NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S.: Iran halted nuclear program in '03 under international pressure
18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, senior intelligence officials said Monday.

That finding, in a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, is a change from two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear capability and was continuing its weapons development program. It suggests that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic pressure, the officials said.

"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," states the unclassified summary of the secret report, released Monday.
Sources: Yahoo/AP/OccNEWS
Link http://yahoo.com

Too bad Stewart/Colbert are off the air.. they would really go like WTF (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_go_ot/iran_nuclear)?? :D

Of course, this is the same CIA that said Iraq had WMD. So take what they say with a grain of salt.

If this turns out to be true - I'm unsure at the moment - then I will be very relieved.

This is good. I'm guessing, though, that this was announced because the government was never serious about attempting an Iranian invasion and only wanted to drum up support and string the populace along like the puppets they are.

It doesnt contradict the IAEA, but does go against Cheney/Warhawk propoganda....Hmmmm...

Of course, this is the same CIA that said Iraq had WMD. So take what they say with a grain of salt.

If that was the case, wouldn't the report have said that Iran's Death Star is almost Fully Operational? Why would the CIA come up with something to contradict Beloved Dear Leader's insistence that Iran is a nation of 3b1l M05l3mz trying to n00k us all?

Color me not surprised.

Suspension of activities doesn't mean much as they could be started the very next day.

Now if they had dismantled; that would be pretty damning.

If that was the case, wouldn't the report have said that Iran's Death Star is almost Fully Operational? Why would the CIA come up with something to contradict Beloved Dear Leader's insistence that Iran is a nation of 3b1l M05l3mz trying to n00k us all?

All intellegence, especially one from the same agency that told us that Iraq was armed, should be looked at critically before forming conclusions, no matter what political disposition it seems to favor.

Wait! Wait!, WHAT, our government lied to us!?1?/1.

Guys I think I'm gonna need some time alone.

Sources: Yahoo/AP/OccNEWS
Link http://yahoo.com

Too bad Stewart/Colbert are off the air.. they would really go like WTF (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_go_ot/iran_nuclear)?? :D

damn you for beating me to it

What I'm wondering is what kind of Uranium the Iranians were producing. We're they producing weapons grade, or were they producing power plant grade all along? And is their some easy hardware method of determining the difference? Are there special components and processes only neccesary for weapons grade production? And why hasn't anyone asked these questions, or did I miss something?

All intellegence, especially one from the same agency that told us that Iraq was armed, should be looked at critically before forming conclusions, no matter what political disposition it seems to favor.

Damn it. You're right. Grains of salt, people. Grains of salt.

so we can end all this madness now and help Iran get Nuclear power? at least lets lift the sanctions and apologize for being a bunch of dicks maybe?

What I'm wondering is what kind of Uranium the Iranians were producing. We're they producing weapons grade, or were they producing power plant grade all along? And is their some easy hardware method of determining the difference? Are there special components and processes only neccesary for weapons grade production? And why hasn't anyone asked these questions, or did I miss something?

1) neither at first seeing as how Iran has yet to produce anything that is anything-grade

2) yes, you don't even need hardware just eyes to watch how its being produced

3) see above (so yes and Iran hasn't got that far yet)

4) these questions are never really brought up because it always leads to the conclusion of "but what about in 20 years time when the research branch splits ?!?"

Oh, what a surprise!!!! :eek:

Like Iraq, US intel on Iran faulty (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran_analysis)

WASHINGTON - First Iraq, now Iran. The United States has operated under a cloud of faulty intelligence in both countries.

In a bombshell intelligence assessment, the United States has backed away from its once-ironclad assertion that Tehran is intent on building nuclear bombs.

Where there once was certainty, there now is doubt. "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons," the new estimate said Monday.
And the hawks response when told that the Intel community was re-evaluating evidence?

Just last month, President Bush, at a news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said, "We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace."

More ominously, Bush told a news conference Oct. 17, "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Asked then if he definitely believed that Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb, Bush said, "Yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."

Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the president made comments like those "because he was describing the threat as the intelligence community itself had been describing the threat both publicly and in their briefings to him."

Intelligence officials advised Bush several months ago that they were reevaluating their assessments about Iran. They came to the White House last Wednesday and briefed him on their new findings.
I guess Bush will have to find another excuse?

Seek reliable information about the disposition of the enemy.
Reliable information —
Cannot be divined.
Cannot be drawn from experience.
Cannot be deduced through analysis.
Reliable information can only be gained from people with direct knowledge.
-Sun Tzu, the art of war.

so we can end all this madness now and help Iran get Nuclear power?
We tried, remember? They didn't want anyone's help.

Anyways, there was a great documentary on the other day on the US and Iran. I recommend people watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

We tried, remember? They didn't want anyone's help...ok, so if Iran dont want our help, then... lets bomb them... Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ANtTZpCmE&feature=related) ...

:rolleyes:




We have to leave them alone, its called sovereignty.. Preemptive wars are the worst crimes of human kind.

ok, so if Iran dont want our help, then... lets bomb them... Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ANtTZpCmE&feature=related) ...

:rolleyes:




We have to leave them alone, its called sovereignty.. Preemptive wars are the worst crimes of human kind.


you know he was joking right? He was like "Lighten up, I was joking, Im crazy but Im not THAT crazy. Never in a million years"

you know he was joking right? He was like "Lighten up, I was joking, Im crazy but Im not THAT crazy. Never in a million years"Do you have TV?.. have you been following the US Presidential statements on Iran?

Occean, I beat you to this one by over a day, but I put a different twist on it, one that actually understands the reality of diplomacy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544470

We have to leave them alone, its called sovereignty.. Preemptive wars are the worst crimes of human kind.

The Westphalian system is both unjust and outdated, and sovereignty is vastly overrated.

I mean, do you know how the concept of sovereignty was developed? It was developed to resolve the thirty years war to allow each individual princeling the right to absolutely determine the religion of his subjects.

It's been used by dictators and despots to justify genocide and oppression, to terrorize and torture their own people. Mankind has had enough of this bullshit sovereignty, it's time for a new paradigm.

The Westphalian order of nation-states is hardly a just or fair system. I say do away with it.

Click Stand;13260920']Wait! Wait!, WHAT, our government lied to us!?1?/1.

Guys I think I'm gonna need some time alone.

Don't worry mate- all governments lie! None more so than the current British government- look at the lies they used on our voting population, they've somehow got elected three times in a row!
-grabs gun and shoots himself-

Do you have TV?.. have you been following the US Presidential statements on Iran?

... President Bush sounds like my old science teacher (he makes Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller sound overly emotional) so when the President starts speaking, I start nodding off.

The Westphalian order of nation-states is hardly a just or fair system. I say do away with it.

And replace it with what?

... President Bush sounds like my old science teacher (he makes Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller sound overly emotional) so when the President starts speaking, I start nodding off.

"Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?"

And replace it with what?

An international liberal order.

Free trade, respect for human rights, humane local democratic autonomy and so on and so forth.

All that wishy-washy stuff that was so popular around the foundation of the UN an the Bretton-Woods institutions.

An international liberal order.
*Roll of thunder*

*Roll of thunder*

Ah, the dreaded New World Order, as it's been called so often.

The most wonderful part of this is that Bush knew. Even when he was calling for harsh action against Iran.

If Iran plays its cards right they can use that to great effect.

The most wonderful part of this is that Bush knew. Even when he was calling for harsh action against Iran.

If Iran plays its cards right they can use that to great effect.

It would be bad if there had been military action. Right now it just seems like the US and allies have been trying to pressure Iran on other regional balance of power issues.

It would be bad if there had been military action. Right now it just seems like the US and allies have been trying to pressure Iran on other regional balance of power issues.

Correct. And since the main thing Iran wishes is to be an important regional player (and probably to get rid of those US sanctions) this gives thm leverage. Played correctly they could wind up with a security council seat.

It would be bad if there had been military action. Right now it just seems like the US and allies have been trying to pressure Iran on other regional balance of power issues.
Bush is still threatening Iran. In his address today, he implied that Iran is somehow more dangerous now that it stopped its nuclear problem.

Correct. And since the main thing Iran wishes is to be an important regional player (and probably to get rid of those US sanctions) this gives thm leverage. Played correctly they could wind up with a security council seat.

I don't see how your logic follows.

It remains that the Arab states are irreconcilably hostile to Iranian interests, and would under no circumstances allow them a seat on the UNSC.

In his address today, Bush implied that Iran is somehow more dangerous now that it stopped its nuclear weapons program.LOL..

I guess its true.. too much cocaine did fry important parts inside his brains. :D

Bush is still threatening Iran. In his address today, he implied that Iran is somehow more dangerous now that it stopped its nuclear problem.

Iran is dangerous, in that it is proving to be a destabilizing influence on the regional balance of power. The current diplomatic and political climate in the region is all participants must be wary of, and the continued aggressive Iranian use of proxies is not helping the situation.

... it is proving to be a destabilizing influence on the regional balance of power. The current diplomatic and political climate in the region is all participants must be wary of...The most destabilizing influence in the region right now is... US.


The most destabilizing monstrosity in the region -right now- is the Iraq War.

All participants (Arabs) should be wary of US. ... I would, if I was them.

I don't see how your logic follows.

It remains that the Arab states are irreconcilably hostile to Iranian interests, and would under no circumstances allow them a seat on the UNSC.

The Arab states have no seats there. No muslim country has in fact - which of course is ridiculous.

The most destabilizing influence in the region right now is... US.
Hardly.

As it stands, the primary goal of the United States is to maintain the same regional balance of power that was predominate throughout much of the 1990's

Iranian use of organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shi'a militias in Iraq have radically altered the balance of power in both of those countries, and have led to radically increased violence in each. Iran is not acting as a security seeker, rather, as a expansionist.


The most destabilizing monstrosity in the region -right now- is the Iraq War.

Without Iranian intervention on the behalf of Shi'a militia, though, this would not be the case, and an American withdrawal would have been possible much earlier. So, this game can go both ways.

All participants (Arabs) should be wary of US. ... I would, if I was them.

Furthermore, Iranian goals are heavily revisionist, and include the removal of the Arab regimes, establishment of Persian predominance in the region, both political and economic.

Iran is dangerous, in that it is proving to be a destabilizing influence on the regional balance of power. The current diplomatic and political climate in the region is all participants must be wary of, and the continued aggressive Iranian use of proxies is not helping the situation.

Well, you know, if we'd actually try diplomacy with Iran....

But nope, that hasn't been done in my lifetime. Why would it be tried now?

Well, you know, if we'd actually try diplomacy with Iran....

But nope, that hasn't been done in my lifetime. Why would it be tried now?

What do you think this announcement is? A declaration of casus belli?

As I postulated earlier, this is likely part of a diplomatic game, possibly linked to the Annapolis conference. So, while they are not at Annapolis, this is likely a bone being thrown to the Iranians to get them to not interfere in it.

More than that, the US is reliant on our allies for diplomacy with the Islamic Republic, and has been in such a situation since they took over our embassy and took the staff hostage. I mean, it was the Iranians who broached the single most inviolate rule of international diplomacy: Don't screw with other people's embassies.

the primary goal of the United States is to maintain the same regional balance of power that was predominate throughout much of the 1990'sJust... what was the goal of the Iraq war?

Just... what was the goal of the Iraq war?

To set up a sustainable state in Iraq, and part of that was make it so could remain a buffer between Iran and the Arab states.

Unfortunately, my government failed in execution, and informed its policy decisions from ideology rather than reality. What would have made sense would be to allow a framework in which the Hussein regime could transform over time.

At least that's what the grand strategy of the US has been for well over a decade, outside of that ridiculous neo-conservative experiment that lasted until late 2004.

What do you think this announcement is? A declaration of casus belli?

Saber rattling with no intention or attempt to actually seek any kind of diplomatic relations with Iran.

You have to actually talk to the other country in diplomacy. You can't just hold press conferences where you talk about them and how evil they are.

Saber rattling with no intention or attempt to actually seek any kind of diplomatic relations with Iran.

You have to actually talk to the other country in diplomacy. You can't just hold press conferences where you talk about them and how evil they are.

Once again, diplomacy is more than just talking. Actions and atmosphere are also extremely important.

In this case, releasing a NIE that comes to the conclusion that, actually, Iran isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons is an olive branch related to the Annapolis conference.

Discussion through allies and mediators is diplomacy. Press releases are diplomacy. Embargoes are diplomacy. Threats are diplomacy. This lilly-livered pacifist conceptualization of diplomacy is as dangerous as it is incorrect.

Just... what was the goal of the Iraq war?To set up a sustainable state in Iraq.Iraq was a sustainable state.


Iraq was a sustainable state before we bombed their cities, destroyed their Roads, Electricity infrastructures, schools, hospitals, dismantled the local security forces, and created incredible chaos.

Now we are hiring Halliburtons, blackwaters and other Republican-contributing-Corporations to somewhat fix what we destroyed .. and we obviously expect to pay a maximum of the bill with Iraqi oil.

Like i said iraq was already a sustainable state before we bombed them..

Your "We started a War to set up a sustainable state in Iraq" ... is like you starting a -trillion dollars- murdering War to make the sky blue...

But dude, the the sky is already blue... if anything, your bloody war is going to make it grey for a few years.

Iraq was a sustainable state.


Iraq was a sustainable state before we bombed their cities, destroyed their Roads, Electricity infrastructures, schools, hospitals, dismantled the local security forces, and created incredible chaos.

Now we are hiring Halliburtons, blackwaters and other Republican-contributing-Corporations to somewhat fix what we destroyed .. and we obviously expect to pay a maximum of the bill with Iraqi oil.

Like i said it was already a sustainable state..
Its like to say you started a -trillion dollars- murdering War to make the sky blue...

But dude, the the sky is already blue... if anything, your bloody war is going to make it grey for a few years.

Iraq was not a sustainable state by any stretch of the imagination.

It was gutted by sanctions and military restrictions stemming from the first Gulf War, it's government was built around the survival of one single man (whose longevity was not guaranteed), it lacked de facto control of large portions of its own territory, a conscript military with crumbling morale and had a government whose ideas were so ass-backwards that they thought it was a good idea to pretend they had WMD's to scare the Iranians, even though the Americans were getting ready for war over that very issue.

Oh, and not to mention the massive, restive ethnic majority that was being held down by the Hussein regime, that had close ties to that very neighbor that we wanted Iraq to serve as a buffer against.

Hardly.

As it stands, the primary goal of the United States is to maintain the same regional balance of power that was predominate throughout much of the 1990's
*cough* bullshit *cough*

Excuse me, bit of a cold.

Iraq was not a sustainable state by any stretch of the imagination.

It was gutted by sanctions and military restrictions ....Thats an interesting strategy..

We gutt the hell out of Iran and Venezuela with massive economic sanctions.. then after 10 years of systematically sabotaging their economy.. we bomb them into submission pretending they are no longer "sustainable states".

:D :D :p :D

Thats an interesting strategy..

We gutt the hell out of Iran and Venezuela with massive economic sanctions.. then after 10 years of systematically sabotaging their economy.. we bomb them into submission pretending they are no longer "sustainable states".

:D :D :p :D

I see you have no actual response to my analysis of US policy. Good.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Excuse me, bit of a cold.

That's what US grand strategy was through the nineties and up until 2001, and has been since roughly 2005. Stupid fucking neoconservativism.

..Iran wants to reestablish the Persian empire over the Middle East...haha.. its a good thing you edited out that part about the Persian empire because it was really far fetched.
;)

I see you have no actual response to my analysis of US policy. Good.let me translate my post...
=====================

Iraq was not a sustainable state by any stretch of the imagination.

It was gutted by sanctions and military restrictions stemming from the first Gulf War....1# Many states go trough tough times in history... That is no excuse to bomb them.

2# US(we) pushed for the sanctions that you are talking about.. so its like we created the excuse you are using for the War.

#3 This (not-a-sustainable-state) is the excuse number #39, the excuse #1 was WMD (anyone with a TV set knows that). And its as credible as all the previous excuses. ;)

Once again, diplomacy is more than just talking. Actions and atmosphere are also extremely important.

I never implied that it wasn't. But talking is a necessary part of it. "We're taking our ball and going home until you do everything we say" is not diplomacy any more than Bush's "Get out of your country in 48 hours or we start bombing you," was.

All diplomatic ties with Iran were cut before I was even born and have not been reopened since. Carter was the last president to pursue diplomatic channels with the Iranian government.

let me translate my post...
=====================

1# Many states go trough tough times in history... That is no excuse to bomb them.



Although when the eventual result of said state's collapse is a major rebalancing of the regional BoP against your favor, then maybe, maybe it is justified.

Not that the Iraq invasion was justified, as there were many other avenues to take.

2# US(we) pushed for the sanctions that you are talking about.. so its like we created the excuse you are using for the War.

In response to what were those sanctions created. It wouldn't be the invasion of Kuwait and the campaign against the Shi'a, would it? Remember, cause and effect all the way back.

#3 This (not-a-sustainable-state) is the excuse number #39, the excuse #1 was WMD (anyone with a TV set knows that). And its as credible as all the previous excuses. ;)

WMD was for show, the real issue is what the US really wanted.

haha.. its a good thing you edited out that part about the Persian empire because it was really far fetched.
;)

Where was the bit about the Persian empire?

I've expressed a concern about Persian regional predominance, but not empire.

I never implied that it wasn't. But talking is a necessary part of it. "We're taking our ball and going home until you do everything we say" is not diplomacy any more than Bush's "Get out of your country in 48 hours or we start bombing you," was.

All diplomatic ties with Iran were cut before I was even born and have not been reopened since. Carter was the last president to pursue diplomatic channels with the Iranian government.

Listen, you're not going to get me to agree with the Bush administrations behaviors prior to the Iraq War. They were just plain wrong in both taking military actions, and how they took action.

But, the situation is substantially different with Iran.

Listen, you're not going to get me to agree with the Bush administrations behaviors prior to the Iraq War. They were just plain wrong in both taking military actions, and how they took action.

But, the situation is substantially different with Iran.

Not really. The Bush administration has been trying to do essentially the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq. Even now, when it is clear that they've been lying to the American people once again, Bush's response is, "It don't really matter! They're still bad and they're gonna do what we say or else!" How long do you think it will be before "They're trying to get nuclear weapons" morphs into something else? And do you think the economic sanctions placed on them because of their supposed nuclear weapons program are going to be lifted?

The situation is really only different in that the guy the US government tried to put in power in Iran got overturned, so we haven't been supporting their leadership for the past couple of decades like we did Hussein.

Not really. The Bush administration has been trying to do essentially the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq. Even now, when it is clear that they've been lying to the American people once again, Bush's response is, "It don't really matter! They're still bad and they're gonna do what we say or else!" How long do you think it will be before "They're trying to get nuclear weapons" morphs into something else?

I think you're underestimating the ability of the United States and the Bush administration to successfully engage in diplomacy, especially in the post-2006 political climate.

And do you think the economic sanctions placed on them because of their supposed nuclear weapons program are going to be lifted?

Depending on which set of sanctions, it's quite possible.

I think you're underestimating the ability of the United States and the Bush administration to successfully engage in diplomacy, especially in the post-2006 political climate.

I don't know about ability, but they've shown a complete lack of interest in trying it - especially Bush himself.

The US could be engaging in diplomacy. The problem is that the powers-that-be don't bother. They have a list of people they've decided they're simply not going to talk to and that's that.

Depending on which set of sanctions, it's quite possible.

Possible, yes. Probable? Not as long as Bush is in office.

I think you're underestimating the ability of the (US and) Bush administration to successfully engage in diplomacy, especially in the post-2006 political climate. is that even possible? :D

Occean, I beat you to this one by over a day, but I put a different twist on it, one that actually understands the reality of diplomacy.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544470

and the Mods said, "let them be merged"

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Excuse me, bit of a cold.

You could do that better if you did it Will's way.

"*sneeze*, sorry I'm alergic to bullshit"

That's a good line.