U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

jfuh · 12-03-07, 02:32 PM

Quote:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

source

2003!!! Not 2007 not 2008 not 2006 , fracking 2003 and yet this year again we had the same bull**** drum roll for a possible military conflict with Iran. Wow another bull**** lie from this administration. Last time with Iraq it was because Afghanistan wasn't going all too smoothly, this time because Iraq wasn't going all this well and again we had all the hawks screaming their heads off about Iran and how we should nuke them.
So again, WHAT FRACKING NUKES!
This is what knee jerk reactionism gets you, absolutely nothing.

PeteEU · 12-03-07, 02:53 PM

Its from a "liberal newsource" hence dismissed ... move on..

Infinite Chaos · 12-03-07, 02:59 PM

There's still talk of serious sanctions however as Iran isn't playing ball with either the UN Security Council or the IAEA.

Quote:

The latest report from the IAEA on Iran is unlikely to stop pressure from the United States and its allies for further sanctions.

But the unity of the Security Council is wearing thin and the international front against Iran could begin to split, with Russia and China becoming increasingly unwilling to take significant steps.

The UN's watchdog agency indicated that while Iran was being more co-operative about explaining its past activities - including an admission that it went onto the black market to get uranium enrichment technology - it is still defying the Security Council in its present ones, principally enrichment.

Iran says that it intends to make nuclear power not a nuclear bomb.

More here source: BBC but that is Friday's news.

jfuh · 12-03-07, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Its from a "liberal newsource" hence dismissed ... move on..

Here's what the spin cycle is saying http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314782,00.html what a surprise
I love this part

Quote:

The intelligence community considers the Iranian regime a "rational actor" and a "unitary actor," meaning internal differences of opinion amongst various factions inside the regime are not contributing to a schism in the regime's actions or calculus.

Wait, only not so long ago Fox was here screaming how Iran was irrationalists crazy religious fanatics bent on world domination? Well what is it, are they crazy or are they rational? Flip flop flip flop.

Gibberish · 12-03-07, 05:42 PM

Iran might possibly be able to build a nuclear device some time in the next 30 years. We should invade now!

oldreliable67 · 12-03-07, 05:47 PM

Before y'all go running off at the mouth about Bush being wrong, as in the case of the Yahoo headline: "Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program," lets consider the timeline and some of the other statements in this report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

2003!!! Not 2007 not 2008 not 2006 , fracking 2003 and yet this year again we had the same bull**** drum roll for a possible military conflict with Iran. Wow another bull**** lie from this administration.

First, according to the Yahoo source, the NIE two years ago concluded that "[Iran was] determined to develop nuclear weapons."...This [new] NIE estimate concludes that "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."...It also said U.S. intelligence had "moderate confidence" that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons effort by mid-2007 but added that Tehran's intentions were unclear.

"Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," it said.

Moreover, according the NYT report,

Quote:

But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

[emphasis added]

To summarize, they shut it down due at least in part to the international pressure spearheaded by the US, but appear to be continuing to develop the capabilities needed to switch to a nuclear weapons program at some time in the future.

In a very strange twist, it seems to me that both Harry Reid and Stephen Hadley are at least partly correct in their statements following the release of the NIE.

Quote:

[Reid] portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” He said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy,” and called for a “a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.”

Which seems correct, IMO.

Hadley said,

Quote:

“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very 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,” Mr. Hadley said.

Which also seems correct, IMO, and is supported by the new NIE's concluded that "Tehran's suspension showed it was susceptible to international pressure."

Consequently, it seems too soon to conclude, as the Yahoo report headline proclaimed, that Bush was wrong. This administration, like every other administration before it, relies on the CIA for intelligence (ok, except for Cheney when he created his little intel dept in the DoD, but thats another thread).

The CIA said one thing in 2005, now, in 2007 it is concluding something different. A threat appears to remain, but it appears to be of a different magnitude and time frame than previously-lesser in its immediacy.

What we may never know with any certainty is how effective the Bush administration pushing for sanctions was in convincing Iran to pursue the course of actions described in this NIE. At the very least, even Bush critics will have to admit that the sanctions and other actions by the Bush administration may have played a significant role.

On the surface, one would have to conclude that this is a favorable, though still rather tenuous, development. Tenuous in the sense that the report is still pretty dependent on the CIA's assessment, and we know how good that was leading up to Iraq. Hopefully, more will become known in the coming days.

Links to the Yahoo report and the NYT report.

jfuh · 12-03-07, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldreliable67

Before y'all go running off at the mouth about Bush being wrong, as in the case of the Yahoo headline: "Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program," lets consider the timeline and some of the other statements in this report.

First, according to the Yahoo source, the NIE two years ago concluded that "[Iran was] determined to develop nuclear weapons."...This [new] NIE estimate concludes that "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."...It also said U.S. intelligence had "moderate confidence" that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons effort by mid-2007 but added that Tehran's intentions were unclear.

"Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," it said.

Moreover, according the NYT report,

[emphasis added]

To summarize, they shut it down due at least in part to the international pressure spearheaded by the US, but appear to be continuing to develop the capabilities needed to switch to a nuclear weapons program at some time in the future.

In a very strange twist, it seems to me that both Harry Reid and Stephen Hadley are at least partly correct in their statements following the release of the NIE.

Which seems correct, IMO.

Hadley said,

Which also seems correct, IMO, and is supported by the new NIE's concluded that "Tehran's suspension showed it was susceptible to international pressure."

Consequently, it seems too soon to conclude, as the Yahoo report headline proclaimed, that Bush was wrong. This administration, like every other administration before it, relies on the CIA for intelligence (ok, except for Cheney when he created his little intel dept in the DoD, but thats another thread).

The CIA said one thing in 2005, now, in 2007 it is concluding something different. A threat appears to remain, but it appears to be of a different magnitude and time frame than previously-lesser in its immediacy.

What we may never know with any certainty is how effective the Bush administration pushing for sanctions was in convincing Iran to pursue the course of actions described in this NIE. At the very least, even Bush critics will have to admit that the sanctions and other actions by the Bush administration may have played a significant role.

On the surface, one would have to conclude that this is a favorable, though still rather tenuous, development. Tenuous in the sense that the report is still pretty dependent on the CIA's assessment, and we know how good that was leading up to Iraq. Hopefully, more will become known in the coming days.

Links to the Yahoo report and the NYT report.

Actually this says very little if nothing at all other than re-affirming what I've said since post #1.

Quote:

This is what knee jerk reactionism gets you, absolutely nothing.

The same way that these guys were beating the drum towards Iraq is the same way they have been for the last year with Iran. In that the CIA assessment now is just as unreliable then by the same token then the best course of action is patience rather than making the statements towards the american public to score political points of "WWIII" or "Serious consequences" (ie the same serious consequences to Saddam).

waugeyman · 12-03-07, 07:26 PM

I noticed in the report that Iran quit in 2003, what happened in the ME in 2003?? Oh yeah we falsely invaded another country, and then said it was to defend the rights of the Iraqi people. Iran saw that and said "F" this lets quit while we're ahead. The United States is not the world police, so why do we continue to act like it??

VTA · 12-03-07, 07:44 PM

Politics, politics, politics...
There has been a lot more contact between the U.S. and Iran than has been admitted.

Watch for the changes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

oldreliable67 · 12-03-07, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Actually this says very little if nothing at all other than re-affirming what I've said since post #1.

Really? Fooled me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

another bull**** lie

All I see in your posts so far is knee-jerk reaction by a Bush hater who apparently didn't stop to read the articles in their entirety. Just pick out those parts that suit your Bush-hater agenda and go for it. No critical thought or analysis at all.

12-03-07, 02:53 PM	#2
PeteEU Sage Join Date: Mar 2006 Last Seen: Today 12:15 PM Location: Mijas, Costa del Sol Posts: 6,048 Thanks: 295 Thanked 1,508 Times in 1,045 Posts Lean: Centrist Gender:	Re: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work Its from a "liberal newsource" hence dismissed ... move on..
	__________________ PeteEU

12-03-07, 05:42 PM	#5
Gibberish Sage Join Date: Oct 2005 Last Seen: 03-17-10 08:43 PM Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 6,089 Thanks: 698 Thanked 1,167 Times in 782 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender:	Re: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work Iran might possibly be able to build a nuclear device some time in the next 30 years. We should invade now!
	__________________ When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

12-03-07, 07:26 PM	#8
waugeyman User Join Date: Nov 2007 Last Seen: 12-13-07 01:26 PM Location: VA Posts: 49 Thanks: 2 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Lean: Libertarian	Re: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work I noticed in the report that Iran quit in 2003, what happened in the ME in 2003?? Oh yeah we falsely invaded another country, and then said it was to defend the rights of the Iraqi people. Iran saw that and said "F" this lets quit while we're ahead. The United States is not the world police, so why do we continue to act like it??

12-03-07, 07:44 PM	#9
VTA Educator Join Date: Aug 2005 Last Seen: 03-13-10 04:38 PM Location: America Posts: 1,047 Thanks: 79 Thanked 164 Times in 123 Posts Gender:	Re: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work Politics, politics, politics... There has been a lot more contact between the U.S. and Iran than has been admitted. Watch for the changes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	__________________ -VTA

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