 August 2003 technical meetings, more complete environmental sampling results were provided to Iran and the matter was discussed further. The PFEP environmental sample results indicate the possible presence in Iran of high enriched uranium, material that is not on its inventory of declared nuclear material. "

Either way they are lying now or they were lying then.

2004-Iran either has been importing nuclear material or has been enriching uranium itself, both of which Tehran has denied, said a Western diplomat who is intricately familiar with the IAEA.

Iran: 3,000 centrifuges 'operational by March'

So basically they have no car but they are working three jobs and saving.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode