Are the US intelligence agencies repeating the same mistakes they made before the Iraq war? But instead of overstating the threat of WMD's like they did to back up President Bush's drive to war in Iraq they are now understating Iran's nuclear threat? Many times the news we get from the government supports the administrations position on things. Since Obama is seeking re-election and knows that any conflict in the gulf would raise oil prices substantially and threaten the economy it is in his interest not to do anything till next year. It appears that is his plan, to down play Iran's threat this year and try to reign in Israel at the same time.
There is also news that Iran may have partnered with North Korea to test nuclear weapons designs. Spengler » Did Iran Test a Nuclear Bomb in North Korea in 2010?
The Koreans in their own publicized tests used plutonium while the 2 secret tests used enriched uranium which gives an indication the secret tests were conducted for someone else.
But the German analyst is making a point that has been lost in the fog of spin in Washington: It is outrageously wrong to proceed against an opponent like Iran in the presumption that intelligence agencies can accurately assess the precise degree of progress towards a nuclear device so that the U.S. government can fine-tune a response. Yet that is precisely what President Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg on March 2nd: “Our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.”
No intelligence professional could support that sweeping, and entirely indefensible, assertion from the president. American intelligence failures regarding nuclear weapons proliferation have been numerous and notorious. The CIA famously failed to give any advance warning of India’s first nuclear test, and was raked over the coals for this lapse at the time. Jeffrey Goldberg’s failure to challenge Obama’s statement turned the exchange into a public relations exercise rather than a news interview. A cub reporter for a college newspaper would have known enough to ask, “How can you be sure that we will detect an Iranian nuclear bomb before it’s ready? What’s our track record of detecting nuclear bombs elsewhere?”
When intelligence agencies use the term “evidence,” what they mean is incontrovertible proof. “Hard evidence” of Iranian nuclear intentions in intel-speak, as Rühle points out, means specifically that a nuclear test already has been conducted. When intelligence officials use this terminology, they are saying in plain English that their political masters are giving Iran the presumption of innocence, as Rühle wrote. The intelligence chiefs did not say that there was no “information” and no “reliable reports” that Iran is trying to get hold of nuclear weapons as fast as it possibly can, only that there is no “hard evidence.” By definition, one obtains this kind of “hard evidence” only when it is too late.
Can we really rely on our intelligence agencies? Do they feel that after Iraq and the failure there that they cannot say anything without an nuclear explosion? Is that the proof they need?
Certainly Iran probably does not have the uranium needed for a bomb at present ... unless the North Korean's sold them some, which is possible. Enough for 4 or 5 bombs maybe? Hopefully not, because if they did and Israel did attack ....