U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb; but W says they're still a threat

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Two pretty clear instances, but this is a matter of interpretation anyway. A skilled parse technician could explain those away, interpretation being a form of mind reading. There are no facts to offer, John, simply quotes that are subject to manipulation. Weak case, strong case, it’s a matter of viewpoint, isn’t it? I might have been better advised for somewhat weaker tea than “strong case”, if you really think that matters to anyone.

But thank you for sharing that.

Just to be clear, I think it should be pretty easy to make a strong case that Bush has known about this new info for some time now. I’m just not seeing much of any case at all in that cite. For example, I can’t tell that it was something new for Bush or Cheney to use the words they did in those quotes.

We know that Bush had info in August that some compelling new info on Iran had been obtained, although he claims he didn’t know anything about what that compelling new info was. It’s also hard to believe that he finds out about this stuff the same time we do. I certainly hope that isn’t true.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@mks57

The problem is that even if their weapons development program is on hold, with a sufficient amount of highly-enriched uranium (HEU), they can produce nuclear weapons shortly after a decision is made to do so. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or complex engineering, to build a gun-assembly weapon using HEU, once you have a sufficient quantity of HEU. There is a huge difference in the enrichment levels needed for reactor fuel and nuclear weapons applications. IMHO, the production of large quantities of HEU is strong evidence of an intent to build nuclear weapons.

not to mention their president, a loose cannon of the highest order, has been known to preach the destruction of Israel and the U.S.A.

But lets not consider that, he’s probably only joshing. :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

@John Mace

…It’s also hard to believe that he finds out about this stuff the same time we do. I certainly hope that isn’t true.

It always comes down to that, doesn’t it? Which is more frightening? Mendacity or stupidity?

[elucidator]

@FinnAgain

Interesting…Either you do not understand what the word “moderately” means, or you are lying…No no, I didn’t order one of your patently dishonest, deceptive pieces of obfuscation… …and again you show that honesty isn’t high up on your list of priorities…you don’t care about the truth as long as you can repeat your political position? …, I’ll give you the attention you deserve in the future of this thread. Adios.

I am, of course, bereft. Inconsolable.

[vibrotronica]

So, FinnAgain, how many people are you willing to kill to prevent the moderate possibility that the Iranians might maybe be thinking about developing an atomic bomb?

I mean, we can’t be sure they’re not, right?

[elucidator]

Only to the point of being moderately dead.

(But, to be ruthlessly fair, he really didn’t say anything about killing anybody…)

[FinnAgain]

@vibrotronica

So, FinnAgain, how many people are you willing to kill to prevent the moderate possibility that the Iranians might maybe be thinking about developing an atomic bomb?

You seem to be making of habit of this type of worthless post. And last time simply left rather than backing up your absurdity. Or retracting it.

Can you quote, anywhere, even a single word, where I say that we should kill anybody, at all? No? Are you just parroting the absurd talking point that anybody who doesn’t buy into the lies about how we are certain that Iran has no weapons program must, then, be an evil warmonger?

Can you honestly not cope with the fact that we aren’t sure and most likely can’t be sure as long as Iran continues to block the IAEA’s investigations? Are facts that difficult to swallow? Luc doesn’t feel that he needs to be ashamed of constantly lying to support his political position. Do you, too, believe that telling the truth about Iran’s nuclear program is somehow a bad thing?

[ElvisL1ves]

@flickster

How much real faith can any of us put into a US Intelligence Agency Report after the number of years they beat the drum about WMD in Iraq (including pre-Bush)?

Was it “the intelligence community” or was it Bush/Cheney who did the drum-beating? Who was it who ignored all the cautions and assessments of probabilities, ignored all the competing interpretations, and presented the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts? :dubious:

“The intelligence community” that the righties allowed to be scapegoated last time, and the Congresscritters determined not to let America be fooled again, get the credit for bringing the real information out directly this time. But the confirmation of noncredibility goes to the people it always should have - this war-criminal administration and its ever-gullible cheerleaders, some of whom we have right in this thread…

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@davidm

So then we should attack Iran? Based on what?

Because Albania’s hard to rhyme.

Stranger

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

It always comes down to that, doesn’t it? Which is more frightening? Mendacity or stupidity?

Are those the only choices?

At any rate, I think we need to step back from this a minute and look at this new info for what it is-- an Intelligence Estimate. Despite whatever certainty Bush might or might not have expressed at whatever time in the past, all this boils down to is that we thought the Iranians were probably developing nukes and now we think they are probably not.

Like I said earlier, we should operate under the assumption that they are, and do what is sensible to try and deter them. If I were grading on a curve, I’d say Bush’s Iran policy has been one of his better ones. I’d do things differently, and I thought his “axis of evil” speech was stunningly stupid, but he’s been working closely with the Europeans on this, and not acting like the Lone Ranger as he largely did in Iraq. After all, it looks like the Iranians stopped working on nuclear weapons. Maybe his policies had something to do with that.

[FinnAgain]

Holy mother of mercy, I agree with Elvis :eek:

@ElvisL1ves

Was it “the intelligence community” or was it Bush/Cheney who did the drum-beating? Who was it who ignored all the cautions and assessments of probabilities, ignored all the competing interpretations, and presented the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts?

Isn’t it interesting how those people who are political opponents of Bush are now doing the exact same thing? With the same sense of ideological purity behind their lies?

Shouldn’t Americans of all political persuasions stand against such tactics?

Not saying you support them… but it’s been odd that when people deliberately distort intel information now in order to claim that the IAEA or the NIE have definitively certified that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear program, they don’t get called out by other anti-Bush folk. At least, not often enough that I’ve noticed.

Would you feel comfortable with saying that such dishonest behavior is as wrong when those on the left do it as when those on the right do it?

[ElvisL1ves]

@FinnAgain

Isn’t it interesting how those people who are political opponents of Bush are now doing the exact same thing?

What, cherry-pick data to justify a war? Where the fuck do you see *that * happening?

Would you feel comfortable with saying that such dishonest behavior is as wrong when those on the left do it as when those on the right do it?

If I saw it happening, sure. If it’s just “Well, they probably WANT to do it, even if they’ve stopped”, well, that may be factual but it still doesn’t matter.

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

Which is more frightening? Mendacity or stupidity?

Mendacity can be exposed and combated. Furthermore, it means the people telling the lies actually do know what’s going on and can put it in enough context to fabricate a useful lie.

Against stupidity, however, the gods themselves struggle in vain. To coin a phrase.

[FinnAgain]

@ElvisL1ves

What, cherry-pick data to justify a war? Where the fuck do you see that happening?

You’ve just shifted the goalposts. You were just talking about people who:

ignored all the cautions and assessments of probabilities, ignored all the competing interpretations, and presented the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts?

@ElvisL1ves

If I saw it happening, sure.

Read this thread, for starters. People have, in your own words “ignored all the cautions and assessments of probabilities, ignored all the competing interpretations, and presented the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts.”

This is bad, right? Folks shouldn’t be doing it? Or is such dishonesty acceptable to you when people on your ‘side’ engage in it? IOKIALDI?

@ElvisL1ves

If it’s just “Well, they probably WANT to do it, even if they’ve stopped”, well, that may be factual but it still doesn’t matter.

You really don’t think that it matters if a country that routinely holds “death to America” military parades and strongly supports global terrorism has nuclear ambitions? It doesn’t matter?

Or, much like the dishonesty of those who claim that the NIE and IAEA have certified that Iran has no weapons program, is this also simply a partisan talking point? Bush says Iran is bad, therefore Iran cannot possibly be bad?

@John Mace

At any rate, I think we need to step back from this a minute and look at this new info for what it is-- an Intelligence Estimate.

John, this new info really isn’t all that new. For years now, for instance, the IAEA has been saying that there wasn’t definite evidence of a weapons program post inspections, but that they couldn’t certify that Iran had no undeclared projects or intentions. After the last two years of the IAEA’s investigations, the NIE’s report isn’t really startling at all.

Nor are several posters in this thread honestly confused as to whether or not there is definite proof or whether this is an estimate. There are people who will, for their own political goals, present the evidence as being certain one way or the other. But if they’ve been doing it for years while the IAEA said they couldn’t give Iran a pass, they’ll keep doing it when the NIE says they can’t give Iran a pass.

And they won’t be above claiming that the IAEA or NIE have said that we should give Iran a pass.

@John Mace

Maybe his policies had something to do with that.

Also from the NIE report whose content folks are deliberately distorting:

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. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified
international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its
security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived
by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear
weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

[John_Mace]

@FinnAgain

John, this new info really isn’t all that new. For years now, for instance, the IAEA has been saying that there wasn’t definite evidence of a weapons program post inspections, but that they couldn’t certify that Iran had no undeclared projects or intentions. After the last two years of the IAEA’s investigations, the NIE’s report isn’t really startling at all.

I don’t know about that. I expect our intelligence agencies have lots of info that the IAEA doesn’t have. But I expect our intelligence agencies know pretty much everything that the IAEA knows.

Nor are several posters in this thread honestly confused as to whether or not there is definite proof or whether this is an estimate. There are people who will, for their own political goals, present the evidence as being certain one way or the other. But if they’ve been doing it for years while the IAEA said they couldn’t give Iran a pass, they’ll keep doing it when the NIE says they can’t give Iran a pass.

Well, giving Iran “a pass” is a pretty vague accusation, so I don’t really know what you mean.

[FinnAgain]

@John Mace

I don’t know about that. I expect our intelligence agencies have lots of info that the IAEA doesn’t have. But I expect our intelligence agencies know pretty much everything that the IAEA knows.

Granted, without reservation.
But the fact that the situation has been uncertain, despite all the expert inquiry, for years now… and certain people have deliberately spun that as certainty is what isn’t new.

@John Mace

Well, giving Iran “a pass” is a pretty vague accusation, so I don’t really know what you mean.

The context is from a comment that Baraedi made. See here for example (start at post 224) how Baradei said that there was no evidence that Iran was developing weapons but that he could not “Give them a pass” that he could be certain they were not, because he could still not certify the extent of their nuclear program, its history, or certify that nothing was being kept hidden because Iran was stonewalling him.

And folks were using that to claim that we should give Iran a pass. Much like they are now using the NIE report to say something that it obviously goes to great pains to make clear it is not saying.

The claim, as the OP and luc have made, that “Iran is not working on a bomb” or “They stopped in 2003, haven’t restarted to date”. That they are stating, as a certainty that Iran has stopped is weaponization program. That even though the IAEA and NIE both say that they cannot be certain and, especially due to gaps in intel, cannot certify that they have achieved a full and comprehensive picture, that some are ‘ignoring all the cautions and assessments of Iran’s nuclear program, ignoring all the competing interpretations, and presenting the resulting cherrypick as unanimously-agreed facts’.

That is what I object to. And it disturbs me greatly that many of Bush’s political opponents seem only to have learned that some of his tactics worked and then went and decided to adopt them.

Even after it is pointed out that the actual report says that they are only moderately sure and cannot certify it, some continue saying “the weapons program stopped.” Now, they’re not honestly confused. They know the evidence doesn’t support certainty. And yet they continue, despite being corrected time and again, with pretending that the experts certify that Iran has no covert weapons program.

It’s not true. They know it’s not true. And they keep saying it anyway.

I just figured that on this board of all places, such ideologically motivated willful ignorance and deception could be fought.

[Danimal]

@mks57

Only for special applications like nuclear powered submarines. A normal nuclear power plant uses fuel that has been enriched to 3-4% U235. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to 90% or higher U235. There is no legitimate reason to produce HEU for a civilian nuclear power plant. It’s a huge waste of money and resources.

This is the most useful statement I have read in this thread.

Assuming (which I certainly do) that we shouldn’t just take the Iranians’ word for it that their nuclear program is peaceful, we need to know how we can objectively determine the difference between a nuclear power program and a nuclear weapons program. I take it, then, that if Iran produces HEU, we can safely assume that it is for nuclear weapons purposes. But the article mentions only “enrichment,” not “high enrichment.” Can we conclude from that that Iran’s actions to date are at least consistent with an energy program?

Am I also correct in thinking that, no matter how much enriched (i.e. 70% U-235) uranium Iran produces, it will not be able to make a weapon with it, in 2015 or at any other time?

Finally, would it be a valid assumption that, should Iran decide to produce HEU, it would be quicker and easier to start with enriched uranium than with unenriched uranium?

The story so far appears to be: Iran started its nuclear program with at least one military department dedicated to creating nuclear weapons. Under international pressure and scrutiny, and with no reasonable chance of having enough HEU to produce a weapon before 2015, Iran shut down the military weapons program. If it continues its current program, Iran will have enough enriched uranium to pursue a nuclear weapons program in 2015, but will still need to convert some of the uranium to HEU before it can have a weapon. Is this analysis correct?

[BJMoose]

@John Mace

We know that Bush had info in August that some compelling new info on Iran had been obtained, although he claims he didn’t know anything about what that compelling new info was. It’s also hard to believe that he finds out about this stuff the same time we do. I certainly hope that isn’t true.

Don’t know about you, but if I had been preaching that Iran was working on The Bomb and then got blindsided by my intelligence community like this, I’d raise holy hell with the folks who failed to tell me that what I’d been saying publicly was likely wrong. It’ll be interesting to see if Bush does this. If he doesn’t - well, y’all can decide for yourselves what this says about his claimed lack of foreknowledge.
I’d like to point out what is, for me, the most disturbing thing about Bush’s reaction to the NIE. If I had been worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons, then found out that, so far as the many intellegence operations of The Greatest Country In the Known Universe can tell, they gave it up several years back and likely haven’t resumed it, I’d be happier than a hog in a pile of slop; I’d be crowing about how my get-tough policy towards Iran was bearing fruit. Dammit, this is good news. He should be celebratory.

That he is not has convinced be that he really, truly wants to invade Iran. No reason. He just wants to. (With what, I dunno. Maybe he’ll nationalize the Boy Scouts.)

[antechinus]

I am relieved that the US intelligence organisations now have the balls to stand up to the Bush government.

Why this change?

Maybe now the US government will begin to engage in diplomacy. Hmmm maybe I am dreaming.

[Frostillicus]

@JohnnyEnigma

not to mention their president, a loose cannon of the highest order, has been known to preach the destruction of Israel and the U.S.A.

But lets not consider that, he’s probably only joshing. :rolleyes:

I am sure that you realize that the president of Iran has absolutely no control over any nuclear weapons that Iran may some day obtain. That would be under the control of the mullahs – the ones who actually control Iran.