US Intelligence Agencies: Iran doesn't currently have a Nuclear Weapons Program

[Annie]

Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
you 'll catch on soon....

Yep, me too. I'll take the 'wrong' when I am. I'll even take being called a 'pin head', I do get miffed at pinhead and downright pissed at idiot.

 

[maineman]

Not a all....the talk was about the "warmongering" rhetoric over the past couple of years and now in light of the new NIE report, how its changed....for those that are not pinheads, I've tryed to show the cause of the so called "warmongering" rhetoric....and obviously it was because the NIE report of 2 years ago was quite different....
you 'll catch on soon....

I'll catch on? YOu don't even understand the lexicon, let alone the nuances of the subject matter.

SAME NIE? You clearly thought the NIE was an organization. what a moron.

 

[Psychoblues]

Have you heard the latest KKKarl Rove screed?

again.... the neocons always want to make a big deal out of the fact that democrats voted for the use of force resolution.

FACT: a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST it
the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support FOR it

Now, it seems, this bunch is trying desparately to blame the entire Iraqi fiasco on the Dems!!!!!!!!! Emagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alpha1]

I know that countless intelligence reports contradicted the opinion as espoused by the bush bunch, that significant international support beyond Tony Blair (not England) was not forthcoming, that the reports asserting Iraqi intent to obtain nuclear technology were known to be false even before the war and that even Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector, vehemently claimed to no avail that there were no wmd's in Iraq despite his dissatisfaction of a complete inspection as cut off by the international terrorists that were determined to got to WAR ON IRAQ.




Yeah, I'm acquainted with the facts, a1, and I suspect you only want to hear what you want to hear. That's ok. Our prez does much the same.

Thats our problem ... we just don't recognize Hans Blix as a greater authority than our own intell or Tony's intell. services....or numerous unanimously passed UN resolutions.....Blair and Bush and all the rest should check with Hans before making any important decisions ...and some of us actually thought the food for oil might have influenced their conclusions
Hey...WE were wrong, bottom line, I admit that....I just like to consider why and all the circumstances that had influence at that time in history
What was confirmed in 2005 or 2006 is irrelevant to decisions made in 2002 or 2003
---

 

[Alpha1]

I'll catch on? YOu don't even understand the lexicon, let alone the nuances of the subject matter.

SAME NIE? You clearly thought the NIE was an organization. what a moron.

If thats what gets you off sailor, have a ball....I don't feel like playing your childish games now....I'm conversing with someone with brain right now....

 

[Alpha1]

Have you heard the latest KKKarl Rove screed?





Now, it seems, this bunch is trying desparately to blame the entire Iraqi fiasco on the Dems!!!!!!!!! Emagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you obvioulsy didn't understand my post of some time ago....

What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....

Intell from almost every western country,
along with UN resolutions,
including many noteworthy Democrats(their votes and quotes)
the reaction to the intell was wrong.(Obviously the reaction was Bush's doing)

Theres enough blame for a whole lot of folks...honest people recognize that .....nobody comes off clean in this......takes almost any one of these factors away and maybe, just maybe the invasion wouldn't have taken place....

 

[Annie]

So will you now disavow your many posts, claiming that iran is building a bomb, and is a mere year of two from making a bomb?


I'm glad you agree with me now, that sanctions and international pressure are the way to go.

A few posts ago I wondered at the timing and who made the report known. I don't think it's a bad thing, just interesting is all. While trying to catch up on reading before going to bed, I ran across this and think you might find some of it interesting perhaps. There's links to every mention, some of whom you may respect, some maybe not? Anyhow:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/012462.php

December 03, 2007

WELL, THAT'S CONVENIENT: "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."

But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?

UPDATE: I just got an email with this story under the subject line "Your Zionist lies exposed." But actually I think that's a mistaken take, because I don't think this story cuts that way at all. This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq -- meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat -- and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it's pretty obvious. . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Dan Riehl isn't comforted: "I don't find it the least bit reassuring. I can't get too excited about the NIE given the recent bombing of what's now being called a nuclear bomb factory in Syria. If those reports are accurate, it would make sense for Iran to be doing a rope-a-dope with facilities such as Natanz." Yes, given the consistent unreliability of the "intelligence community" on these matters, alarmism might be more comforting than the reverse. Note, however, that while we can't know -- no one this side of Tehran can -- whether the report is accurate, I think the Bush Administration's decision to publicize it tells us something about what the Bush Administration thinks, as noted above.

And some related thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson: "After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war-aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region-might have been the elimination for some time of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?" Yet that seems plausible, now.

MORE: Further thoughts from Norman Podhoretz: "These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program."

STILL MORE: Uh oh: "If these appalling imbeciles say that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, then I say it's time to go long on bomb shelters." Hard to argue . . .

And Tom Maguire -- after a close analysis worth reading in full -- sees a Hillary angle: "And does it defuse criticism of Hillary's controversial support of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization? If we have no basis for war then we don't need to worry that Hillary has given some support for it." Lucky for Hillary that the Bush Administration released this just as she got into primary trouble. . . .

Meanwhile, Shannon Love makes sense: "My cursory reading of the report suggest that Iran has just moth balled its nuke project and can restart it in short order once the heat is off. For conspiracy theorist I would point out that a lot of that heat comes from credible saber rattling and having two armies parked on either side of Iran. Keeping the pressure on Iran is exactly the right thing to do. I suspect they are waiting for a change in the winds like a democrat President or a shift in European leaders to a more pacifistic stance. They only need a window of year or two of dithering to make their nukes a fait accompli."

FINALLY: A clueless reader emails to accuse me of shilling for Bush. But, you see, the post above, read properly, suggests that the decision to release this report was politically motivated. That's not shilling. Er, unless you're clueless. Jeez.
posted at 02:46 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Chips Rafferty]

A few posts ago I wondered at the timing and who made the report known. I don't think it's a bad thing, just interesting is all. While trying to catch up on reading before going to bed, I ran across this and think you might find some of it interesting perhaps. There's links to every mention, some of whom you may respect, some maybe not? Anyhow:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/012462.php

This intelligence expose is the equivalent of the Gestapo admitting the atheistic Communists* didn't burn down the Reichstag on the eve of the invasion of Poland.

Yet still the Amerinazis here keep trying to spin a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

Face it, Gladys. Those in the know just torpedoed the megalomaniac pipe-dream of your self-appointed demigod and dear leader, Ol' Yella.

*peculiar how Nazis and Amerihristians execrate Communists, isn't it? Anyone would think they both came from the same Biblical stable!

 

[JeffWartman]

While they still ignore the fact that a mere 2 years ago (that would be 2005) this same NIE said Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
I repeat.....

SOOOooo...whats you point ? Besides the top of their heads...

Why do you believe it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. yet ignore the nuclear capabilities of countries like Pakistan and rouge former Soviet states?

 

[Psychoblues]

Oh, I understood it alright.

Then you obvioulsy didn't understand my post of some time ago....

What I said is exactly the truth....Intell from almost every western country, along with UN resolutions, including many noteworthy Democrats that can be quoted, from the middle 1990's up to 2003 warned about the danger of Saddam and WMD....

thats the fact of the matter....the Dems even helped in a big way to give Bush the authority to remove Saddam and find those imaginary WMD.....
You may deny that or rationalize those truths from now until doomsday, but thats the way it was....if you lived through it, then you should know. But those re-writing history will not change what I lived through....
I heard with my very own ears the Dems go on and on about Saddam during the Clinton years and then they continued when Bush took over...no, they never uttered the word invasion, but that doesn't excuse their complicity in the events that insued.....
The intell was wrong and the reaction to the intell was wrong.....

Intell from almost every western country,
along with UN resolutions,
including many noteworthy Democrats(their votes and quotes)
the reaction to the intell was wrong.(Obviously the reaction was Bush's doing)

Theres enough blame for a whole lot of folks...honest people recognize that .....nobody comes off clean in this......takes almost any one of these factors away and maybe, just maybe the invasion wouldn't have taken place....

And I gave it all the consideration it deserved.

 

[Gunny]

But you don't get that. All you get is what whoever happens to be the leader decides to show you...or asks for your trust. Would you advocate invading Iran if the same amount of evidence that we recieved regarding Iraq was put onto the table by the same administration? My worry is that a large amount of people would say yes, and I find that foolish. We need to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.

Wrong. The person who makes the decision has access to any and all intel available. You put me in that person's position -- decision maker.

Since Iraq was not invaded solely over the issue of WMDs, and you are disucussing invading Iran solely over the issue of nuclear weapons, I do not make the correlation beyond the word "invasion."

In the position of decision maker, I have said on many occasion I would not have chosen to invade Iraq when we did. So obviously, given the EXACT SAME list of reasons for invading Iran as given for Iraq, I would not choose to invade.

Change those reasons in any way and it becomes an open question again.

 

[Gunny]

That is open for some debate.



The context was in a discussion about invading Iran. You didn't say no we shouldn't, you said you have no problem with shooting dead rattlesnakes. That seems to imply a willingness to use force to me.



So your statement before where my "obvious interpretation" apparently meant that I was stupid, in fact included a willingess to use force?



No, not really. It depends entirely on what that end is. If the US uses violence as a last resort to remove Chavez from power, I would consider that warmongering.

You're fishing. "Warmongering" has a specific definition. The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition. I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.

Bad form. Thought YOU were the literalist?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're fishing. "Warmongering" has a specific definition. The willingness to use force if and when necessary does not fit that definition. I note you have chosen to mix and match "use of force" and "warmongering" above as you see fit.

Bad form. Thought YOU were the literalist?

He is a player with words. He is free to do all he wants while decrying anyone else doing the same. That is a basic tenant of Liberal thought now adays. Being our intellectual superiors they are free to do as they wish while demanding we do as they say not as they do.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Spot on:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here.

An administration that had cited Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.

The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion — that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses — will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/w...cf89a37edfb9e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Yet again - like with Iraq - not all of us were wrong about Iran.

Many of us questioned why Bush and his supporters were rattling their sabers for war again. Many of us asked where the evidence of a nuclear weapons program was, and what was the rush to bomb them. Many of us said that the prudent option was aggresive diplomacy, and we didn't see an immediate need to go bombing a country without evidence of an imminent threat.

In short, many of us don't believe a word bush or his supporters say with regard to national security, Iraq, or Iran. And for good reason, given the conclusions and findings of the NIE and IAEA.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Cheney fought like hell to keep the NIE from coming out, even though it was basically done 6 months ago...because he evidently knew it would undercut the rush to bomb Iran that BushCo. and their supporters had been salivating for.

The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued.

So why did the NIE come out today? Scott Horton hears from his contacts that the administration push to war was overwhelmed by the objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and Israel to the Bush plans for carrying out an air war against Iran. We know the administration doesn't give a damn about the opinion of intelligence community or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so perhaps it was the Israeli objection that finally made them realize they couldn't pull off their next war?

How does the NIE stack up next to the highly dramatized contentions made about the Iranian nuclear “threat” in connection with the roll-out to support a pre-emptive air strike on Iran? The key contention is that Iran is now aggressively trying to make nuclear weapons. The NIE rejects this, “with high confidence.” The next suggestion is that production of nuclear weapons by Iran is on an immediate horizon, within hailing distance of the end of the Bush Administration. Again, the NIE says this is hooey.

The NIE is not saying that analysts are not concerned about Iran’s nuclear aspirations. But it is saying that the threat continues to be out there on a more remote timeline. And that means, to cut to the quick, that a massive aerial strike against Iran before the end of the President’s term can no longer be justified on the basis of the threat emanating from the Iranian nuclear program. There’s still time for diplomacy. In fact, it says that earlier diplomatic efforts did bear fruit.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001837

 

[onedomino]

I wonder why a country that is not developing nuclear weapons refuses to cooperate with the IAEA. I wonder why such a country risks attack over the failure to cooperate. Why does such a country suffer sanctions over failure to cooperate? Surely, it must be because they have nothing to hide. No doubt that is why they bury some of their nuclear facilities deep underground. Everyone knows that deep underground is the best place to make civilian energy. I wonder why Iran would not do a deal with Russia for enriched uranium supply. Why would a country pay billions extra to buy centrifuges, other equipment, and build facilities to be able to enrich uranium themselves? It must be because they had extra money lying around. Anyone, including those who put together the NIE, that do not think that Iran wants nuclear weapons, is wrong. Iran is encircled by the US: with bases in former Soviet republics, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf. The Mullahs are worried that they are next. If not now, then somewhere down the road. The Mullahs have good reason to be afraid. Iran is surrounded by a country and military that would like to see its leadership gone. And that includes many Democrats. Iran knows, despite the phony bluster, that it has zero chance against the American military. Iran’s only chance in a military confrontation with America is deterrence, i.e., the credible threat of the first use of nuclear weapons. That, in the final analysis, is the only thing that can guarantee the survival of the Mullahs. Regardless of what the NIE says (and the report does specify that it knows nothing of Iranian intentions), it is illogical to assert that the Mullahs do not want nuclear weapons. It is well known that the Mullahs want a security guarantee from the US. They want the existence of their regime enshrined as inviolate. That will not happen.

 

[Shogun]

it BUUUUUUUUUUURNNSSSS!


the PAAAAIN!


hehehehehehehe...


I tellya.. this has GOT to be one giant pebble in the shoe of jpost readers who thought they were on the verge of sending in their attack dog.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I wonder why a country that is not developing nuclear weapons refuses to cooperate with the IAEA. I wonder why such a country risks attack over the failure to cooperate. Why does such a country suffer sanctions over failure to cooperate? Surely, it must be because they have nothing to hide. No doubt that is why they bury some of their nuclear facilities deep underground. Everyone knows that deep underground is the best place to make civilian energy. I wonder why Iran would not do a deal with Russia for enriched uranium supply. Why would a country pay billions extra to buy centrifuges, other equipment, and build facilities to be able to enrich uranium themselves? It must be because they had extra money lying around. Anyone, including those who put together the NIE, that do not think that Iran wants nuclear weapons, is wrong. Iran is encircled by the US: with bases in former Soviet republics, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the Persian Gulf. The Mullahs are worried that they are next. If not now, then somewhere down the road. The Mullahs have good reason to be afraid. Iran is surrounded by a country and military that would like to see its leadership gone. And that includes many Democrats. Iran knows, despite the phony bluster, that it has zero chance against the American military. Iran’s only chance in a military confrontation with America is deterrence, i.e., the credible threat of the first use of nuclear weapons. That, in the final analysis, is the only thing that can guarantee the survival of the Mullahs. Regardless of what the NIE says (and the report does specify that it knows nothing of Iranian intentions), it is illogical to assert that the Mullahs do not want nuclear weapons. It is well known that the Mullahs want a security guarantee from the US. They want the existence of their regime enshrined as inviolate. That will not happen.

And right on cue, here was have Bush loving message board posters asking us to trust their "gut feelings", rather that the collective assessments of the american intelligence community, and the IAEA.

Bottom line: You and your president totally exaggerated the threat from iran. Totally. Now, you have egg on your face, and are asking us to trust your "feelings" about iran.

No, Iran is not a shining example of being forthcoming about its nuclear activities. Neither, for that matter, has our good ally Pakistan. But, the fact is that the Iranian "problem" is exaggerated, and they are nowhere close to having a nuke, even assuming that they restart the nucelar weapons research.

 

[Shogun]

jeez...


it's kinda like we were able to dodge the bullet that the 03 conservatives used to take us to war over similarly phantom gut feelings..

 

[Shogun]

'US report should not deter world'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546799748&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

SHOCKER