Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says

[Ramo]

They can be very diplomatic

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I can't believe the hypocrisy of an Israeli person of all people complaining about the possibility of Iran secretly trying to get nukes...

How many countries has the Iranian military brazenly attacked in the same manner as the Israelis for example. Over any period: Last 5 years, last 10, last 25, last 50?

Any?

Given Israel's aggressive tendencies - including threatening to attack Iran, might we not think that it is the Israelis who would be more likely to actually use nukes?

BTW Siro, have you guys finished persecuting poor old Mordechai Vanunu yet?

ISRAEL is the agressor when the leaders of Iran make speaches every week about blowing Israel off the map?

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now that I've taken a closer look at MOBIUS's necrophilia attempt (There's an image I wish would go away), I judge this not to be a copy cat thread. As such I will give a real response. If the nuke program is no more, why play games with the IAEA?

One could ask the same of Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors.

[Patroklos]

In the following three years, the Admin hypes Iran's nuclear threat, and tries to tactically bomb suspected sites.

And this is where the left goes a little looney, becasue there is no evidence that the Admin wants this, and it is alway follows talk of dipolmacy when mentioned. There is nothing wrong with having military action as an option.

Europe says it wanted a diplomatic solution, the admin says it wants a diplomatic solution (and always has), and it seems it worked to the extent that we know. Which is important, because these reports make it damn clear there is a lot they do not know.

One could ask the same of Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors.

Yes you can. You would think Iran might have learned something.

[Ramo]

And this is where the left goes a little looney, becasue there is no evidence that the Admin wants this, and it is alway follows talk of dipolmacy when mentioned. There is nothing wrong with having military action as an option.

It almost never follows with talk about diplomacy. There's been practically no diplomacy between us and Iran over the past few years. Again, we rejected their offer of a grand bargain completely out of hand; we got angry at the Swiss Ambassador for bringing it to us.

But if you want to delude yourself into thinking that tactically bombing suspected Iranian weapons sites was never an aim of the Admin. (and very vocal segments of the right in general), that's your prerogative. But a lot of good reporting has documented this desire (again, Sy Hersh has been particularly on the ball here).

I just want to add that we were always at war with Eastasia.

[Vesayen]

Double plus good!

[uberloz]

I haven't seen anything about the "intelligence" community that leads me to believe that this 2007 report is any more credible than the report they gave in 2005 stating that Iran could be seeking a nuclear weapon.

When it comes right down to policy, I prefer this government remain vigilant about Iran even if it means ignoring these incompetent or worse; politically driven; "intelligence" reports.

As an aside, I would really be critical of this administration if it didn't have plans for military action against 'supposed' targets in Iran.

Set your politics aside for a moment and ask yourself whether or not military contingency planning makes sense.

Now ask yourself whether or not *******s in anybodies administration should be leaking those plans to the public and thus, our enemies!

[Whaleboy]

Yes you can. You would think Iran might have learned something.

Indeed; that you can tie America + allies down in a quagmire, embarrass it to the international community, its own citizens and, more importantly, drive a wedge between the West (apparently bent on war) and muslims worldwide.

I dare say that Saddam Hussein's strategy was highly successful and Iran's is going down a similar path. It relies on right wing gun-nuts to support jingoistic and encourage authoritarian, militaristic policies in government. In essence, it is people like you who are the true allies of Islamic fundamentalism and the pacifists and liberals who are its true enemies. It is people like you who enable America to play right into the hands of people like Bin Laden and al-Sadr.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

Let's get in our way-back machine and see what was going on at the time. '97 - Khatami is elected President, the world rejoices, diplomacy with Iran tarts to look up. 9/11 - Iran has common enemies with us in the Taleban and provide heavy support to the Karzai gov't (to this day, Karzai considers Iran a strong ally). Invasion of Iraq - we take out Iran's primarily enemy in the region, and put a bunch of Iranian clients in power. Contemporaneously with these good vibes, Iran suspends its nuclear weapons program because the regime isn't viable with the economic sanctions against it and sends out an offer for a comprehensive peace through the Swiss where everything would be on the table (Hezbollah, Hamas, nukes, Iraq, etc., etc.). We dismiss it out of hand (according to Powell's Chief of Staff, Powell could only trust Cheney with going with one peace effort - and he deemed NK to be the more important one). This helps to kill the reformist agenda, and allows hardliners to consolidate power (i.e. the election of Ahmedinejad).

Here is the Washington Post article on what you reference:

In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page A16

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand.

"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," said Flynt Leverett, who was a senior director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."

While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials.

Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to defeat during a bloody eight-year war.

The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

Newsday has previously reported that the document was primarily the work of Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann. The Swiss government is a diplomatic channel for communications between Tehran and Washington because the two countries broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of U.S. embassy personnel.

Leverett said Guldimann included a cover letter that it was an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stressed that the U.S. decision to join the nuclear talks was not an effort to strike a "grand bargain" with Iran. Earlier this month, she made the first official confirmation of the Iranian proposal in an interview with National Public Radio.

"What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," said Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser when the fax was received. "Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in."

Current White House and State Department officials declined to comment further on the Iranian offer.

Paul R. Pillar, former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, said that it is true "there is less daylight between the United States and Europe, thanks in part to Rice's energetic diplomacy." But he said that only partially offsets the fact that the U.S. position is "inherently weaker now" because of Iraq. He described the Iranian approach as part of a series of efforts by Iran to engage with the Bush administration. "I think there have been a lot of lost opportunities," he said, citing as one example a failure to build on the useful cooperation Iran provided in Afghanistan.

Richard N. Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration "the bias was toward a policy of regime change." He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully supported by the "multiple governments" that run Iran, but he felt it was worth exploring.

"To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole," he said. "But I didn't see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the brink."

Parsi said that based on his conversations with the Iranian officials, he believes the failure of the United States to even respond to the offer had an impact on the government. Parsi, who is writing a book on Iran-Israeli relations, said he believes the Iranians were ready to dramatically soften their stance on Israel, essentially taking the position of other Islamic countries such as Malaysia. Instead, Iranian officials decided that the United States cared not about Iranian policies but about Iranian power.

The incident "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance," Parsi said.

It does look like a missed opportunity.

[Ramo]

Since people seem to be under the impression that the Admin never wanted to attack suspected Iranian nuclear sites (and that we were always allied with Oceania), here's a poll from the end of March of this year:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 23% of American voters believe it is Very Likely the U.S. will be at War with Iran within a year. Another 32% believe war is Somewhat Likely. The survey of 800 Likely Voters found that 31% said War was Not Very Likely while just 4% view War as Not at All Likely. These figures are little changed over the past couple of months.

Earlier surveys found that 75% of Americans believe Iran is likely to develop nuclear capabilities in the near future.

The current survey found that 40% believe the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Another 40% disagree and say force should not be used. Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin, favor the use of force. Democrats, by a similar margin, are opposed. Those not affiliated with either major party are fairly evenly divided.

I'll repeat that. Assuming that Republicans are about as undecided as everyone else, only about a quarter of Republicans opposed military force against suspected Iranian weapons sites. I, suppose, because this is an opinion that the Admin shared. They actually are the voice of reason among the Republican base (instead of leading the charge among the crazies).

[PLATO]

"to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons"

Yeah...I'm for whatever will stop that. If diplomacy works, then Great! If it doesn't, then they still do not need to be allowed to have Nukes.

[Ramo]

This was a policy option that people were discussing. In the immediate future.

use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons

The Republican base supported that.

[Ramo]

Earlier surveys found that 75% of Americans believe Iran is likely to develop nuclear capabilities in the near future.

Disproportionately Republican, BTW. Would demonstrate, but gotta go...

[uberloz]

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse,...

I wonder who gave the Bush administration the "intelligence" reports that led to this conclusion?

Do you have links?

[Patroklos]

I just want to add that we were always at war with Eastasia.

When did you become doubleplusdumb?

use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons

Yeah, so what? Just because I would use military force doesn't me I want to use that before anything else. So again, there is no evidence beyond the juvinile fantacies in your own head that the admin WANTED to bomb Iran, only that they were WILLING to if need be.

I wonder who gave the Bush administration the "intelligence" report that led to this conclusion?

Well, you see, there was the NIE in 2005. You see, we are always supposed to take into consideration what the NIE says, except for when we aren't supposed to

Interesting that those demanding military force be taken off the table completely did so in spite of and in total disregard of what the IAEA and previous NEIs said are now trying to use the current NEI as an infalible source to vindicate themselves

Lets not get into the fact that, if we are the take this NEI as the word of God, it proves Iran has been lieing about its nuke program all along. Or the fact that since the NEI is about four years out of date, it's ability to tell us what is happening now is suspect. Every lefty foaming at the mouth type here would agree with that if this particlar intelligence didn't say what they wanted to. Remember, intelligence is fullproof, except when its not.