View Full Version : Bomb Iran now!
Pannonian
12-04-2007, 11:06
Before the public wises up to the latest revelations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2221486,00.html).
US spies give shock verdict on Iran threat
Intelligence agencies say Tehran halted weapons programme in 2003
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Tuesday December 4, 2007
US intelligence agencies undercut the White House yesterday by disclosing for the first time that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the past four years. The secret report, which was declassified yesterday and published, marked a significant shift from previous estimates. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," it said.
The disclosure makes it harder for President George Bush, to justify a military strike against Iran before he leaves office next year. It also makes it more difficult to persuade Russia and China to join the US, Britain and France in imposing a new round of sanctions on Tehran.
Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney have been claiming without equivocation that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president warning in October of the risk of a third world war. They were briefed on the national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Wednesday.
The White House national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, at a press conference yesterday, denied there were echoes of the intelligence failure over Iraq's phantom weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iran was "one of a handful of the hardest intelligence targets going" and the new intelligence had only arrived in the past few months. As soon as it did, both the president and Congress had been briefed. He warned that there would be a tendency now to think "the problem is less bad than we thought, let's relax. Our view is that would be a mistake."
The NIE, which pulls together the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies, is entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It concluded: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme." It had not been restarted as of the middle of this year.
In a startling admission from an administration that regularly portrays Iran as the biggest threat to the Middle East and the world, the NIE said: "We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." That contradicts the assessment two years ago that baldly stated that Tehran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons".
The British government, which is planning to discuss the report with its US counterparts during the next few days, has also repeatedly said it suspects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government of seeking a nuclear weapons capability. It will claim that the weapons halt shows that diplomacy - in particular the threat of sanctions - can work.
The weapons halt roughly coincided with a visit by British, French and German foreign ministers to Tehran in October 2003.
The Iranian government has insisted throughout that it is only pursuing a civilian nuclear programme.
Although a halt to the nuclear weapons programme is significant, the NIE is far from a clean bill of health for Iran. Tehran is pushing ahead with its uranium enrichment programme, which has only limited civilian use and could be quickly converted to nuclear military use. The NIE warned that Iran could secure a nuclear weapon by 2010. The US state department's intelligence and research office, one of the agencies involved, said the more likely timescale would be 2013. All the agencies concede that Iran may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015.
The White House will continue to try to intensify international pressure on Iran. Russia and China, two of the permanent members of the UN security council, have scuppered attempts by the US over the past six months to impose tough new sanctions on Iran.
The decision to publish the NIE is aimed at trying to recover the public credibility lost when the agencies wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the years leading up to 2003.
why do you hate the weapons indus*cough* Freedom? :smash:
Slug For A Butt
12-04-2007, 12:17
To be honest, after the Iraq fiasco I'm not sure I'd trust U.S. intelligence (contradiction in terms?) to investigate jaywalking.
But hell, if Bush wants to redeem himself why not bomb Iran? Followed by North Korea, Pakistan, Libya (again), Egypt, Cuba and just for good measure Andorra. :balloon2:
Israel seems to disagree, do your own dirty job curly's.
He said that Iran was "one of a handful of the hardest intelligence targets going" and the new intelligence had only arrived in the past few months. As soon as it did, both the president and Congress had been briefed. He warned that there would be a tendency now to think "the problem is less bad than we thought, let's relax. Our view is that would be a mistake."
:juggle2:
Does that sound very convincing?
"Oh hey, they have stopped their program in 2003 but then we hardly get any info from there anyway..." :sweatdrop:
Sounds similar to
"Oh hey, their program is well under way but then we get hardly any info from there anyway..." :sweatdrop:
to me.
So I feel like we're left guessing until breakfastcoat tests his first nuke or until we all die waiting for that to happen. :dizzy2:
As a U.S. citizen let me tell you point blank. The Bush admin and the intelligence services dont know what the hell they are doing. At least we now get a somewhat honest assessement from the intelligence services. They really dont know whats happening with Irans weapons program.
I'd like to think the rhetoric has been just escellation to keep the pressure on Iran economically via sanctions but the Bush boys have surprised me more then once. The military assets are in the theatre now to bomb Iran, as I have always said the next move should be to engage Iran in diplomacy at the highest level possible and work it out.
However bombing them wouldnt surprise me either considering there missle program is advancing to the point of being able to hit targets in the EU. There are 2 solid lessons the U.S. should draw from. Iraq and North Korea.
North Korea has been a semi success for Mr Bush (which he dosent get much credit for) They were isolated and starved into coming to the negotiating table. Iran has a lot of oil income coming in so that might not work but diplomatic pressure still has a ways to go. Iraq's lesson is the conduct of warefare. Importing ideals and value systems to those who dont desire it dosent work.
Iraq shouldnt have happened, but since it did the progression has been less then stellar. The "conquest" has been insuring U.S. oil companies get development contracts to the oil fields and most likely a long term "Korea" style military presence.
I'd prefer diplomacy with Iran, but (and here is the big but) if its been determined that military action is the only way to halt a nuke program we have little data on, then yes bomb them now. Simply for logistical reasons as the carrier strike forces in Hormuz are well positioned for the task. Otherwise you pull those carriers back and start talking the iranians rationally without the threat.
Bush wont do that and I am hopeful the next clown attempts to engage them directly, but bombing Iran now is still doable and possible given the force structure in the area (the carriers). My read on it is that its a 20% possibility, Bush isnt popular here anymore and world wide he is very unpopular.
If he is an absolute ideolog, war monger etc then it might just happen. Stay tuned though for the sanction talk. If the the U.S. can get sanctions out of the UN/EU that will hold off on the military option.
macsen rufus
12-04-2007, 17:27
Bomb Iran now!
Damn right - if you can't kick a man when he's down you'll never have the guts to face him standing up :clown: :laugh4:
So, surprise surprise, Iran's WMD turn out about as real as Saddam's were. The next thought that comes to mind is if Ahmedinejad was bluffing, then who was it he was trying to impress? Was it just a defensive measure aiming to convince the west he could strike back if provoked, or was he trying to be the "big I am" for the benefit of home consumption? Cos all of a sudden he looks like the emperor whose sartorial elegance has been called. There's still a chance that saying "oh no he hasn't" could hurt him more than saying "oh yes he has".... :bow: Which could all be a cunning double-play by US intelligence, of course....
:dizzy2: then my head starts spinning trying to keep track of the competing conspiracy theories.
Banquo's Ghost
12-04-2007, 17:39
So, surprise surprise, Iran's WMD turn out about as real as Saddam's were. The next thought that comes to mind is if Ahmedinejad was bluffing, then who was it he was trying to impress? Was it just a defensive measure aiming to convince the west he could strike back if provoked, or was he trying to be the "big I am" for the benefit of home consumption? Cos all of a sudden he looks like the emperor whose sartorial elegance has been called. There's still a chance that saying "oh no he hasn't" could hurt him more than saying "oh yes he has".... :bow: Which could all be a cunning double-play by US intelligence, of course....
It's worth bearing in mind that "face" is extremely important in the Middle East. Just as with Saddam, President Ahmadinejad is likely to posture much more for a home and regional audience than to take into account Western interpretations. It's an ongoing dissonance with our (Western) diplomatic efforts - we just don't understand the intricacies of maintaining face - what seems like idiotic brinkmanship to us is just second nature. It's also why so many of our "reliable" intelligence sources from prior to the Iraq invasion embellished - they need to be seen as very important and once made to feel so, continue to exaggerate to save face.
If we did understand, we'd be much better at playing the arrayed egos and saving ourselves a lot of grief. The administrators of the British Empire got rather good at playing this game in the East after a hundred plus years of practice, and having a thorough familiarity with many of those governors' memoirs would stand the current Foreign Office and the State Department in very good stead.
Of course, that would mean treating people like Ahmadinejad as if they were equals, which our own egos might find more challenging than just bombing things.
Vladimir
12-04-2007, 18:28
US spies give shock verdict on Iran threat
Intelligence agencies say Tehran halted weapons programme in 2003.
And etc...
Nice and vague. Just what I like to see in reporting and intelligence.
Geoffrey S
12-04-2007, 18:28
Sounds like intelligence gathering inside regimes in the Middle East hasn't improved in the last five years.
Who cares, Israel has the means let them take care of theirselves, if they have a problem they should bomb it I don't mind.
A few points....
Firstly, in reality, little has changed it seems
The NIE warned that Iran could secure a nuclear weapon by 2010. The US state department's intelligence and research office, one of the agencies involved, said the more likely timescale would be 2013. All the agencies concede that Iran may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015.They're talking about a possible 2-7yr window during which Iran could develop a nuclear weapon if they choose to do so. If anything, this is sooner than the previous estimates that I remember- hardly wonderful news in that regard. Obviously, they're continuing to build centrifuges and continuing to enrich uranium.
There's definitely a lot of spin being put on this story by Democrat politicians and some of their friends in the US media. If this estimate really is accurate and Iran has abandoned it's nuclear weapons ambitions, Bush should be touting this as a victory for his foreign policy- he isnt, showing once again the PR ineptitude of the administration.
Again assuming the estimate to be accurate, this would not be the time to stop the pressure against Iran. However, I think it would be a good time to offer some carrots to Iran in exchange for more openness and cooperation. If true, this is good news, but it's hardly 'mission accomplished'. :wink:
PanzerJaeger
12-04-2007, 20:33
The left is certainly taking a lot of liberties with this story in the US, and around the world I'm sure. :no:
Hard to disagree with this blogger's take (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060142.php):
Everything this administration says on national security matters should be considered presumptively not only false, but actually the opposite of what is in fact true, until clear evidence to the contrary becomes available.
Which is not to say that the NIE is writ in letters of gold and contains all truth. Just that the preponderance of skepticism must be directed at the admin at this point in time.
Who really thinks we're going to war with Iran anyway? I thought Bush et al were just engaged in some serious saber-rattling.
Hard to disagree with this blogger's take (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060142.php):
I'll do it. :beam:
I haven't had a chance yet to weigh in on today's news about the IC's apparent conclusion that the Iranians shuttered their nuclear program in 2003. But it's awfully big news.The NIE said no such thing. It said they appear to have stopped their nuclear weapons program. They still continue to build centrifuges, enrich uranium, ect.- all in spite of UN calls to do otherwise.
Here's another look at the story:
Iran Report Won't Stop UN Sanctions Talks, EU Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=amj7BheMwxCI&refer=germany)
edit:
Who really thinks we're going to war with Iran anyway? Kook Democrat fringers?
Who really thinks we're going to war with Iran anyway? I thought Bush et al were just engaged in some serious saber-rattling.
Come on. He's repeatedly demonstrated that yee-haw "I don't give a :daisy:" attitude. What makes you seriously think he wouldn't dare get the US bogged down in another conflict with Iran just before he exits stage right?
I'll do it. :beam:
Mm, yeah, I wasn't nearly clear enough. I was referring to his point about evidence, reality and the administration. I'm not going to defend anything else the guy writes.
Come on. He's repeatedly demonstrated that yee-haw "I don't give a :daisy:" attitude. What makes you seriously think he wouldn't dare get the US bogged down in another conflict with Iran just before he exits stage right?
The only thing that worries me is the precedent his daddy set. Remember how he jumped us into Somalia right before his term expired? And I remember he got us involved in something else in the last few months, just can't place it.
Then again, Bush 43 seems to be at pains to be as different as possible from Bush 41, so probably not, eh?
Come on. He's repeatedly demonstrated that yee-haw "I don't give a :daisy:" attitude. What makes you seriously think he wouldn't dare get the US bogged down in another conflict with Iran just before he exits stage right?
Presicely that. He is on his way out. While he has nothing to lose from conflict with Iran, he also has nothing to gain from it. His party no longer controls the Congress, he has lost the respect of his own party, and all of the warmongers in his cabinet have either resigned or been let go. Bush's era is for all practical purposes over.
@ Lemur - Exactly, look at daddy. Plus combine this with the apparent oneupmanship that Bush Jr. seems to have (excuses for getting us into Iraq) and you've got a perfect scenario for Iran.
@ rvg - I'd counter with that's precisely WHY he can afford to do anything right now. There's a number of reasons. First, of all the candidates in both parties, noone stands out strongly head and shoulders above the others. No one person seems to have that "golden boy or girl" aura that sets them above the others in terms of leadership potential. As far as I see it right now, it ain't exactly good pickin's in terms of who gets to clean up Bush's mess. If the Dems produced an extremely charismatic candidate who had somewhat centrist views, then I'd think the GOP would have something to worry about. The best they've got right now is Hilary and Obama, and neither really stick out in my view or in others as far as I can tell. Further, most of America still seems to be generally conservative (hence would lean towards the GOP) at heart, thus I think he could still get away with quite a bit before even hardcore right-wingers start to look left just for some kind of "change". Simply put, in my view he doesn't have anything to lose for himself or his party really at this juncture.
Apparently Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/478bc808-780a-4e24-a258-e12f74cf8c98) has no fear of violating Godwin's Law:
The Iran NIE for beginners: As though MI6 told Stanley Baldwin in 1933 that fears that Hitler would reoccupy the Ruhr in 1934 were groundless.
I mean, when you think about it, who isn't Hitler?
Banquo's Ghost
12-04-2007, 22:25
Again assuming the estimate to be accurate, this would not be the time to stop the pressure against Iran. However, I think it would be a good time to offer some carrots to Iran in exchange for more openness and cooperation. If true, this is good news, but it's hardly 'mission accomplished'. :wink:
Now that is a proposal I would agree with. The economic pressure should certainly be maintained (but minus the sabre-rattling which actually strengthens the hand of Iranian hard-liners) alongside some creative "carrots" to move the Iranians closer to a more positive engagement and acceptance of more regional responsibilities.
I find the most intriguing aspect of the intelligence report is that it suggests Iran set aside nuclear weapon research in 2003. That's a good 18 months before Ahmadinejad was elected president - and he has not - apparently - seen fit to resurrect the programme. I'd be fascinated to understand why - perhaps the moderates have more control over internal policy than at first glance.
Boyar Son
12-04-2007, 22:38
To be honest, after the Iraq fiasco I'm not sure I'd trust U.S. intelligence (contradiction in terms?)
Well, I dont know why you keep insulting the U.S. but PLZ know, that you're fueling the stereotype of a whiny cry baby, stuck up, loud mouth, euro weenie. Every time I read one of your cheap shots at Americans (who'm you know nothing about) I see you asserting euro fake superiority over a people who has persuaded your "smart" gov'ts to a long ol' war.
Now think, europe aint all that great ya know..especialy since your country is slowly becoming Londinistan, while you're barking like europe is the biggest baddest MTF on earth. So put that euro's to good use and come over here and see what the U.S. is like, before you go nepoleon, hitler on the ORG typin "euro FTW!!!111" print this out and give it to your buddies.
AntiochusIII
12-04-2007, 22:49
Boyar Son: wut? :inquisitive:
He's criticizing the US Intelligence Agencies, not Americans. The same world-class agencies that put innocent people named Abdullah or whatever in Guantanamo because they share the same name as a terrorist (may be) and claimed Iraq most definitely had WMD's. Of course anyone's going to be skeptical. They've proven their incompetence more than once, and in the worst of ways for a secretive agency: right in the public spotlight.
It's worth bearing in mind that "face" is extremely important in the Middle East. Just as with Saddam, President Ahmadinejad is likely to posture much more for a home and regional audience than to take into account Western interpretations. It's an ongoing dissonance with our (Western) diplomatic efforts - we just don't understand the intricacies of maintaining face - what seems like idiotic brinkmanship to us is just second nature.A wise assessment. In my not-so-enlightened opinion I think Ahmadinejad is doing a great job of displaying what he learned from Osama-sensei's School of Public Relations though, for good or ill. He certainly made a splash in the world stage and even the Western layman's conception of world diplomacy (a household name he is, that dinnerjacket man), but what would the waves do? I'm far from knowledgeable about Iranian domestic policy, and even less knowledgeable about potential and/or ongoing power struggles between various groups within the government, in and out of the government, and outside all governments.
For one, I do get the impression that when they had that "Supreme Leader chose the President" thing a while back Ahmadinejad was supposed to be a puppet of the Revolutionary Council or whatever. And now he walks around with his name remembered, his face remembered, his voice heard (beneath the jeers) in Columbia U., while the Ayatollah remains in the shadow. Is he a brilliantly effective puppet or is he trying to wrest out some independence from the shadow rulers? Is he a nutty case in control of a regional power or may be he's trying to solidify his position by directing all eyes onto his "feud" with the USA? Last I heard Iran's domestic economy wasn't exactly doing well...
Papewaio
12-04-2007, 23:13
:faq:
24 hr timeout. No more blanket insulting statements.
Papewaio
12-05-2007, 22:41
Bomb er bombastic er play nicely.
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 22:47
2003? It couldn't have been when we invaded their neighbor for the same thing and had 100,000 troops on their border. That would just be crazy to think that war solves problems!
2003? It couldn't have been when we invaded their neighbor for the same thing and had 100,000 troops on their border. That would just be crazy to think that war solves problems!
Hmm, that is a valid point. After all, it did work with Libya.
Ser Clegane
12-05-2007, 22:56
Alternatively they could have stopped the program because the threat of a hostile neighboring country that had attacked Iran before had been eliminated in 2003, so that it was no longer considered to be necessary to develop nukes ~;)
Of course that's all speculation as we do not know for sure if a nuclear weapons program ever existed and in case it existed whether it indeed was stopped in 2003. I guess everybody has a free choice to pick the intelligence reports that support his views :beam:
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 23:03
Alternatively they could have stopped the program because the threat of a hostile neighboring country that had attacked Iran before had been eliminated in 2003, so that it was no longer considered to be necessary to develop nukes ~;)
Of course that's all speculation as we do not know for sure if a nuclear weapons program ever existed and in case it existed whether it indeed was stopped in 2003. I guess everybody has a free choice to pick the intelligence reports that support his views :beam:
Seriously. People are viewing this as yet another knock to the Bush admin. Honestly, That old adage "If Bush cured cancer, they'd find even more reasons to ridicule him" rings so true.
An intelligence report proves nothing, just shifts the waters slightly.
AntiochusIII
12-05-2007, 23:10
2003? It couldn't have been when we invaded their neighbor for the same thing and had 100,000 troops on their border. That would just be crazy to think that war solves problems!Of course! That's why America invaded (tan dan dan) Iraq...
I'm sorry, but the X-Box Murderer Tehran's that way, this is the grocery store Iraq.
What next? We invaded because Iraq had WMD's?
ICantSpellDawg
12-05-2007, 23:24
Of course! That's why America invaded (tan dan dan) Iraq...
I'm sorry, but the X-Box Murderer Tehran's that way, this is the grocery store Iraq.
What next? We invaded because Iraq had WMD's?
We invaded Iraq to halt WMD production and distribution. It turns out that it may have? OMG
Before you use this opportunity to praise the report, realize it says very little to condemn the administrations pursuits and may even bolster their effectiveness.
AntiochusIII
12-05-2007, 23:29
We invaded Iraq to halt WMD production and distribution. It turns out that it may have? OMGAhahahaha wow.
This is the twisting of words worthy of Rumsfeld himself.
So we didn't attack Iraq to stop Saddam's WMD's; we did to stop Tehran's! Why didn't anyone ever wise up! :dizzy2:
Before you use this opportunity to praise the report, realize it says very little to condemn the administrations pursuits and may even bolster their effectiveness.I have no intention of praising this report for whatever reasons, just so you know.
Lord Winter
12-06-2007, 01:27
2003? It couldn't have been when we invaded their neighbor for the same thing and had 100,000 troops on their border. That would just be crazy to think that war solves problems!
http://www.mideastweb.org/Iran.gif
We had afgahnastan to lunch an invasion from to and if you look at the map, the better routs seem to be from that way less mountains preaty flat desert perfect for a combined arms armored thrust. Clear routs to both the gulf and Tehran.
If they wern't worried by afgahnastan Iraq wouldn't do a ton of difference besides adding a second front that they would have to defend. Which in all likely hood really dosn't matter since the U.S. could bring them down fairly easy with just one front or use naval landings/Kuait for any other needs. I think Ser Calgenges theory is better then yours.
Though Iran still isn't exactly the most harmless country out their with this. They still have Hezboalha under their wing and a convential milltary. It just gives us more time, to try and find a way to live together.
IrishArmenian
12-07-2007, 21:12
all of the warmongers in his cabinet have either resigned or been let go. Bush's era is for all practical purposes over.
Except for the Dick. (Cheney)
ICantSpellDawg
12-07-2007, 22:29
http://www.mideastweb.org/Iran.gif
We had afgahnastan to lunch an invasion from to and if you look at the map, the better routs seem to be from that way less mountains preaty flat desert perfect for a combined arms armored thrust. Clear routs to both the gulf and Tehran.
If they wern't worried by afgahnastan Iraq wouldn't do a ton of difference besides adding a second front that they would have to defend. Which in all likely hood really dosn't matter since the U.S. could bring them down fairly easy with just one front or use naval landings/Kuait for any other needs. I think Ser Calgenges theory is better then yours.
Though Iran still isn't exactly the most harmless country out their with this. They still have Hezboalha under their wing and a convential milltary. It just gives us more time, to try and find a way to live together.
Maybe I should have said "neighbors". We invaded their "neighbors" in 2003 and placed over 100,000 troops on their "borders".
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.