Iran: Blowing Smoke on Nukes?
A new U.S. intelligence assessment concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting previous assessments that the Tehran regime was working on building a bomb.
The stuning development will have two immediate effects:
* Change the dynamic of the ongoing international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program.
* Change the nature of the debate about Iran in the president campaign and undercut the Republican candidates who have endorsed a military strikes.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, concludes that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”
The development brings to mind Saddam Hussein’s dogged efforts in the run-up to the second Iraq war to create the impression that he had ongoing nuclear and other WMD programs, which U.S. intelligence agencies bought lock, stock and barrel despite evidence to the contrary. Has the Ahmadinejad being trying to do something similar?
In a separate statement accompanying the assessment that was an unintentional allusion to a White House typically obsessed with spinning the news, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said that given the new conclusions, it was important to release the report publicly “to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
44 Responses to “Iran: Blowing Smoke on Nukes?”
The main issue with Iran is the enrichment of uranium, which continues to be happening. Note Iran has been dishonest with the world about its enrichment and likely diversion of enriched uranium.
There is no basis here for anti-war (anti-Bush-and-USA-success) agitators to claim this means Iran is no threat, is not a future nuclear menace, and is not behaving wrongfully at this time.
* * *
A press conference on the latest findings may happen this afternoon; here is an unclassified version of the intelligence report.
(here)
For those who don’t want to read the report:
Key Judgments
NOTE: For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.
• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.
C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the 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 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.
• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons and such a decision is inherently reversible.
F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
Shameless but par for the Bush-Cheney course to toss off their months-long drumbeat for invading or bombing Iran as a slight glitch that proves we scared Ahmadinejad in stopping a nuclear weapons buildup that never was.
It was only five weeks ago that a Zogby poll showed that more than half of voters would support a military strike to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon and believed it was likely the US would do so before next year’s election.
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/nuclear-hiccup.html
What I would like to see, but can be pretty sure of not seeing happen, is for the Us to draw a deep breath and start rethinking the whole nuclear power issue, in a global sense and not in terms of friends and enimies listts.
What does the Non-Proliferation Treaty mean when so many nonsignatories have nuclear weapons? Having sighned the treaty is turning out to be an encuberance for some and a punishment for others.
A whole new approach is badly needed. It would take years and years to shape a new approach into a new policy and from there, into a new global treaty. This could be a great time to start the thinking, at least.
Instead, those who want to bomb Iran will continue to agitate for doing so. New reasons will be found, as needed, IMO.
This NIE is, most likely, complete nonsense based on disinformation from Iran designed to “lull” the world.
This NIE is, most likely, complete nonsense based on disinformation from Iran designed to “lull” the world
If that’s true- and it sounds like pure conjecture, what does that say about our intelligence agencies? Isn’t it possible that we could have started another war on Iran based on faulty (earlier) intel?How could we possibly plan any kind of attack when our intel is as unreliable as it was with Iraq? True or untrue (and I tend to believe it) a lot of people should be disturbed by the multiple discrepancies about the nuclear capability of countries that we have attacked or have been within a hair’s length of attacking.
My personal theory is that the administration has been emphasizing the aggressive statements of Ahmadinejad as a justification for more aggression on our part, all the while realizing that he is just a powerless hothead. The mullahs have a lot more power than he does.
This NIE is, most likely, complete nonsense based on disinformation from Iran designed to “lull” the world
If that’s true- and it sounds like pure conjecture, what does that say about our intelligence agencies? Isn’t it possible that we could have started another war on Iran based on faulty (earlier) intel?How could we possibly plan any kind of attack when our intel is as unreliable as it was with Iraq? True or untrue (and I tend to believe it) a lot of people should be disturbed by the multiple discrepancies about the nuclear capability of countries that we have attacked or have been within a hair’s length of attacking.
My personal theory is that the administration has been emphasizing the aggressive statements of Ahmadinejad as a justification for more aggression on our part, all the while realizing that he is just a powerless hothead. The mullahs have a lot more power than he does.
That’s a curious thing to say considering the IC is pretty confident Iran had a weapons program.
I agree Shaun – a stunning development and a good one as well.
Kritt,
An important factor is the differing assessment between this most recent NIE and the one in 2005. Bush policy can be seen as consistent with the judgments of the 2005 assessment – not so with the updated one – at least as far as attacking Iran is concerned.
In short, I think the NIE will put the nail in the coffin of a Bush attack on Iran.
Shaun,
Kudos for acknowledging this – not many on the left do:
As I expected, there are people basing opinions on what they just ‘know” to be tire. and evidence be damned. Why even bother with intelligence reports?
No one could possiblyquestion the potential Iran has for doing evil deeds. No one is, as far as I know.
What needs to be decided without pre-judgment, is what policies would make the potential become a reality and which not? Constant threats from the US are actually pushing Iran into considering the worst, IMO.
There is a huge and vastly important gap between being prepared for drastic action and advocating for it on a sooner-the-better basis Intelligece reports and other evidence, not the facile reading of minds, lie in that gap..
1. Our intelligence has been wrong before.
(Incidentally, what did we know about the Syrian site bombed by Israel and whose remains were hurriedly cleaned up by the Syrians? And did the bombing nudge the Syrians into coming to Annapolis?)
2. This is the unclassified (and dumbed-down, with terms that shouldn’t require explanation, given an explanation) report. What is classified?
3. The most creative thought I had already involved the word “lull”: that this would be a great laugh if it were to lull the Iranians into letting down their guard prior to a Western military attack.
Entropy:
Thank you for the compliment. I get so confused, though. One day I’m on the left and another day I’m on the right. I guess that’s what happens when you try to call ‘em as you see ‘em.
Holly – A few Israelis officials admit that the Iran threat is exaggerated and being used for political purposes. Please find one US or Israelis scientist or engineer who supports your claims. ArmsControlWonks have reported on the exaggerations forever. There current link explains better. Who should we believe the Gaffneys or real scientists
DLS – The US and GoogleEarth have known about this site for years. One small site isn’t a robust nuke program.
DLS – Here’s some links.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1691/tourist-trips-to-the-box-on-the-euphrates
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1689/syrian-and-nuclear-weapons-again
I’m sure Pat Lang is also all over this. the Dark One won’t be happy. That heart is probably racing right now.
The truth is, nobody really knows what Iran is doing. My concern is that the Left (and I’m center-left) tends to vastly under-estimate Iran to the peril of the entire world. I do not support an immediate attack on Iran – I do support taking Iran (and Ahmadinejad’s genocidal mouthings) seriously.
Well, here is the take-away from this NIE:
1. Iran had a nuclear-weapons program from the mid 1980′s-2003.
2. Iran is essentially on the fence with regard to any decision to continue/restart it’s weapons program. This is important because our actions will influence the choice Iran eventually makes.
Holly – Iran’s support for terrorist/radical groups is one thing, only the radical Left ignore this. But inflating a legal nuclear program as a robust WMD program is another story. In the US, we still call AQ Khan as the Pakistanis Father of the Bomb, when all he did is steal old enrichment drawings. MSM bought into the Bonkers Bolton/Gaffney narrative without looking under the rug to see the real dirt.
The threat from Hamas and Hezbollah is real, the nukes of Iran not so much.
This Democrat does not think John Bolton is bonkers and is sorry that he’s no longer the US ambassador to the UN.
The development brings to mind Saddam Hussein’s dogged efforts in the run-up to the second Iraq war to create the impression that he had ongoing nuclear and other WMD programs
If you read any of the books detailing the start of the Iraq War, this is widely reported to be true. Its just impossible to base an invasion or an attack on this kind of intel, because the program’s existence has not been verified by independent sources. We should never base plans to attack Iran on Ahmadinejad’s threats alone, as he may be trying to make himself look like he’s standing up to the “Great Satan” to make himself more popular domestically.
I agree this report delivers the death blow to most of Cheney’s plans. It makes me wonder if we’d know more if he hadn’t outted Valerie Plame and her operation, which was trying to determine the extent of proliferation in Iran. If Cheney was so concerned about Iran’s nukes, why would he stoop to that?
Rudi nailed it. The real threat is Hezbollah and Hamas.
Weren’t Bush and Cheney aware of this report’s basic findings last year? I thought this was the NIE whose public release was blocked by the WH because it didn’t match Cheney’s hardline rhetoric.
Rudi, thanks for the links. Please be aware that one needn’t have a large program to be working on illicit nuclear-weapon-related goals.
From the start of this thread (emphasis mine):
The new report says Iran stopped working on its bomb and the bomb program is suspended, and you take that as evidence Iran was not working on a bomb? Lefty “logic” at work once again. (Your conclusion was chosen ahead of time, no matter what the facts were, are, or will be.) (Enrichment and diversion of fuel are unneeded refinements here.)
Rudi and Kritt,
If you think Hezbollah and Hamas are the threats now, how big of a threat will they be if/when their sugar daddy has a nuclear deterrent?
Not in the Persian Gulf (not limited to the Strait of Hormuz) and in Saudi Arabia and among the Gulf states and their oil infrastructures. Not even so much in Iraq. Yes, in Lebanon and in the Territories.
(If we conducted air strikes on Iran, what would Iran do? Hamas and Hezbollah would attack Israel, of course, but is that what we’d be concerned about? Is that what the Gulf states and the Saudis would be concerned about? Or instead about mining the Strait, mining other locations in the Gulf, attacks on shipping in the Gulf, air and missile strikes on US bases in Iran and on oil installations and other sites in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia? I say the latter. And what if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon and there were some — as there have been been in Pakistan — willing to use it and start a worse war they know they’d likely lose?)
No, the NIE was only recently finished:
And the public release was obviously not blocked….
[...] Mine Iran: Blowing Smoke on Nukes? » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Entropy- Well should we attack just because they might someday have such a deterrent- or do we wait for the real thing?? Somehow, I think if the threat were real, Israel would be taking care of it the way she did recently with Syria.
Kritt,
No, I don’t think we should attack at this time and I still would not support one even if the assessment was the Iran’s program was still progressing.
As for Israel, it would be difficult for them to conduct such a strike on Iran and they could not do so without US approval since they would have to fly through airspace we essentially control.
If this report is accurate then why would Iran halt their wmd program? Did Bush’s action in Iraq scare the daylights out of Iran? If so it would seem Bush unwittling slowed the flow of wmd.
Too much distance.
If you want more reading about an Israeli strike on Iran, may I suggest this. Also look here (you may recognize Francona’s name), and this.
More can be found here, at the Guardian (the “al-Guardian” or the “Guardiansky”). Several comments are found here.
Israeli strike on Iran
No, I think the implication is that Iran’s clandestine activities were discovered, and the spotlight of attention on those activities forced Iran to reconsider its course of action. Moving forward with a weapons program would be very risky with the world’s intelligence services and IAEA knocking on your door and peering through your bedroom windows….
“Iran’s clandestine activities”
According to the NPT, nations must notify IAEA 6 months before startup of nuclear facilities. Clandestine is an exaggeration, most of the info came from Kurdish Iraqis, and very little is accurate.
Entropy go to anti-war.com and read Prathers accounts of Iran and NPT.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/
Here’s one on Iran and NPT:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=5575
Another one on Iran and NPT which mentions the six month time period for disclosure:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9706
OK this is from the Asia Times— atimes.com
Page 1 of 2
Spooks refuse to toe Cheney’s line on Iran
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON – The US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program. The aim is to make the document more supportive of Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts provided by participants in the NIE process to two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those
dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the “unsatisfactory” draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
It was also reported on several cable shows on MSNBC. Hadley, of course, isn’t going to come out with this version. This is typical of why I can’t trust anything that comes out of this WH- the credibility gap is too large.
A few things.
1. NIE said they would not declassify reports anymore because of the political manipulations yet after making a strong case for sanctions, they release, as the US is deeply involved in sanction negotiations with China.
2. Having worked on building a bomb since the 80′s (yes lefties please listen) NIE concludes they halted their effort for reasons other than US troops in Afghanistan and a much larger force invading Saddamville. No connection to Iraq is made, yet Gaddafi blinks. I’ll get back to this later.
3. Where was US Intel on the facility Israel bombed in Syria? Any explanation why Syria leveled the site and poured massive concrete over a large area? Some experts conclude it was destined to be a bomb making facility courtesy NK and Iran. In addition, any NIE on whether past NK nuke tests were small yield because NK was testing small warheads, also in conjunction with Iranian scientists? The point here is question Intel on other events and see what the actual record of NIE is. Pakistan, Iraq, China, NK, India, Israel? One can argue the record is mixed at best and Iran was and is a difficult country to penetrate for secret facilities and decades of a head start.
4.Only a moderate confidence Iran has stopped ALL nuclear weapon activities. Please note enrichment is a dual use activity as well as heavy water plant, more deep bunkers. And how certain are the 16 agencies that Iran does not have other secret facilities? Why do they refuse South African-style full disclosure? The group that first alerted the US (not our own Intel) claims many more secret sites.
5. As I said, the Report makes the case for sanctions yet the release is certain to dampen US effort for sanctions. Now that’s really Intelligent.
6. It also intimates that without sanctions the Iranian government is likely to continue effort. In light of this why release as Iran is certainly crash-programming delivery systems including silent subs, cruise missiles, drones and other goodies complete with fingerprint wipes that would be useful in false-flag operations (the most likely use of Iranian WMD). No one really thinks Iran will launch a few nukes by ballistic missiles at Allied targets.
7. I’m not sue we would be smart to really release the details of Intel on Iran. I doubt the declassified version above replicates Mossad’s version. I wonder how US Intel could be much better than Israeli Intel given the need for legs on the ground. Common sense would suggest that Iran needs to complete their technical problems involving enrichment, build more air defense and deeper bunkers. Again, given the track record and Chinese and Russian help, I’m not certain how the NIE can yield high confidence that while Iran is stalling and doing the dual use work, they are not working on warhead designs, delivery systems and shell games….oh they are…LOL
8. Given the degree Iran supports various terror groups, threatens Israel and oppresses it’s people, why would Democrats spin this report to diss sanctions? Clinton voted to sanction Quds because they are a terror group, not because they are building a bomb. Was NIE INTELligent enough to understand this, or was it to keep Cheney from pushing the button? Doesn’t seem we were planning on attacking Iran next week. This does smack of politics.
9. Back to the Iraq connection. IAEA looking through your window? I think it is a stretch having seen the Taliban and Saddam fall, Iran didn’t understand the range of US power. There were no Russian air defense yet and Iran was virtually naked. Gaddaif blinked. I do not understand why one would discount our force in Iraq. When we nailed Saddam in a hole, the threat of Iraq was over for the Mullahs. Perhaps the discounting of Iraq is because for many, it completely shakes the articles of faith that Iraq was a huge mistake. Many argue Iraq was meant to send a message to regimes that the WMD/terror nexus would be pre-empted. If this is true and one makes the connection about the Iranian halt (slow-down off actual weaponizing) of their nuke program, the mission was accomplished to a significant degree. I suggest Democrats should be careful in spinning this NIE in regards to sanctions and the role of Iraq.
maxtrue – Please go to the links I supplied in comment #15. The US knew about this Syrian facility for years. BTW a research or small reactor isn’t a bomb factory. Pu implosion type bombs are WAY more complicated than a U-235 gun type. Give facts instead of wild conjecture. Go to ArmsControlWonks instead of WingnutUniversity.
Iran hasn’t had an active nuclear weapons’ program since 2003 and the US is just now finding out about it? So Bush has been wrong for the past four years? Ha! There’s more here than meets the eye. Don’t believe any of the “reassessment” talk coming from the WH. The WH wanted the NIE report released now for a reason. Make no mistake- Bush did release the report. In the past whenever Bush didn’t like a report he had it suppressed for national security reasons. Bush wanted this report released now for political reasons.
Remember in the run-up to the war Bush claimed Iraq had a WMD program and Iraq claimed they didn’t. In fact Bush wouldn’t even let the UN weapons inspectors finish their jobs before he invaded. Bush has said the same about Iran- they had a nuclear weapons’ program while Ahmedinejad claims they did not. The only difference is that Bush hasn’t invaded Iran yet. He knew he wouldn’t be in office to contain any potential fall-out if he had invaded Iran.
Look, the truth is that Bush had nowhere to go with Iran. He blustered all he wanted and realized that he couldn’t win (I think he used Iraq as a diversion from his other problems). Had he attacked Iran he would not have gotten much support (international or domestic) simply because a year from now Iran would still not be close to creating nuke weapons even if they did have an active program. No one wants a repeat of the Iraq fiasco. I think Bush backed himself into a corner and by releasing this report he can back down. In fact he will use the report as proof that his strong position forced Iran to stop it’s nuclear weapons program (which is bull since the program hasn’t been active in years). Besides where did Bush think he would get the troops to invade Iran from?
I have a few thoughts on this, from the original posting:
I disagree with this. I think this “revelation” that Iran doesn’t have nukes will actually help the Republicans. Iraq is such an unpopular war. If Bush had continued his Iran rhetoric, the threat cloud hanging over the election just risked reminding the war-weary public that the Bush Administration got us into the Iraq war and is (was) gunning for another adventure. The Republican candidates are mostly behind Bush on the Iraq war, even though it is unpopular. They are not best served by having comparisons drawn between the Iraq folly and “potential” WMDs as a reason to attack Iran. I think this NIE report actually helps the Republican candidates because they can say they supported President Bush and Iran backed down. In as much as the NIE report helps the Republicans it hurts the Dems because one of the most important issues to voters (Iraq war) has just been “won” by the Republicans. Whatever happens in Iraq in the next 11 months the Repubs will say that the situation has improved. And it’s because they are strong (and stood resolute when times were hard) on national security and the Dems are weak because they wanted to cut and run. This also helps explain Rove’s comments about the Dems wanting to rush into the Iraq war…. Bush can now say that he didn’t rush to war and Iran backed down. Even though Rove’s comments are outright lies, they are part of the public record and interesting enough anything that is part of the public record has a way of gaining credibility and some truth. Even if that truth is just enough to cast a shadow of doubt on what really happened (in this case the shadow of doubt is on the Dems).
I don’t trust the Iranians as far as I can throw them and Ahmedinejad is really scary. Yes, he poses a threat to the US with his support of various terrorists groups/factions. However cynical I may be about Bush and the NIE report, I’m relieved that Bush isn’t going to pick a fight with Iran (hopefully the next Prez won’t either). Bush needs to contain the terrorist groups Iran supports by being smart and not by warmongering.
Stockboy- While I agree with most of your comment, its hard for me to see how this will help Republican candidates, who were more than ready to bomb Iran or launch an invasion if that’s what it took to get them to back down. Won’t this just remind an already unhappy public of 2003, when Bush jumped the gun on Iraq?
Also, we have to remember that in an age when the middle class is struggling, the price of a barrel of oil has increased by a factor of 4 during the Bush presidency. They promised cheaper oil, but the price has skyrocketed, largely because of increased demand from India and China and destabilization of the ME because of conflicts with Iraq and Iran.
Rudi,
How about going to the source instead?
A list of Iranian violations of it’s CSA:
Sorry, but Prather doesn’t really know what he’s talking about….
Additionally some people are posting old information. Originally, the DNI said an unclassified key judgments would not be released. However, one WAS released yesterday, and the reasons for it are explained in the ancillary piece by Dr. Kerr.
kritt, thanks. I think the NIE report helps the Republicans who support (more so than Dems) the Iraq war and an Iranian attack. The ugliest piece – an attack on Iran – is taken out of the picture. While the piece we all agree on- that Iran is nasty and pressure should be kept on them- will let us keep up the pressure, but without the warmongering rhetoric. The Repubs. can claim their harder line approach to contain Iran worked and they need to keep up the pressure (but ratchet down the warmongering rhetoric). The Presidential election is 11 months away so at that time all the American public will remember is that Bush beat the war drums and Iran backed down. Forget the fact that Iran hasn’t had an active program in 4 years. Also Bush can claim that it was his pressure which kept the Iranians from restarting it. The public will connect the Iraq war with the Iran situation, but the fact is that the Iranian situation was resolved (no nuke weapons program) without committing any troops to Iran or otherwise attacking them.
As far as the price of oil… I actually had a lot written about the economy in the above post but decided it was getting off topic and too long. I didn’t bring up the price of oil, though. Essentially what I said is that with Bush freed up on Iran, he can concentrate on helping the Repubs keep the WH. One way to do that is to support populist programs which help improve (or appear to help improve) the average American’s economic situation. Bush was able to gain a lot of support on his tax cuts from people whose didn’t even benefit from them.
I don’t know what Bush’s next move is but it will interesting. BTW- the price oil isn’t going anywhere soon so Bush won’t concentrate on that. I think as long as oil doesn’t increase much more then Americans can live with the current levels. I actually think it will decline by $15/bbl by the election- because the bluster on Iran is toned down and I think part of the current price of oil includes the “Iran attack premium” (in other words about $15/bbl).
kritt, I don’t expect to be “right” on everything I say. Rather I hope the post does give new ideas to discuss and think about. That’s one thing I love about this- I can read others’ posts and when I see great points, I can adjust my thinking accordingly. Of course it would be “nice” to be right a year from now, but no one knows what will happen tomorrow to change things.
Rudi tells me I belong in WingNut University. That’s quite mature. Armscontrolwonk said what about rumors shortly after Sept. 6th? After more reports came out he changed his position of denial and said it was probably not nuclear-related. Oh really? Then he changed his position again, and again. Of course you didn’t respond this various observations at Defense Tech and a number of blogs blogs. What the hell, they’re all warmongers. Others disagree with your speculation, presumably because they are WingNuts too. How about asking the Syrians to inspect bombed site? How about letting Iranian resistance group lead the IAEA team?
As I said, question the article of faith by suggesting common sense that Iraq stumped Iran back in 2003 and you’re barking blasphemy.
For more on what we thought we knew about Syria see this review. I doubt that Israel would take the action it did to blow up a small unfinished research reactor and risk a war. Intelligence understands that if the Syrians are telling the truth, why admit the attack and then say it never happened while observations from space show their cover-up?
You dismiss most of my post. The release wasn’t political? There is no connection between Iraq and Iran’s change in nuclear strategy? Did Armscontrolwonk even admit Iran was ever building a bomb? Again, just look at the first explanations he posted over the “dubious” Israeli attack on Syria. How many sites does Wonk say exist in Iran and Syria?
If Iran has no secret facilities then why not invite the IAEA to investigate all suspect sites? How is what Iran is doing now not seriously connected to an eventual bomb? One can rant about Bush lying, but does this come close to the activities of the Iranian government or do you dismiss killing Jews in Argentina and opposition in Europe harmelss fun? Supplying weapons to Shiites AND Sunnis to use against the US is brotherly love? Isn’t their twenty-year secret program lying? I forgot, Bush is in a higher set of lying.
I suggest some courses outside of Denial University. Being a Liberal I witness it every day. I’m sure Iranian and North Korean scientists were on a picnic trip in Syria. I’m sure Iran without even Russian Tor systems wasn’t worried about an American strike.
Again did Armscontrolwonk dismiss the yields of NK nuke tests as failures? Does the NIE know where all NK nuclear sites are? Has the AQ Khan distribution network been completely uncovered? Are we certain of where all the equipment of Khan is?
The success rate of NIE Reports should not be questioned?
Of course, the brilliant strategy of the NIE declassification which begs questioning is this: NIE explains how pressure and sanctions are the only thing keeping Iran from advancing faster on the bomb (never threat of force). (Yes, they still advance now, or do you have something else to put in nukes besides what Iran is presently attemping to manufacture?) Then release the report as the US tries to bring together the powers for more sanctions. Now that is what I call real intelligence.
The political fallout of said intelligence may result in the fallout of another kind one day. I must question the sanity of those who consider the dangers of being wrong about Iran less than the dangers of being right about Bush.
It won’t be long before the Usual Suspects seize this report to demand that the Middle East be a nuclear-weapons-free zone, i.e., Israel should be disarmed while its enemies do whatever they wish, preparing to destroy Israel.