Why Iran?

[yolland]

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

By MARK MAZZETTI
New York Times, December 3

WASHINGTON — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be a major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states 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.” “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,” the estimate states.

The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. The report led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the N.I.E.’s conclusions turned out to be wrong. The estimate does say that Iran’s ultimate goal is still to develop the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem...The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.

Last month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the international Atomic Energy Agency, had reported that Iran was operating 3000 uranium-enriching centrifuges, capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. But his report said that I.A.E.A. inspectors in Iran had been unable to determine whether the Iranian program sought only to generate electricity or also to build weapons.

The N.I.E. concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then. Instead, today’s report concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”

The new assessment upends a judgment made about Iran’s nuclear capabilities in 2005. At the time, intelligence agencies assessed with “high confidence” that Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons and concluded that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program. Since then, officials said they have obtained new information leading them to conclude that international pressure, including tough economic sanctions, had been successful in bringing about a halt to Iran’s secret program. “We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official during a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In a separate statement accompanying the N.I.E., 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.”

 

[verte76]

I'm an American and I don't want to go to war with Iran. Yeah, they have a fundamentalist government. Their president is a nut. He says the Holocaust never happened. If we went to war with every jerk on the planet, we'd never stop fighting wars.

 

[Infinity]

I don't know guys.


When I hear "Death To Israel" led by Iran's President: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of thousands and thousands of Iranians similar to a Nazi Rally -I get a little concerned.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

No. I think you just want to make an excuse for war.

And why risk American money, time, and most importantly LIVES to defend Israel? Israel has at least 75 nuclear weapons, Iran has ZERO. Israel is completely capable of defending themselves should they see a threat. So i'm not wasting my money and the lives of my fellow Americans on attacking a country just because they said they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

 

[Infinity]

Unfortunately, I don't think there was much to trust about the Clinton Whitehouse either, and I'm not sure about the next one.

That seems to be the fundamental problem.

If a democrat were to be elected I definitely DO NOT want it to be Hillary, I don't trust her.

 

[anitram]

From The Washington Post.

President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

Is anyone even mildly surprised anymore?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

No. Talk about a blow to the administration's fist-pounding and hysteria.

Did they honestly think we'd be stupid enough to fall for this again?

Angela

 

[anitram]

Did they honestly think we'd be stupid enough to fall for this again?

Have you been reading this tread?

 

[Irvine511]

From The Washington Post.



Is anyone even mildly surprised anymore?

it's so shameless. there's something wonderful about Bush having to stand in front of the camera and stammer with the bullshit smeared all over his pukey face.

everything this administration says should be considered not just false, but in fact the exact opposite of what is true.

how can anyone not be speechless at this news?

 

[Irvine511]

Some yes or no questions to consider...

Would you consider the Iranian government to be Islamic Fundamentalist?

Would you consider them to have a Jihadist point of view?

Do you think they really would wipe Isreal off the face of the earth as proposed by their President?

Do you think they are developing nuclear weapons?

Do you think we should stop them from developing nuclear weapons?

Is it any of our business?

in light of the fact that the first three questions could apply to half a dozen countries (including Iraq), and in light of the NIE, it's all pretty moot now, yes?

 

[Irvine511]

Do you think Hilary is equally as crazy as Bush -- I've heard her hard stance against Iran's government. What's with her?

this looks pretty bad for her in light of how she voted on Kyl/Lieberman (i think it was).

Edwards and Obama are going to flay her for it. and rightly so.

 

[ntalwar]

An attack on Iran is probably off the table now. The administration probably lost every war game scenario, and this provided a way out without too much humiliation. With the US economy and dollar near a precipice, this course of rhetoric and action was probably determined to be too risky to pursue.

 

[Irvine511]

has anyone been reading the news?

the "World War 3" Bush/Cheney and friends have been hyping has been revealed to be completely and utterly false. like, every bit as false as the WMDs in Iraq. like, every bit in keeping with this administration's fantasy of reality where facts and truth don't matter, what matters is what the administration needs to be true so that it can embark upon the policy they've already determined to be the best course of action, prior to the facts.

and why?

because Bush loves us, that's why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boGw3VciDig

what an embarrassment. how did we let this blithering fool become the leader of the Texas Rangers, let alone the most powerful and successful society in the history of the world.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Hilary's stance on war-related things is one big reason I don't plan to vote for her.

Have you been reading this tread?

LOL .

how did we let this blithering fool become the leader of the Texas Rangers, let alone the most powerful and successful society in the history of the world.

That is a really, really good question. I'm happy to say I had nothing to do with his success-wasn't old enough to vote in 2000 (but if I had been, I wouldn't have voted for him), and I did not vote for him in 2004. As long as I live, I will never, ever understand how anybody could've supported this man, or the administration as a whole.

Angela

 

[BVS]

what an embarrassment. how did we let this blithering fool become the leader of the Texas Rangers, let alone the most powerful and successful society in the history of the world.

I ask myself this everyday. How did a party that once use to pride themselves on less government, a love of capitalism, and being the moral party vote for a man who loves big government, was a failure when it came to business, and obviously lacks any moral bone?

 

[Irvine511]

and if you look at the news clip, he's still smug -- he's fully convinced that it's better that he be completely misinformed and WRONG, but confident, than be informed and correct and do something less than saber rattle.

it boggles the mind.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly. I mean, I can be pretty freakin' stubborn. Ask my family and friends. However, when reality comes along and slaps me in the face, I will listen and admit when I screwed up (much as I may not like to sometimes). Being stubborn in and of itself isn't automatically a bad thing, but when it leads you to exhibit the kind of stupidity this administration has...it's time to get a reality slap. Or two. Or more.

Angela

 

[DaveC]

I'm so outraged at this I don't even know where to begin.

If anybody thinks they can defend this administration on ANYTHING right now, I will tell them right now that they are stupid.

That's right. If you still support Bush, you're a stupid, ignorant jackass. Period.

And that's putting it VERY politely.

I don't care if this offends anybody, because I'm offended right now myself at the fact that your Congress can't pull its shit together and impeach this joke you call a leader.

To all Bush supporters: Fuck you. Find another planet to live on. We're better off without you.

 

[U2democrat]

*pats Dave on the head*

Breathe boy, breathe.

Less than 365 days until Election Day. I HOPE he won't do anything drastically stupid with the year he has left.

 

[sue4u2]

Hilary's stance on war-related things is one big reason I don't plan to vote for her.
Angela

I won't go that far..yet. But it certainly gave me pause.

And your're right Irvine511 - Obama and Edwards will go after her on this issue and I'll be listening very closely.

 

[BVS]

Well I doubt any Republican will defend him in this thread but they'll defend him next week in another, short attention spans...

 

[INDY500]

Iran is still enriching Uranium.

Iran is still funneling weapons into Iraq that are killing innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

Iran is still connected to terrorist groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a "foreign terrorist organization." (Hillary should be given credit for recognizing this.)

Ahmadinejad is aligning himself with Hugo Chavez.

Iran is still a threat -- but the good news is maybe they're more responsive to sanctions, world-wide condemnation and yes, the hint of military intervention, than we may have believed.

That's an ignorant jackass's view anyway.

 

[Axver]

Did they honestly think we'd be stupid enough to fall for this again?

Considering they somehow managed to not only get re-elected, but turn Bush from a minority into a majority president at the same time, I can see why they thought they could pull something like this again. All they need is for the majority of the population to fall for their drivel, and it's worked in the past.

I'm so outraged at this I don't even know where to begin.

If anybody thinks they can defend this administration on ANYTHING right now, I will tell them right now that they are stupid.

That's right. If you still support Bush, you're a stupid, ignorant jackass. Period.

And that's putting it VERY politely.

I don't care if this offends anybody, because I'm offended right now myself at the fact that your Congress can't pull its shit together and impeach this joke you call a leader.

To all Bush supporters: Fuck you. Find another planet to live on. We're better off without you.

I second this entirely.

 

[Axver]

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a "foreign terrorist organization." (Hillary should be given credit for recognizing this.)

No, that just makes Clinton an idiot. How the hell can a state's regular army be a terrorist organisation? By broadening the term 'terrorist' that much, you rob it of all meaning whatsoever.

Ahmadinejad is aligning himself with Hugo Chavez.

Oh. No. Ahmadinejad's a figurehead. Who cares? I don't think Hugo Chavez is the huge, sinister boogeyman some US commentators are trying to make him out to be anyway.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

sue4u2, good point. Her stance as of now is worth weighing, but you're right, we should, as of now, continue to keep an eye on how she responds to issues related to terrorism.

Considering they somehow managed to not only get re-elected, but turn Bush from a minority into a majority president at the same time, I can see why they thought they could pull something like this again. All they need is for the majority of the population to fall for their drivel, and it's worked in the past.

Good point. Very true-they seem to have learned one thing from history, and that is that fear tactics work wonders.

It's just that given the rapid drop in support the last few years, one would think that maybe they shouldn't try something like this again. But I realize expecting Bush and his cronies to use logic is asking for a lot. This Iran thing clearly smacked of desperation. I've no doubt there are things about Iran that aren't exactly savory, but geez, as pointed out by Irvine on the previous page, there are so many countries that could be seen as some sort of danger. Are we going to attack every single one that MIGHT be a threat? That'd be like me walking down the street and randomly attacking people who look suspicious because they MIGHT do something to me. It doesn't make sense.

And besides that, the best way to deal with a threat is not to start a war, 'cause that doesn't solve anything, it just angers them even more. Instead, we really, really need to start using diplomatic methods more often when dealing with other nations. Figure out why they feel the way they do, talk to them and see where some sort of compromise can come in, quit branding everybody as some vague "Axis of Evil" thing, quit punishing a bunch of innocent people for the actions of a few idiots. Stuff like that. The long-term effects of that method will be a LOT better than the long-term effects of a war.

Angela

 

[INDY500]

Oh. No. Ahmadinejad's a figurehead. Who cares? I don't think Hugo Chavez is the huge, sinister boogeyman some US commentators are trying to make him out to be anyway.

Ahmedinejad a figurehead, maybe, maybe not. But as far as presidente Chavez it's hardly just "some U.S. commentators."

There's this current thread http://forum.interference.com/t176725.html
and 51% of Venezuela.

By the way, George Bush isn't the huge, sinister, constitution-shredding boogeyman some very different U.S. commentators make him out to be either.

 

[ntalwar]

By the way, George Bush isn't the huge, sinister, constitution-shredding boogeyman some very different U.S. commentators make him out to be either.

Don't forget the Patriot Acts, and then there's this one in the works:

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

The police state is slowly, but surely arriving.

 

[yolland]

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

This is exactly how it happened in Nazi Germany. First, burn the Reichstag and blame it on the "enemy." Pass new police state laws. Disarm the people. Spread fear. Erect secret prisons and secret police. Call anyone who disagrees with you a "traitor." Control the mainstream media. Sound familiar? This is all happening right now in the United States of Amerika, and if we don't work to stop it, this nation will rapidly devolve into a fascist police state where no one is truly free.
....................................................................................
In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created?
.......................................................................................
This is happening, folks. You're LIVING through an amazing chapter of history right now. You're actually witnessing the downfall of a free nation and the rise of a superpower fascist state. You're actually part of it.

Speaking of broadening terms to the point where they're robbed of all meaning whatsoever, then exploiting them for political grandstanding...

 

[Bonochick]

I'm so outraged at this I don't even know where to begin.

If anybody thinks they can defend this administration on ANYTHING right now, I will tell them right now that they are stupid.

That's right. If you still support Bush, you're a stupid, ignorant jackass. Period.

And that's putting it VERY politely.

I don't care if this offends anybody, because I'm offended right now myself at the fact that your Congress can't pull its shit together and impeach this joke you call a leader.

To all Bush supporters: Fuck you. Find another planet to live on. We're better off without you.

I am not a Bush supporter. However, for those who are, I think if you really want to get your point/opinion across to them, doing it without swearing at them and insulting them would be more effective and respected.

I second this entirely.

In that case, the same to you as well.

 

[melon]

There needs to be a middle ground here, and I think that, for all the sabre rattling, this is exactly what's being done. Nations like Iran (state sponsors of terrorism--i.e., Hezbollah), Venezuela and Russia ("democratatorships") have no place in the 21st century, and, rather than automatically bringing out the military and blowing them up, you can also put diplomatic pressure on them that is prolonged and repeated. Some nations, eventually, like Libya, will learn that it is better to cooperate with international law than it is to continually thumb its nose at it, and we're getting emerging signs that North Korea might be soon learning a similar lesson.

Diplomacy, in short, is often about looking tough and holding your ground, while simultaneously being open to compromise. And, in practice, "compromise" most surely ends up being the end result.

With that, it is becoming increasingly clearer that the Bush Administration is grossly incompetent at something that past presidents--Republican and Democrat alike--were better with. One argument I've read is that, in contrast to Bush, Sr.'s administration, which was divided amongst hawkish and dovish advisers (thus allowing for diversity of opinion), this current Bush's advisers are quite strikingly homogeneous, and this could be very much the reason that his policies seem like very ideologically-driven failures.

But putting our heads in the sand and wishing for world peace isn't going to change the fact that lasting peace cannot be attained without hard work and having to confront tough choices. "The End of History," as Francis Fukuyama declared in 1992 following the end of the Cold War, is woefully premature.

 

[DaveC]

I am not a Bush supporter. However, for those who are, I think if you really want to get your point/opinion across to them, doing it without swearing at them and insulting them would be more effective and respected.

I stand by every word I said.

And that was the EDITED version of what I was originally going to post.