…to advertise that they had a nuclear fuel enrichment program (if they secretly wanted to develop weapons)? I find the whole situation bizarre-Israel has about 250 nuclear bombs-the Syrians know that, and so do the Iranians. The Iranians know that (if cornered) the Israelis will USE their nukes…and the mullahs (raving fanatics they may be) do NOT want to risk their total destruction.
I think Ahmedinejad’s blustering speeches were meant to shore up his crumbling support within Iran; nothing more. At any rate, now Bush cannot make more claims about Iran’s nuclear bombs-at least, we have no reason now to threaten Iran.
And you figure Finn should engage in your hostile ranting tone and BS ‘cite’ why exactly Red?
I’ve actually seen him answer this question in at least 2 GD and a pit thread. The fact that you were unable to see/read it is…well, unsurprising. C’est la vie. I’m guessing you THINK you know the answer to this wrt me as well…and I take great pleasure in knowing, once again, you are wrong.
-XT
Yeah, that would be pretty wierd, huh? If Finn “engaged in a hostile ranting tone”. Nope, can’t imagine.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the report, but going back to it I’m starting to think it’s less about Iran’s nukes and more about stopping Bush from using the military option (not invasion, but the so-called “surgical strike”). To me, it’s saying:
We’re pretty darn sure that Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003 for at least a few years, although we’re not certain they didn’t start it up again or that they won’t start it up again some time in the future. But we told you bozos in the WH last time (Iraq) that this info was iffy, and you went ahead and invaded anyway. The way to go forward in Iran is diplomacy, so don’t blow it again. And don’t fucking blame us for “bad intel”, either. We give you the info, you decide what to do with it.
Phew. This thread is all kinds of a mess. Maybe it oughtta be locked and a new one be started on this rather interesting subject?
Daniel
Yeah, maybe “How Badly Will the NIE Report Hurt the Democrats?”
That’s certainly an interesting idea: report as policy influence. As I read it, they’re somewhat confident that they’ve not started the program up, and not at all confident that they won’t start the program up. But I don’t imagine the report writers are ignorant of the political implications of the report.
At the same time, what do you think the report would look like if the writers were doing their damnedest just to report the facts?
Daniel
You forgot the BS cite part, ehe?
Agreed that the way forward with Iran is diplomacy. But I think some measure of watchfulness is also in order. Contrary to what appears to be popular wisdom, Iran hasn’t exactly been all peacefulness and light. I think it behooves the US to explore diplomatic means (I don’t know, sort of like we HAVE been for the past few years?), but it also is in our best interest to keep a close eye on Iran as well. I think the good cop/bad cop we have played with the Euro’s against Iran has been particularly effective.
Agreed…why don’t you get the ball started there LHoD? 
-XT
I read a lot more than I post these days, and I’m not around at all during the day; I’m not sure I can sustain a thread effectively. Plus I’m lazy.
Daniel
I consider “some measure of watchfulness” to be part of the diplomatic process.
I think that Bush’s rhetoric tells us it’s not really Iran’s nukes that he cares about. Sure, they’ll be a big deal if Iran ever gets them, but Iran is trying to be regional power in the M.E. The US in general, and Bush particularly so, has considered the M.E. to be our backyard, and we (collective “we”, not me) don’t like anyone else messing in our backyard. Iran is simply trying to prop up its political allies in the region, and be able to threaten its adversaries. That’s exactly what we do.
My understanding is that the NIE is a group effort, a consensus of analysts. Of these inputs, which is the most “technically based”, that is, which group is missioned with analyizing the scientific aspects? When the question is “How hard would it be for Upper Volta to build a nuke, and how long might it take?”, who is charged with answering? I’m curious as to their take on all this, and the reasoning underlying those conclusions. I suppose I could look it up myself, but I’m sure I’m not the only smartass on the Boards, someone knows who is eager to say. Besides, I’m lazy and easily… oooh! Dull!
Perhaps it is. At any rate, I think it is in the US’s best interest to keep a close eye on Iran. And I think the fact that we HAVE been keeping that close eye on them, coupled with the diplomatic efforts (ham handed as they have been on the US’s side at times) with the Europeans (I won’t go into how those have been at times), have paid off to a certain extent. Iran knows it’s being watched…and knows how far they can push things. And hopefully how far they can’t.
Well, two things. First off, who cares about Bush’s rhetoric on anything? I know you don’t…I certainly don’t either. Secondly, it’s not solely ABOUT Iran’s nuke program. Without a nuke program Iran doesn’t suddenly become a regional center for goodness and light. They suddenly don’t NOT become an antagonist toward the US. It doesn’t magically erase their own rather checkered history in the region wrt external terror groups…because nuke program or no nuke program I haven’t seen an announcement that Iran is planning to stop supporting those groups. Have you?
We certainly (and rightfully IMHO) consider the ME as of vital strategic need for the US. The Euro’s kind of think of the ME as of strategic importance to THEIR national goals as well…as do the Chinese, the Russians, etc etc. There might be a few Mongolians wandering about the steppes who don’t think the ME is of vital strategic importance to their nations, but just about every country that uses oil tends to think that it is. Including the US. The US just happens to be one of the few countries that can DO something about that.
I think you have been captured by the system John. 
(no offense, it’s just a joke).
-XT, who has ALSO been captured by the SD system to a certain extent…
It appears that the Iranians think that their interest in the region has more substance than ours, because they live there. And we don’t.
As surely you “forgot” any/many of the (salient) points made in said cite…which I highly doubt you even took the time to read and analyze.
If wrong, and they are “BS” why not simply refute them with equally credible cites? Meaning not the blog itself, but their own citacions
Par for the course if you don’t, of course.
Hmm…best stick to politics and business. Not much future in poetry methinks. Unintended even. I’m no poet and I know it.
TTFN
Unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed?
If you don’t care, then why are you posting in this thread? Because… that’s what it’s about. Why hasn’t Bush toned things down given this new info?
I don’t think Iran has any corner on nastiness in that part of the world. I don’t really see any reason to treat them differently than the other countries there. Bush seems to be obsessed with Iran. It’s the Sunni states that produced al Qaeda, and it was the Saudi’s wahabi culture that produced most of the 9/11 hijackers. And I worry about Pakistan (which has nukes) much, much more than Iran. Europe, especially, is vulnerable to attack from Pakistani nationals. Frankly, I think the Iranian people may be the most receptive to liking the US of all the nations in the Muslim world. We need to let go of the past and patch things up with Iran.
I wasn’t placing a value judgement on it, just spelling out the reality. But the US is too often a bull in a china shop when we try to protect our “strategic” interests. That does more harm than good.
That went right over my head. I don’t think I’ve changed my views much on Iran over the years. Iran doesn’t have to be our enemy if we don’t want them to be.
I don’t recall Mr Ed speaking out his ass. Do you?
Must admit, it’s been awhile and I may have forgotten.
Most agencies involved in the intelligence community have a subset of specialists who deal with whatever technical issue, or scientific issues in general. So when nuclear weapons are discussed, the Dept of Energy, CIA, DIA, State Department, and others send their guy (or guys) who specialize in that issue to do the consensus building. The National Intelligence Council can also reach out to non-government specialists to add knowledge into the process of creating an NIE.
So while one could say that DOE probably has the most depth in nuclear issues, other agencies need not defer to their judgment. IIRC, it was the State Department that objected to the whole aluminum tubes/Iraq thing in the 2002 Iraq NIE… one wouldn’t naturally expect State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to be on the money about whether aluminum tubes were for uranium enrichment or missiles, but there ya go. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, sounds retarded, I’m sure you’re right.
I’ll rely on the evidence assessed by the NIE, not you, thanks very much. My understanding is that Iran is not a significant threat to the USA based on NIE assessments and at this point in time diplomacy should be used to seek a solution.
Yes - thats nice.
I realise Iran aims to produce its own fuel. If you ready my post carefully (well, not that carefully really) you will see I was asking whether international negotiators have considered SOATs idea of poisoning the fuel with a neutron-absorbing element as a negotiation point.