# U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb; but W says they're still a threat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2007, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795 "2007-12-04T17:38:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/181 "2007-12-06T16:56:11Z")
Let’s step back a moment and look at the forest, instead of staring at the trees. I think most of us can agree that military action against Iran would be a bad idea, whether they planned to make a bomb or not. So, strategically, I don’t really care whether they have a weapons program or not. The goal of the US and our European allies is to get them to stop enriching uranium. Bomb or no bomb. And it’s not a simple dichotomy-- are they making a bomb or not making a bomb. Uranium enrichment is part of the bomb making process. It’s the most difficult and time consuming part of that process, and it wouldn’t be that hard for the Iranians to start up a weapons program any time they want. This report might change some of the tactics we use and how we use them, but it doesn’t alter the long term view we should be taking in Iran. And, we should prepare ourselves for a time when Iran does have nukes, because there is a good possibility that will happen, regardless of our efforts. The report also makes it clear that there isn’t any immediate threat, since we’re talking five year timeframe (more or less) if they decided to restart their weapons program today. So, we continue working with the Europeans, keep the pressure on the Iranians, but don’t try to back an angry dog into a corner. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/182 "2007-12-06T17:15:30Z")
Of course it is a bad idea to launch a war against Iran, bomb or not. And of course with enrichment capability they could restart a weapons program at any time they want. As I have said elsewhere, we should adopt a defensive stance and not be convinced of Iran’s intentions unless and until they make substantives move towards peace. All that is important. But it is equally important not to distort intelligence findings just because it makes the case stronger. Otherwise, people have no leg to stand on when another neocon-esque administration distorts intelligence findings because it makes _their_ case stronger. Conducting a debate honestly is _important_. When glutton makes a claim that the Marines killed by Hezbollah in '83 weren’t noncombatants, and then it’s proven that they were noncoms and he not only doesn’t retract his mistake, but ignores it, that is not conducive to fighting ignorance. Especially twhen hat mistake, along with a complex of others, is used to support a political position. When someone says “America, America, America” and the response is “ah-hah you quisling, you’re really talking about Israel!” and others chime in with “ah-hah! Those dost protest too much when someone first calls you a quisling!” that does _not_ serve the cause of fighting ignorance. An unfortunate side effect of more than half a decade of Bush being in power, and full of shit, seems to have been not only the utter polarization of the discussion but the descent of the debate to same level of discussion and the same tactics that Bush used. If in 2004 everybody can agree that the OSP spinning caveats and probabilities and possibilities into definites in order to support a political position is wrong, when then in 2007 does it become right? So agreeing that we shouldn’t launch a war against Iran is _fine_. But doing so based on dishonesty makes a mockery of this board’s mission. This is supposed to be a place where we cleave to the truth, where we fight ignorance. It’s not just any old message board. And that distinction is important. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/183 "2007-12-06T17:59:09Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] When glutton makes a claim that the Marines killed by Hezbollah in '83 weren’t noncombatants, and then it’s proven that they were noncoms and he not only doesn’t retract his mistake, but ignores it, that is not conducive to fighting ignorance. [/QUOTE] I hesitate to intrude on this discussion for obvious reasons. But on this very minor point I think I’d have to agree that combat troops can never be classed as non-combatants pretty much by definition. Non-combatants are either civilians or non-combat military like medical personnel. I’m afraid armed peacekeepers do not fall into that category. Regardless violence had already been escalating ( or rather re-escalating ) in Lebanon for months. The multinational force had gradually gotten drawn into operations against Druze forces in the Chouf on behalf of the government of Bashir Gemayel. The marines and the Druze ( among others ) had already been engaged in mutual artillery duels, with deaths on both sides. By the time the barracks bombing occurred, I would expect it is fair to say that the _Lebanese_ at least, both those aligned with the U.S. and those opposed, probably regarded the marines as combatants. A timeline, sans the ( internal Lebanese ) political maneouverings that led to some of the fighting: > **[HyperWar: US Marines in Lebanon, 1982-1984 \[Appendix A\]](http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-A.html)** > > 'US Marines in Lebanon, 1982-1984' \[Appendix A\] ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/184 "2007-12-06T18:10:28Z")
[QUOTE=Tamerlane] I hesitate to intrude on this discussion for obvious reasons. But on this very minor point I think I’d have to agree that combat troops can never be classed as non-combatants pretty much by definition. Non-combatants are either civilians or non-combat military like medical personnel. I’m afraid armed peacekeepers do not fall into that category. [/QUOTE] I think the term “non-combatants” is a bit problematic here. Are policemen non-combatants? If someone blows up a police station, is that an act of terrorism? Peacekeeping forces are more like policemen than military. Having said that, any peacekeeping operation is going to be placed in a militarily volatile zone (otherwise they wouldn’t be needed), and foreign military personnel in any given country are going to be targets of whatever faction or factions are dissatisfied with the status quo. Whether you want to slap the label “terrorism” on what happened in Lebanon is perhaps debatable (per the legal finding in that link). Still, I see it as a different kind of act than the 9/11 attacks or the OK City bombing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/185 "2007-12-06T18:17:24Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] … But doing so based on dishonesty makes a mockery of this board’s mission. This is supposed to be a place where we cleave to the truth, where we fight ignorance. It’s not just any old message board. And that distinction is important. [/QUOTE] If a Doper’s (alleged, _relentlessly_ alleged) dishonesty is the issue, isn’t that something more appropriate for The Pit? Where, I have no doubt, a warm reception would await you. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/186 "2007-12-06T18:17:46Z")
There’s a big difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Go back and watch the movie Hotel Rwanda and watch how the Canadian colonel who headed the UN peacekeeping mission there served in a military uniform and had virtually no authority to use force. There’s a fine example of someone in the military who, IMHO, should not be considered a combatant. In fact, the UN has established a convention that specifically protects peacekeepers from being considered legitimate targets of war: [link.](http://www.un.org/law/cod/safety.htm) Were the Marines in Beiruit non-combatants? Honestly I do not know enough of the mission to say. But I don’t believe that military uniform always equals combatant. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/187 "2007-12-06T19:51:28Z")
More info, from the same link on the role of this Marine unit, in specific. > [@](#): > > The rules of engagement issued to the servicemen of the 24th MAU made clear that the servicemen possessed neither combatant nor police powers. In fact, > under the rules, the servicemen were ordered not to carry weapons with live rounds in their chambers, and were not authorized to chamber the rounds in their weapons unless (1) they were directly ordered to do so by a commissioned officer or (2) they found themselves in a situation 4 requiring the immediate use of deadly force in self-defense. As pointed out during trial, the members of the 24th MAU were more restricted in their use of force than an ordinary U.S. citizen walking down a street in Washington, D.C. > [@](#): > > The restrictive rules of engagement are consistent with the testimony of Col. Timothy Geraghty, the commander of the 24th MAU, about the mission of the multinational peacekeeping force: > > ["][E]ssentially what it was, it was primarily a peacekeeping mission and it was to show [our] presence, and when I say ours, and this is throughout all the forces, is that we were out showing a presence, [primarily] to provide stability to the area. And I might add that there’s no doubt in just about anyone involved at the time, we saved a lot of lives by our presence there for awhile. And that was part of, I might add, in my judgment, the success of that, our presence mission there, and [that] it was working is the primary reason why we were targeted. . . . > > The rules – these were geared primarily again with the peacekeeping mission [in > mind] and the sensitivities of killing or maiming someone accidentally. That could be a tinderbox. That could start a whole chain of events.["] > > Col. Geraghty further testified that the location and security of the 24th MAU’s position was not tactical in nature, and was only acceptable to the commanding officer in the context of the unit’s mission to “provide a presence.” Moreover, that was a tangent (although an important factual distinction). The important issue was that the Marine Barracks Bombing, like the Khobar Towers Bombing, represented times when Iran gave direct orders to Hezbollah to kill Americans. And, as such, that Iran’s continued for support represents non-benign intentions. > [@](#): > > The complicity of Iran in the 1983 attack was established conclusively at trial by the testimony of Admiral James A. Lyons, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operation from 1983-85. As deputy chief, Admiral Lyons routinely received intelligence information about American military forces. On October 25, 1983, the chief of naval intelligence notified Admiral Lyons of an intercept of a message between Tehran and Damascus that had been made on or about September 26, 1983. The message had been sent from MOIS to the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, who presently serves as an adviser to 12 the president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami. The message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal, and to instruct him to have his group instigate attacks against the multinational coalition in Lebanon, and “to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines.” Admiral Lyons testified that he has absolutely no doubt of the authenticity or reliability of the message, which he took immediately to the secretary of the navy and chief of naval operations, who viewed it, as he did, as a “24 karat gold document. " > > Although it is not presently known whether Ambassador Mohtashemi contacted Musawi, evidence was presented at trial that Mohtashemi did proceed to contact a member of the Iranian 14 Revolutionary Guard (“IRG”), and instructed him to instigate the Marine barracks bombing. The Court heard the videotaped deposition testimony of a Hezbollah member known by the pseudonym “Mahmoud,” who was a member of the group that carried out the October 23 [15] attack. Mahmoud, a Lebanese Shi’ite Muslim, testified that Ambassador Mohtashemi contacted a man named Kanani, the leader of the Lebanese headquarters of the IRG. Mohtashemi instructed Kanani to go forward with attacks that had been planned against the 24th [16] MAU and the French paratroopers. Mahmoud testified that a meeting was later held in Baalbek, Lebanon, which was attended by Kanani and Sheik Sobhi Tufaili, Sheik Abbas 17 Musawi, and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah is the present leader of Hezbollah. Musawi, Nasrallah’s immediate predecessor as the leader of Hezbollah, was killed in a February 16, 1992 [18] [19] Israeli attack. Tufaili is a former secretary general of Hezbollah. > [@](#): > > Defenbaugh explained that when the commercially-manufactured form of PETN is detonated, it is completely consumed in the ensuing explosion. The presence of unconsumed particles of PETN at the Marine barracks blast site, therefore, indicated that the PETN used in the bomb had not been the standard commercially-available form of the explosive. Instead, it had been the raw “bulk form” of PETN, which is not generally sold commercially. In the Middle East, the bulk form of PETN is produced by state-sponsored manufacturers for military purposes. In 1983, bulk form PETN was not manufactured in the nation of Lebanon. However, at that time, bulk form PETN was manufactured within the borders of Iran. > > Warren Parker, who served as an explosives expert with the Army and the ATF for forty years, testified that the effectiveness of the attack demonstrated that it had been the result of 22 careful planning. Parker also concluded, based on the degree of planning and sophistication that went into the attack, that a group of individuals without specialized training in explosives could not have carried it out: > > Q: Mr. Parker, in your opinion, within a reasonable degree of certainty as an expert in explosives, could this bombing have been successfully carried out by a group of individuals with limited education, possessing minimal literacy and no specialized training in explosives? > > A: No, sir. > > Q: And what do you base that opinion on? > > A: The degree of planning, the degree of sophistication of this bombing. . . . The fact that it was a significant amount of a military-type explosive. These are not things that you just go down to the drugstore and buy a pound of, these are not things [for which] you buy innocuous materials and manufacture in your backyard. PETN is manufactured in factories that have specialized tools and equipment and knowledge. I think that I will concur with Mr. Defenbaugh’s conclusion that it is a state- or military-run factory that produces this type of material, and I think the fact that it was carried out so successfully and not bungled really enhances the fact that somebody had practiced this before. . . . ] > [@](#): > > Based on the evidence presented by the expert witnesses at trial, the Court finds that it is beyond question that Hezbollah and its agents received massive material and technical support from the Iranian government. The sophistication demonstrated in the placement of an explosive charge in the center of the Marine barracks building and the devastating effect of the detonation of the charge indicates that it is highly unlikely that this attack could have resulted in such loss of life without the assistance of regular military forces, such as those of Iran. And, on the Khobar Towers Bombing, as already quoted in this thread: > [@](#): > > 1. The terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers was approved by Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme leader of Iran at the time. It was also approved and supported by the Iranian Minister of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”) at the time, Ali Fallahian, who was involved in providing intelligence security support for the operation. Fallahian’s representative in Damascus, a man named Nurani, also provided support for the operation. Id. > > 2. Under Louis Freeh, the FBI conducted a massive and thorough investigation of the attack, using over 250 agents. Id. > > 3. Based on that investigation, an Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury returned an indictment on June 21, 2001, against 13 identified members of the pro-Iran Saudi Hezballah organization. The indictment’s description of the plot to bomb the Khobar Towers complex frequently refers to direction and assistance from Iranian government officials. Id. > > 4. In addition, as a result of this investigation, the FBI also obtained a great deal of information linking the defendants to the bombing from interviews with six admitted members of the Saudi Hezbollah organization, who were arrested by the Saudis shortly after the bombing. Id. at 11-30. These six individuals admitted to the FBI their complicity in the attack on the Khobar Towers, and admitted that senior officials in theIranian government provided them with funding, planning, training, sponsorship, and travel necessary to carry out the attack on the Khobar Towers. (Exh. 7 at 11, 13-14, 27; see also Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 24-30.) The six individuals also indicated that the selection of the target and the authorization to proceed was done collectively by Iran, MOIS, and IRGC, though the actual preparation and carrying out of the attack was done by the IRGC. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 25.) > > 5. According to Director Freeh. the FBI obtained specific information from the six about how each was recruited and trained by the Iranian government in Iran and Lebanon, and how weapons were smuggled into Saudi Arabia from Iran through Syria and Jordan. One individual described in detail a meeting about the attack at which senior Iranian officials, including members of the MOIS and IRGC, were present. (Dec. 18, 2003 Tr. at 23.) Several stated that IRGC directed, assisted, and oversaw the surveillance of the Khobar Towers site, and that thesesurveillance reports were sent to IRGC officials for their review. Another told the FBI that IRGC gave the six individuals a large amount of money for the specific purpose of planning and executing the Khobar Towers bombing. > > 6. Louis Freeh has publicly and unequivocally stated his firm conclusion, based on evidence gathered by the FBI during their five-year investigation, that Iran was responsible for planning and supporting the Khobar Towers attack. The point, I would argue, is not whether or not we’re going to classify these as terrorism or not. The point is that, simply, even without a nuclear weapon Iranian support of Hezbollah remains a threat to America and that their proven track record of directing Hezbollah to attack specific American targets should be cause for prudent concern over their intentions in continuing to fund, arm, train and given safe haven to Hezbollah. That Hezbollah also attacks other targets, even primarily focuses on other targets, do not change that they have a history of being ordered by Iran to attack Americans. _That_ is the important issue, saying that Iranian support for Hezbollah has nothing to do with America or that Iran has not attacked the United States is false. Equally false is that, realizing and recognizing that fact, instead of ignoring or denying it, automatically leads to war. If we cannot conduct an honest discussion of the issues for fear that honesty will lead to war, then we have a serious problem. As I have stated, my position is that as long as Iran continues to arm, finance, train and give safe haven to Hezbollah, we should remain wary of their intentions. And that we should adopt a _defensive_ posture. War is not a guaranteed consequence of correctly noting the truth or the facts. Our response to the truth, and to the facts, is our own to make. When we reach the point that we have to pretend the truth isn’t true and that the facts aren’t facts, because we’re afraid of what some people will do with the truth and with the facts, then we’re abandoned any claim to any moral high ground or an honest appraisal of the situation. Wanting to prevent war with Iran is a perfectly noble and laudable goal. But not if it’s accomplished through such methods. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/188 "2007-12-06T21:16:12Z")
I think we should not mistake a horsefly for a dragon. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/189 "2007-12-06T21:19:37Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] I think we should not mistake a horsefly for a dragon. [/QUOTE] Or a dragonfly for a horse. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/190 "2007-12-06T22:46:10Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] The point, I would argue, is not whether or not we’re going to classify these as terrorism or not. The point is that, simply, even without a nuclear weapon Iranian support of Hezbollah remains a threat to America and that their proven track record of directing Hezbollah to attack specific American targets should be cause for prudent concern over their intentions in continuing to fund, arm, train and given safe haven to Hezbollah. That Hezbollah also attacks other targets, even primarily focuses on other targets, do not change that they have a history of being ordered by Iran to attack Americans. [/QUOTE] I think this is the only truly important bit of flotsam amid the deluge. You argue that Iran remains “a threat to America” due to the Marine barracks and Khobar Towers bombings. Hezbollah takes orders from Iran, Hezbollah attacks Americans, ergo Iran is a threat to America. It is not at all clear why this should be the case. The strategic objective of both attacks was to remove the US military presence from the affected area. In both cases, Hezbollah was successful and America withdrew. The attacks ceased. In fact, Hezbollah has a track record of success in driving democracies to yield territorial concessions. If anything is going to be a “threat to America”, it is our continued military presence in a region where we know nothing and are clearly unwanted. You might find this [paper](http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf) by Robert Pape interesting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2007, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/191 "2007-12-06T22:49:30Z")
[QUOTE=Maeglin] I think this is the only truly important bit of flotsam amid the deluge… [/QUOTE] The flotsam left in **FinnAgains** wake? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/192 "2007-12-07T00:47:07Z")
Too bad the NIE did not say that the case for Iran’s abandoning its nuclear weapons program was a slam dunk. Then we could rely on it! Regards, Shodan PS - **FinnAgain** , I want to bear your child. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/193 "2007-12-07T02:03:43Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] …PS - **FinnAgain** , I want to bear your child. [/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with coming out out the closet – quite the opposite really – but how do you think that post makes King George feel after all these years of your unrequited indulgence? Betrayed and scorned would be my guess. Then again, who am I to get between a lover’s quarrel amongst people I’ve never met? Clearly none of my business. And I rather hope it stays that way… …meanwhile, in The Real World: [**What Did Bush Know on Iran, and When Did He Know It?**](http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/5/what_did_bush_know_on_iran) > [@](#): > > **AMY GOODMAN** : Now, what about the director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell? Bush saying this in the news conference yesterday, that he told him in the summer, in July, that he had some new information, but not being briefed until last week—the question of why President Bush wouldn’t press him further, considering he was talking about war with Iran. _How credible is it that Bush only knew last week_, despite the fact that he, McConnell, had alerted him as early as July? > > **GARETH PORTER** : _I think that’s absolutely incredible. And certainly, we cannot have any doubt at all that Dick Cheney was fully briefed, fully informed on the progress of the NIE at every stage_. We know that Cheney’s staff is constantly keeping in touch with the intelligence community, following the current progress on the NIE, whatever it might be at that stage, and indeed trying to influence it. So the only question really is whether Cheney tried to keep Bush in the dark. That is conceivable, but certainly not very likely. Highlights obviously mine. Night, kids. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/194 "2007-12-07T02:25:19Z")
I’m sorry, **Red** , but I don’t see how this has any relevence to the issue, i.e., what a scoundrel **BrainGlutton** is. Do try and keep up, won’t you? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/195 "2007-12-07T06:51:25Z")
[QUOTE=Maeglin] I think this is the only truly important bit of flotsam amid the deluge. [/quote] You mean, for instance, other than proving that claims like “Iran has never attacked America” or “Iran has not engaged in military aggression” or “Iran hasn’t had Hezbollah attack America since the Marine Barracks Bombing” , made here and in other threads, are all untrue? I think that keeping the debate honest is important, even if most of what I prove may be handwaved away or ignored by some. I’m not even going to begin to elaborate on how the NIE’s report, which many are now championing, states, _with a higher degree of confidence than that Iran’s nuclear weapons program remains suspended_, that they _had an active nuclear weapons program_ until fall 2003. I’m not exactly waiting on pins and needles for those who are saying that the report says “Iran does **not** have an ongoing nuclear weapons program” to also say “Gee, by the same logic, if I said, back in 2002 or some of 2003, that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, I was wrong. Iran really was working on nuclear weapons just a few years ago.” Much like how I’m not exactly expecting a retraction of the claim that Iran stopped “seeking rapprochement” after the Axis of Evil speech. I don’t expect some people to acknowledge and correct factual errors in their claims. I don’t have any faith that some of the people putting forward arguments in this thread are arguing with sufficient intellectual honesty to admit when they say things that are not true. But I do have great faith in the peanut gallery. And so I certainly feel that keeping this debate honest is important. Anyways, more ‘deluge’. [QUOTE=Maeglin] You argue that Iran remains “a threat to America” due to the Marine barracks and Khobar Towers bombings. Hezbollah takes orders from Iran, Hezbollah attacks Americans, ergo Iran is a threat to America. [/quote] No, to the first sentence, as it is a drastic oversimplification of what I have actually said and it ignores most the points I have made, and it is an oversimplification which focuses on the fact that I used two examples to illustrate a point as if those two examples _were_ the point. I never said, anywhere, that Iran was a threat “due to” the Marine and Khobar bombings. Merely that they help illustrate _why_ Iranian support for Hezbollah is a threat. ‘Kinda’ to the second, sorta. I have argued that Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah represents a pattern, that Iran has not distanced themselves from them, has in fact continued to support them, even during times when they were attacking American civilians, and that as such they represent a threat. Direct control or orders are not necessary for Iran to threaten American lives by supporting Hezbollah. Hezbollah represents a threat to America both because Iran may direct it to such ends, and because its leadership has clearly stated that they are enemies of America. When Nashrallah declared, in 2002: " Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: death to America."… it’s obviously not limited to troops. Now, no matter how you slice that (mere ‘saber rattling’) or not, that’s a threat. A nation that supports a group like that, continually, with weapons, training, finances and safe haven, obviously isn’t too interested in opposing such threats. More to the point, a state that continually supports a group like that can only be seen to endorse such threats. Never mind, of course, Iran’s own Death to America military parades. Something that, of course, some posters in this very thread will most likely perform semantic gymnastics to avoid calling a threat. (But I’m sure if Bush said that our official policy was “Death to Iran”, they’d say he was a warmonger, threatening Iran, yadda yadda yadda) [QUOTE=Maeglin] It is not at all clear why this should be the case. The strategic objective of both attacks was to remove the US military presence from the affected area. [/quote] What support do you have for this claim? Especially since, for instance, in the context of the Khobar Tower Bombing, a number of targets were cased, including numerous non-military targets, before the Towers were chosen as a final target due to their importance. [ > [@](#): > > The indictment traces the carefully organized bomb plot back to on or about 1993 when Al-Mughassil, under Saudi Hizballah leader Al-Nasser, was head of the “military wing” of the Saudi Hizballah. It is alleged that, at that time, Al-Mughassil was in charge of directing terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests in Saudi Arabia. Al-Mughassil instructed defendants Al-Qassab, Al-Yacoub and Al-Houri, later joined by Al-Sayegh, to begin surveillance of Americans in Saudi Arabia. This operation produced reports that were provided to Al-Mughassil, Al-Nasser and officials in Iran. Al-Mughassil carefully reviewed the surveillance reports, according to the indictment. > > During the same time, Al-Jarash and Al-Marhoun conducted surveillance of other sites where Americans lived, worked or frequented, including the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh and a fish market nearby, according to the charges. Later, in early 1994, Al-Qassab began surveillance of locations in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, an area which includes Khobar. Reports of this operation were provided to Al-Nasser and to Iranian officials, the indictment alleges. > > In the Fall of 1994, defendants Al-Marhoun, Ramadan and Al-Mu’alem began watching American sites in Eastern Saudi Arabia at Al-Mughassil’s direction, and Al-Bahar looked at other sites at the direction of an Iranian military officer, according to the indictment. It was during this time that Al-Marhoun, Ramadan and Al-Mu’alem determined Khobar Towers to be an important American military location and began an effort in the region to locate a storage site for explosives. > > In 1995, an Iranian military officer directed Al-Bahar and Al-Sayegh to conduct surveillance on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia for sites of possible future attacks against Americans. During this time, Al-Mughassil told Al-Marhoun during a live-fire practice drill in Lebanon that he enjoyed close ties to Iranian officials who were providing financial support to the party, according to the indictment. Al-Mughassil then gave Al-Marhoun $2,000 in U.S. currency to support continued efforts to identify American sites. ]([http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.htm](http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.htm)) Noitice, the goal was to attack **Americans** , and **American interests** not necessarily American _military_ targets. That an important American military target was found does not detract from the fact that numerous other targets were considered. Targeting American homes and businesses is rather odd if their goal was to get troops out of the nation. As a matter of fact, actually, the [indictment](http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/khobar.pdf), based on roughly, as a conservative estimate, 400,000 of the FBI’s man-hours, said that the motive was " to expel the Americans from Saudi Arabia." Note, not “American troops” but “Americans”. That Hezbollah planned attacks against “American interests” not specifically American military targets. That “the goal of the party was to target foreign interests, American in particular, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.” Targets cased included but were not limited to the US embassy, the homes of Americans, and a fish market which was frequented by Americans. At least one member was told he was going to be attacking, not a military target, but “an American housing complex” Which is not to say that Iran’s support of terrorism was not influenced by a desire to drive American troops out of the region. Simply that they did not _only_ want American troops out of the region. Nor is their history of support, military and otherwise, to groups like Al Quaeda and Hezbollah, support to groups whose goals are _not_ limited to driving American troops out of the region. They also do not seem to be currently cooperating with Al Quaeda, and have indeed taken some steps to oppose them. But cooperating with Al Quaeda as late as 2001 is not indicitave of good intentions. Now, I know that some folks, who abhor learning about an issue before trying to debate it, are already readying objections of “You evil neocon warmonger Zionist quisling, Iran had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Bush said that about Iraq and Al Quaeda, and since this situation seems similar, your claim is wrong!” On Al Quaeda and Iran, from the 9/11 commission [report:](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf) > [@](#): > > Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan > between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993,another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relation- > ship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7,al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued 52 in ensuing years. From the same document, Bin Laden’s stated ideology was: > [@](#): > > In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician,Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a “World Islamic Front.” A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority,but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it 1 is possible to do it.” > > Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin 2 Ladin enlarged on these themes. > > He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels.“It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities,” he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied:“We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian.As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.” > [@](#): > > Bin Ladin continued to push his public message. On May 7, the deputy head of al Qaeda’s military committee, Mohammed Atef, faxed to Bin Ladin’s London office a new fatwa issued by a group of sheikhs located in Afghanistan.A week later, it appeared in Al Quds al Arabi,the same Arabic-language newspaper in London that had first published Bin Ladin’s February fatwa, and it conveyed the same message—the duty of Muslims to carry out holy war against the enemies of Islam and to expel the Americans from the Gulf region.Two weeks after that,Bin Ladin gave a videotaped interview to ABC News with the same slogans, adding that “we do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are 90 all targets in this fatwa.” Notice, expelling the Americans _without differentiating between soldier and civilian_. Nor was Bin Laden’s rhetoric divorced from actions, as in 1998 Al Quaeda bombed the US embassy in Kenya (not a Muslim nation) as well as Tanzania (a nation with a roughly equal percentage of Muslims and Christians). Note that it was **after** that 1998 Fatwa, **and** the attacks on US embassies, that Iran was still attempting to collaborate with Al Quaeda. That was **after** Bin Laden’s clarification that he supported the murder of “any American, anywhere on earth” and that when he said “any” that he really did mean the he did not “differentiate between military or civilian.” And that “As far as we are concerned, they are all targets” Rather hard for Iran to feign ignorance as to what their support would mean. From [chapter 7 of the report:](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf) > [@](#): > > Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran,on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example,Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle”operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. That they changed tunes, at least WRT Al Quaeda, after 9/11 may be because they object to AQ’s methodology, or some didn’t want to risk war with America after we set precedent with Afghanistan. Also, equally interesting to the topic of this thread, the NIE report states as a solid judgment that Iran had a nuclear weapons program up to 2003. Now, what exactly caused them to stop is not clear. There may have been various internal pressures, to be sure… but we do know of two external pressures in 2003. First, we rejected a trial balloon of a prototype offer of softening relations (as I’ve already described and cited, an offer whose ability of implementation on Iran’s side was most likely questionable at best). Second… we started a war with Iraq. Or as the NIE put it: > [@](#): > > Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. To head off any mouthbreathing-type distortions of my position here, \*I am not saying that it was a good thing that we invaded Iraq \* (I’ve already gone on record, numerous times, as being against the war), simply that Iran may very well have chosen to suspend its nuclear program in 2003, in part, because of the military consequences suggested by our invasion of Iraq. I am saying, as long as the goal here is to fight ignorance and be honest, (right?), that our stance in 2003 regarding Iran, coupled with our invasion of Iraq, may very well have contributed to Iran suspending their nuclear weapons program. Again, to head off any mouthbreathing-type distortions of my position, I am not saying that we should adopt a stance whereby we make Iran think we might attack them. Merely noting, in the interest of looking at the NIE’s findings, that our actions in and before 2003 may very well have, at the time, contributed to the suspension of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It also may have decided to end and/or suspend its support for Al Quaeda in 2001 due to our invasion of Afghanistan. Specifically, the 9/11 commission report (in chapter 7) says: > [@](#): > > After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. Further, on your suggestion that “it is our continued military presence” that is a “threat to America”… Saudi Arabia is not Iran’s territory, they don’t have much of a right to determine if we have troops there or not. Likewise, the presence of US peace keepers was requested by Lebanon. Surely you are not saying that we don’t have a right to military cooperation with any nations in the region (inside their own borders) that Iran does not approve of? You aren’t placing the blame for attacks on America instead of those initiating acts of aggression against American troops? And, hopefully, you are not making the common mistake of not reading up on Hezbollah before talking about them? You know they were also involved in years of kidnapping, torturing and murdering Westerners? That they have bombed a US embassy a non-military target? They blew up a Jewish Community Center in Argentina, obviously also not only not a military target, but not connected with getting troops out of anywhere. It is very hard to argue, honestly or accurately, that Iran’s support for terrorists is not a threat to us, nor is Iran making threats when they themselves drape “death to America” over their missiles." Now, that would \*\*not rise to the level of an imminent threat, which would allow the application of Webster’s justification for a preemptive strike, that of “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” But a threat, sufficient to be on our guard, and adopt a defensive stance? I suppose you could always argue that having a military parade with banners draped over the missiles that say “Death to America” isn’t something that would justify America thinking that Iran’s intentions might not be 100% peaceful. [QUOTE=Maeglin] In both cases, Hezbollah was successful and America withdrew. The attacks ceased. [/quote] …what? America ended its participation in the multinational peacekeeping force in March 1984. In September 1984, the US embassy was bombed. It wasn’t until 1991 that the last US hostages were freed. In December of 1991. One, Terry Anderson, was taken hostage in 1985. The other, Joseph Cicippio, was taken hostage in 1986. Would you care to retract your claim that _the attacks ceased_? [QUOTE=Maeglin] If anything is going to be a “threat to America”, it is our continued military presence in a region where we know nothing and are clearly unwanted. [/quote] So despite the fact that we were invited by both Lebanon and Suadi Arabia, we were unwanted? Being in a nation where we are invited is a “threat” to us, and not the fact that Iran directed Hezbollah to attack us because we were in nations that invited us? Isn’t is Iran’s responsibility for attacking us, not our responsibility for being in a sovereign nation that invited us? And do you honestly think we “know nothing” about the region, or is that just some overblown rhetoric? And while I’m at it, should we make other foreign policy decisions this way? If terrorist organizations will attack us, does that mean that we accept their demands? [QUOTE=Maeglin] You might find this [paper](http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf) by Robert Pape interesting. [/QUOTE] What point are you making with that cite? I’m not even sure what you’re using it to suggest, if it has information I do not already possess or if it would actually interest me. And I’m not going to browse a 19 page PDF in order to puzzle that out. ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/196 "2007-12-07T08:31:31Z")
I think that the Bush-adm. hard line agaist Iran have more to do with geo-politics and less with nuklear weapons. USA want’s to dominate that region (mostly because of the oil) and Iran is an obstacle for their goal. ---
**Author:** ![Wildfire\_MM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f08c70/32.png) [@Wildfire\_MM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildfire_MM)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/197 "2007-12-07T09:02:40Z")
The big question is: If USA don’t attack Iran within the remaining 13 months og Bushs presidency: Did he and Cheney almost manage to trick americans into a new war based on false accusation? And what are Israels role in this game ? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/198 "2007-12-07T14:14:28Z")
It’s rather reminiscent of the end of a fight scene in a Bruce Lee movie. **FinnAgain** is standing with his shirt ripped off, breathing deeply. Surrounding him are hordes of extras, clutching their heads, ribs, and groins, moaning softly on the ground or lying motionless. From somewhere under the shattered heaps comes a half-muffled groan. “No blood for oil…” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/199 "2007-12-07T14:18:12Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] **FinnAgain** is standing with his shirt ripped off, breathing deeply. Surrounding him are hordes of extras, clutching their heads, ribs, and groins, moaning softly on the ground or lying motionless. [/QUOTE] That’s what happens when someone loses a debate? Damn, you learn something new every day around here!! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795/200 "2007-12-07T14:37:19Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That’s what happens when someone loses a debate? Damn, you learn something new every day around here!! [/QUOTE] Well John, winning or losing one of these kinds of debates is purely subjective and has a lot to do with your baseline assumptions. If your baseline assumption is that Iran is no threat (zero) threat to the US then you will perceive this debate in a certain way…if your baseline assumption is that Iran DOES pose a strategic threat to the US in the region, then you will look at things differently. While Finn was handicapped by my own efforts, I have to say that your side had both 'luci AND Redfury on it…so, the secondary players were kind of a wash. Over all I think Finn presented more actual data (woofa) to support his own take on things, while I thought (as always) that Ravenman made some excellent points (with an always welcome special guest appearance from Tamerlane with some good info). As always, I learned a lot in this thread and it made me re-think some of my own positions slightly. I think declaring victory on either side however says more about your own baseline assumptions and bias than it does about reality…and it’s not something I would have expected from you. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-intelligence-iran-is-not-working-on-a-bomb-but-w-says-theyre-still-a-threat/428795.md?page=11)