Full Version: The New National Intelligence Estimate
The administration has been using confrontational rhetoric about Iran for months, if not years, suggesting the use of military force to prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. For most of the last year an NIE on Iran has been ready but the President has refused to release it while Congress and others have pressed for its release. Meanwhile administration officials and the VP have been contemptuous of the conclusion of the IAEA's ElBaradei that no proof existed that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. Now the NIE has been released and it supports ElBaradei. (See this Ray McGovern Article).
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
QUOTE
The main points of the NIE:
"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…
"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…
"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."
"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…
"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…
"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
Information that is omitted is itself a distortion. Then again the threat sold to us in Iraq was distorted. At least they are consistent. This report erases any doubt in my mind that the facts are being fixed around the policy.
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
No, Mr. Bush and co. have put far too much effort in one direction to reconsider.
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
No I had been following this story since December '06. After hearing the NIE was revised three times in an effort to paint a stronger picture this caused some bureaucratic (read googleable) infighting. Each time it was held back at the VP's desk. I'll leave you to draw your own inferences on his actions. I'd be interested in hearing why you think this was a last minute acquisition.
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
It has been widely speculated that Gates and Cheney represent opposite approaches in foreign policy objectives regarding Iran. By slipping pieces of this report out to the press (I'd like to see the entire document) this strengthens the recent IAEA report calling for direct negotiations, something that has been avoided from Cheney's camp. So in short, this facilates detente.
Information that is omitted is itself a distortion. Then again the threat sold to us in Iraq was distorted. At least they are consistent. This report erases any doubt in my mind that the facts are being fixed around the policy.
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
No, Mr. Bush and co. have put far too much effort in one direction to reconsider.
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
No I had been following this story since December '06. After hearing the NIE was revised three times in an effort to paint a stronger picture this caused some bureaucratic (read googleable) infighting. Each time it was held back at the VP's desk. I'll leave you to draw your own inferences on his actions. I'd be interested in hearing why you think this was a last minute acquisition.
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
It has been widely speculated that Gates and Cheney represent opposite approaches in foreign policy objectives regarding Iran. By slipping pieces of this report out to the press (I'd like to see the entire document) this strengthens the recent IAEA report calling for direct negotiations, something that has been avoided from Cheney's camp. So in short, this facilates detente.
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
I'm not sure if these unnamed "key officials" have been privy to this information. Which ones, exactly, have beat the drums for war and have placed military confrontation as the first (or even second) option? Certainly we have not taken it off the table, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks we are going to invade Iran within the next few months (if at all).
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
I must have missed these threats. Can you post something concrete?
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
It may have been, but more likely is that something concrete was discovered recently to push the balance towards this outcome. The NIE was initiated in January. I find it funny that Iran was five years away from acquiring nukes in 1995, was five years away in 2001 and is now ten years away. Since the technology hasn't changed, I'm not sure if this is more a function of material availability or what. I find it seriously doubtful that a moderately advanced society (does Iran qualify?) can't acquire material that the United States had in 1945.
The President's commision on WMDs said earlier this year that we know "disturbingly little" about Iran's or North Korea's programs.
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
The theory is that Gates has leaked much of it that has made it into the press. I have no idea personally.
I will say that the President has moved slower on this issue than many people have wanted him to. Even Hilary Clinton has suggested that Bush has not been decisive enough on the Iranian issue. It should not be surprising that she has said the opposite in the past, but in this month's Foreign Affairs she says:
I'm not sure if these unnamed "key officials" have been privy to this information. Which ones, exactly, have beat the drums for war and have placed military confrontation as the first (or even second) option? Certainly we have not taken it off the table, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks we are going to invade Iran within the next few months (if at all).
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
I must have missed these threats. Can you post something concrete?
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
It may have been, but more likely is that something concrete was discovered recently to push the balance towards this outcome. The NIE was initiated in January. I find it funny that Iran was five years away from acquiring nukes in 1995, was five years away in 2001 and is now ten years away. Since the technology hasn't changed, I'm not sure if this is more a function of material availability or what. I find it seriously doubtful that a moderately advanced society (does Iran qualify?) can't acquire material that the United States had in 1945.
The President's commision on WMDs said earlier this year that we know "disturbingly little" about Iran's or North Korea's programs.
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
The theory is that Gates has leaked much of it that has made it into the press. I have no idea personally.
I will say that the President has moved slower on this issue than many people have wanted him to. Even Hilary Clinton has suggested that Bush has not been decisive enough on the Iranian issue. It should not be surprising that she has said the opposite in the past, but in this month's Foreign Affairs she says:
QUOTE(Page 5 of the article)
The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
This SpinTel report simply affirms the obvious - Bush is a bold faced liar.
Just like the intel in the runup to this disaster in Iraq, Bush chose whatever was most helpful to him that allowed him to implement a policy. Of course, that policy was illegal because you can't invade countries for ideology purposes (I'm looking at you too, Russia), so they created an imminent threat.
Well, they tried the same thing with this one and got burned. Of course, your usual cast of cowards ("Mommy, I'm afraid of Iran....please send somebody out to beat them up....waaaaa..") think this NIE is a conspiracy between all the different agencies that created this report to undermine Bush. Hey, how's that fight between you and the CIA working out for you, Dubya? Well, it's not working out for the citizens of your country so good.
Next, Bush pulls the retard card. "Well, I never learned about this until last week". Uh-huh - he's going around the country warning of World War III while not knowing Iran shuttered it's weapons development long ago. This is embarrassing. If Hillary would have done this, she would have been hanging next to Saddam. The republicans would have finally found their principles.
Bush is a liar and a war criminal. I'm past impeachment - he should be hung. Replace Bush with a democrat before his body even gets to room temperature because unbelievably, the democrats have far more credibility than the republicans. And what we need now more than anything, is credibility. We will never know what the real threats are as long as republicans have their hands in it.
Just like the intel in the runup to this disaster in Iraq, Bush chose whatever was most helpful to him that allowed him to implement a policy. Of course, that policy was illegal because you can't invade countries for ideology purposes (I'm looking at you too, Russia), so they created an imminent threat.
Well, they tried the same thing with this one and got burned. Of course, your usual cast of cowards ("Mommy, I'm afraid of Iran....please send somebody out to beat them up....waaaaa..") think this NIE is a conspiracy between all the different agencies that created this report to undermine Bush. Hey, how's that fight between you and the CIA working out for you, Dubya? Well, it's not working out for the citizens of your country so good.
Next, Bush pulls the retard card. "Well, I never learned about this until last week". Uh-huh - he's going around the country warning of World War III while not knowing Iran shuttered it's weapons development long ago. This is embarrassing. If Hillary would have done this, she would have been hanging next to Saddam. The republicans would have finally found their principles.
Bush is a liar and a war criminal. I'm past impeachment - he should be hung. Replace Bush with a democrat before his body even gets to room temperature because unbelievably, the democrats have far more credibility than the republicans. And what we need now more than anything, is credibility. We will never know what the real threats are as long as republicans have their hands in it.
DR,
Where and when has Bush put up a credible, serious push to go to war with Iran?
The Democratic frontrunner has just published an article that says Bush hasn't done enough and is being soft with Iran and "ignoring bad behavior". Good luck if she gets in the White House.
Are there people in the government that want to go to war with Iran? I'm sure there are. Is the President one of them? Maybe. But if he is, he certainly hasn't done a good job in convincing anyone that he is serious about it.
He should be hung? Because we haven't gone to war or because we are so far from it? As others have pointed out on
, Bush is playing a game against Iran with a hand that he cannot win with. The military is in no shape to invade Iran and everybody from Washington to Tehran knows that. Iran is definitely a threat to world security and remains the top state sponsor of terrorism. That doesn't mean we should go to war with them, but we should do something...
Where and when has Bush put up a credible, serious push to go to war with Iran?
The Democratic frontrunner has just published an article that says Bush hasn't done enough and is being soft with Iran and "ignoring bad behavior". Good luck if she gets in the White House.
Are there people in the government that want to go to war with Iran? I'm sure there are. Is the President one of them? Maybe. But if he is, he certainly hasn't done a good job in convincing anyone that he is serious about it.
He should be hung? Because we haven't gone to war or because we are so far from it? As others have pointed out on
, Bush is playing a game against Iran with a hand that he cannot win with. The military is in no shape to invade Iran and everybody from Washington to Tehran knows that. Iran is definitely a threat to world security and remains the top state sponsor of terrorism. That doesn't mean we should go to war with them, but we should do something...
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Dec 4 2007, 11:23 AM) 
The administration has been using confrontational rhetoric about Iran for months, if not years, suggesting the use of military force to prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. For most of the last year an NIE on Iran has been ready but the President has refused to release it while Congress and others have pressed for its release. Meanwhile administration officials and the VP have been contemptuous of the conclusion of the IAEA's ElBaradei that no proof existed that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. Now the NIE has been released and it supports ElBaradei. (See this Ray McGovern Article).
QUOTE
The main points of the NIE:
"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…
"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…
"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."
"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…
"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…
"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."
Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program in 2003? So they had one up until then I guess? Wonder why they gave it up.
Didn't another rogue nation give up their nuclear weapons program around that time period? (thinking here)......
Oh yeah! That's right! Libya gave up their program that same year.
Good year that was 2003..... Wonder why...... Didn't something else happen in 2003? Oh yeah! That Iraq thing happened in 2003..... Of course two hostile countries ceasing their nuclear weapons programs shortly after the US took down Saddam is purely coincidence - that's what the Bush-haters will tell you.
Ok, let's look at the questions......
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
There hasn't been a "military confrontation" with Iran. The Bush administration has been pursuing a diplomatic course that apparently has been working.
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
Nope, you don't take the military option off the table. However, I would take issue with the statement that the US has "threatened" to use military force against Iran.
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
Not having read the NIE, and most of it is probably classified anyway, but it can take a considerable amount of time to fully analyze intelligence information.
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
Because it was going to be leaked anyway - probably selectively by various individuals with their own private agendas. Might as well get it out. Frankly, I think it's pretty good news and indicates that the Bush administration Iran policy has been pretty effective.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Foreign Affairs)
Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
This is precisely why I do not have a subscription to F.A. Critical decision-making begins with not making ridiculously broad statements. This vitriol brought us such reasoning as the laughable definition on non-combatant, the everchanging-omniscient terrorist, and the revolutionary guard bogeyman. What's next? Thought crime! Pay close attention, Bush's comments merge entry level understanding of centrifugation with guilt and intent! Such outlandishness becomes possible when politicians are left at their word.
If I want unsubtantiated allegations rolled into a jambalaya of rhetoric, I'll delve into the nutty rantings of David Horowitz or Norman Podhoretz. Yeesh
Seriously, getting 16 intelligence agencies to find consensus on anything is like herding cats. For this leak to occur represents a unified backlash of intel professionals, the kind who are tired of having their work revised for ideological agendas. Unfortunately I can see this being contorted as conspiracy against the president. And they are worried about Putin? I'd like international election monitors in America in '08. The real story is about a consistent manipulation evidence which has been chronicalled through a variety of books over the last few years.
QUOTE
Have key administration official been distorting the facts to force a military confrontation with Iran?
No. Bush said he just got it, its an “estimate” and by the way Israel says they have intel that says it has been started back up.
Will the administration now cease to threaten the use of military force against Iran?
No he will not “take off the table” anything since the situation can change – neither will Hillary by the way.
Do you believe the revelation that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 was a last minute intelligence acquisition?
My understanding is the info had to be vetted and analyzed and this takes time – THEN the President gets the update.
QUOTE
Do you have an opinion on why the administration finally allowed the release of the new NIE?
Because he most certainly knew it could not be kept secret in todays Wasington and he wanted to make his points that 1. they gave it up in 03 based on pressure from the US/UN EU and
2. they could and will still be dangerous as they develop the ability to produce highly enriched uranium.
QUOTE
(Trouble)
I'll leave you to draw your own inferences on his actions. I'd be interested in hearing why you think this was a last minute acquisition. (The information that Iran had stopped their bomb program in 2003).
I'll leave you to draw your own inferences on his actions. I'd be interested in hearing why you think this was a last minute acquisition. (The information that Iran had stopped their bomb program in 2003).
I don't but it has been so stated by our brilliant president and so reported. I was just interested in others reactions to this obvious subterfuge.
I find it fascinating that the same ADers who refuse to confront the overwhelming scientific case supporting global warming also manage to maintain opinions so contrary to the evidence in this case.
There are a number of good articles that have delved into this issue intelligently but I'll just share a couple that are directly on point.
From Robert Scheer:
QUOTE
Bush is such a liar. Or is he just out to lunch on the most important issue that he faces? In October, he charged that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003.
Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact, only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn’t respect it, for at his press conference he said “the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world—quite the contrary.” Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose directors he handpicked. “I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community.”
Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact, only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn’t respect it, for at his press conference he said “the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world—quite the contrary.” Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose directors he handpicked. “I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community.”
From Jim Lobe:
QUOTE
What I think is particularly remarkable about the NIE — aside from its conclusions and willingness to virtually repudiate the main conclusions of the 2005 NIE (a reflection no doubt — in addition to new intelligence and analysis — of the political space created by the hawks’ decline and the realist rise in the intervening period) is its implicit policy recommendations which (surprise, surprise) echo that the realists (particularly SecDef Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski who co-chaired the Council on Foreign Relations task force on Iran in July 2004 — less than a year after Iran’s decision to suspend its apparently secret military nuclear program) have long argued:
“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 international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achiedve 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.”
“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 international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achiedve 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.”
QUOTE
Trouble
Seriously, getting 16 intelligence agencies to find consensus on anything is like herding cats. For this leak to occur represents a unified backlash of intel professionals, the kind who are tired of having their work revised for ideological agendas. Unfortunately I can see this being contorted as conspiracy against the president. And they are worried about Putin? I'd like international election monitors in America in '08. The real story is about a consistent manipulation evidence which has been chronicalled through a variety of books over the last few years.
Seriously, getting 16 intelligence agencies to find consensus on anything is like herding cats. For this leak to occur represents a unified backlash of intel professionals, the kind who are tired of having their work revised for ideological agendas. Unfortunately I can see this being contorted as conspiracy against the president. And they are worried about Putin? I'd like international election monitors in America in '08. The real story is about a consistent manipulation evidence which has been chronicalled through a variety of books over the last few years.
I find it amusing how the NIE is being cherry picked, distorted and otherwise quoted incompletely in order to attack Bush and (by some) give the impression Iran is just the nicest benign county in the world and really not a threat to anyone. IMO nothing could be further from the truth.
What we get is the expected crap[ such as “Bush is a liar”. – gee want to back that up?
From listening to folks who have read the document in detail we learn that the NIE has stated with “high confidence” that Iran stopped their (undeclared to this day) nuclear program and “moderate confidence” that they have not restarted it – Israeli intel thinks differently.
Completely ignored is the obvious fact that the 2003 date is certainly more than a coincidence (for both Iran and Syria) and certainly has mush to do with out troops next door.
Also we should remember that one reason an Iran with limited resources might have suspended the program (at least temporarily) is that the fissile material, which most experts agree, is the “hard part” of the process and is not yet available but could be in a couple of years and an outgrowth of their “commercial” enrichment program – supposedly only for commercial purposes.
The NIE goes on to say that Iran does have the technical and industrial capability to produce a nuclear weapon if desired. So imo Bush is right in saying little has really changed.
Finally totally ignored is the obvious fact that it is nearly impossible for this program to have started much later than the mid 90s. Which means ………………………………
And as far as your dismissing of the Revolutionary guard as “and the revolutionary guard bogeyman” is based on what? They are not helping to kill Americans and fueling the insurgency?
The GWB Administration has found a new way to divert attention from a scandal, dribble out information on a new scandal. The furor surrounding the destruction of the CIA videos should not be allowed to divert our attention from the efforts by hard line elements within and outside the administration to scare monger us once again into an unnecessary military adventure. The NIE, in combination with past actions and statements, made it clear to any open minded observer that this is what has been going on. Well informed investigators have held this view for the past 2 years. Perhaps the most prescient among them has been Gareth Porter. In other threads I have linked several of his articles that maintained that there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, that the IAEA could find no violations, and that Iran was operating within its rights as a signator of the NPT. It is true that the current NIE maintains that Iran had a covert weapon program prior to 2003 but that is based on information contain in a single lap top of questionable provenance. (See Laotop of Death ).
Recently Gareth Porter reviewed the recent history regarding the Iranian nuclear program and US charges regarding it. (See White House/NIE).
QUOTE
Lewis said that media outlets erroneously reported that the laptop, which the U.S. obtained in 2004 and which contained documents describing two Iranian nuclear programs, termed L-101 and L-102 by the Iranians, directly related to weapons work. He said it more specifically referred to modifications to a missile that would ostensibly carry a nuclear warhead.
"A lot of folks, myself included, have wondered about the reliability of the information. We've even taken to calling it the 'laptop of death,'" he said. But it was the crude manner in which the documents were constructed that gave Lewis pause.
"A lot of folks, myself included, have wondered about the reliability of the information. We've even taken to calling it the 'laptop of death,'" he said. But it was the crude manner in which the documents were constructed that gave Lewis pause.
Recently Gareth Porter reviewed the recent history regarding the Iranian nuclear program and US charges regarding it. (See White House/NIE).
QUOTE
The reported White House resistance to the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran had abandoned a nuclear weapons program in 2003 was an effort to save a political tactic the George W. Bush administration had been using since early 2004, despite the absence of an intelligence analysis to support it.
The charge that Iran had a secret weapons program was originally devised to build international support for sanctions – and even potential use of force – against Iran at a time when Iran was not enriching uranium.
But in 2006, the hawks added the allegation of a secret Iranian uranium enrichment program paralleling the publicly acknowledged program to bolster the argument that Iran must not be allowed to have any enrichment, even if carefully limited to far below a weapon-related level and intrusively monitored.
The charge that Iran had a secret weapons program was originally devised to build international support for sanctions – and even potential use of force – against Iran at a time when Iran was not enriching uranium.
But in 2006, the hawks added the allegation of a secret Iranian uranium enrichment program paralleling the publicly acknowledged program to bolster the argument that Iran must not be allowed to have any enrichment, even if carefully limited to far below a weapon-related level and intrusively monitored.
QUOTE
The NIE, in combination with past actions and statements, made it clear to any open minded observer that this is what has been going on. Well informed investigators have held this view for the past 2 years. Perhaps the most prescient among them has been Gareth Porter. In other threads I have linked several of his articles that maintained that there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, that the IAEA could find no violations, and that Iran was operating within its rights as a signator of the NPT.
RIGHT and we know that is crap because if there was no “program” they could not have STOPPED it in 2003. Do you get the point here? Iran still has not admitted they had a program. Did the IAEA ever say they had identified a nuclear weapons program in Iran?
And just a “by the way” the Israelis believe they have restarted it – but who cares – what they need is the fissile material and they are busy getting up to speed making it and we have maybe 2 years or so.
And who can we thank for the suspension of the Iranian weapons program in 2003 – now lets see – what happened in 2003 that would have given them pause??
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.