Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[Rex Brynen]

I think the thread has started to spin in circles, and break down frequently.

I think we can all agree:

1) That current evidence seems to suggest that Iran has suspended its weaponization programme, for now at least.

2) It does have an active enrichment programme, of uncertain size. This could be civilian, it could be part of a drive to build a weapon, or it could be part of an effort to attain weapons capacity (without actually moving to a weapon).

3) The military option, regardless of its drawbacks or merits, is off the table for now.

Given this, perhaps we can focus on:

1) What ought to be the goal? No Iranian enrichment capacity? Limited under safeguards? With what quid pro quos?

2) Ought current diplomatic efforts be revised in some way?

[JeffC]

I think the thread has started to spin in circles, and break down frequently.

I think we can all agree:

1) That current evidence seems to suggest that Iran has suspended its weaponization programme, for now at least.

2) It does have an active enrichment programme, of uncertain size. This could be civilian, it could be part of a drive to build a weapon, or it could be part of an effort to attain weapons capacity (without actually moving to a weapon).

3) The military option, regardless of its drawbacks or merits, is off the table for now.

Given this, perhaps we can focus on:

1) What ought to be the goal? No Iranian enrichment capacity? Limited under safeguards? With what quid pro quos?

2) Ought current diplomatic efforts be revised in some way?

I agree with your assessment in the first part, and for the second my opinion is (1) no enrichment capabilities anywhere in the Middle East. Instead, go with Switzerland's existing offer to provide the enriched fuel for civilian use by any ME nation who wants it (and the entire GCC does), and (2) yes. They never should have ceased to begin with.

[JJackson]

This fuel has been IAEA sealed for a while now awaiting shipment.

Russia ships nuclear fuel to Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147463.stm


The Bushehr plant is a LWR and uses 103 tonnes.

[Sean Osborne]

I think the thread has started to spin in circles, and break down frequently.

I agree. The thread has gone peripheral to the topic several times which directly led to off topic issues. I began to smell a "blame America" scent insted of focus on the NIE as the thread topic. This is one reason why I simply ceased my posting to this thread last evening.

I think we can all agree:

1) That current evidence seems to suggest that Iran has suspended its weaponization programme, for now at least.

2) It does have an active enrichment programme, of uncertain size. This could be civilian, it could be part of a drive to build a weapon, or it could be part of an effort to attain weapons capacity (without actually moving to a weapon).

3) The military option, regardless of its drawbacks or merits, is off the table for now.

NEGATIVE. I do not agree with Number 1 at all.

There is no conclusive current evidence that seems to suggest that Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. The Iranian dual use uranium enrichment cycle cited in this NIE is a primary indicator of Iranian intent.

This continuing dual-use processing of HEU is blatant Iranian defiance of the international community led by the IAEA.

The UNCLASSIFIED National Intelligence ESTIMATE does estimate, does assess, does make key judgements and does make key assumptions (see the NIE "scope note") based upon its overall estimation processes about an Iranian cessation of its nucear weapons program in 2003, and with moderate confidence Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

However, there are agencies within the US Intelligence Community who do not share this assessment. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Intelligence Council (NIC) have only moderate confidence that the 2003 halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program. The NIC functions as the lead in the effort to product all NIE's for the DNI. This is a significant admission within the NIE with respect to the assessment of an Iranian halt to its active nuclear weapons program.

In my assessment this evidence makes evident that Rex's statement in item number 1 above is not an accurate statement with respect to what we ALL can agree on.

Also and therefore item number 3 is excluded in its entirety.

Need agreement here before moving forward to any other positions.

[SWCAdmin]

Need agreement here before moing forward to any other positions.

That is unlikely.

But I think we can safely say we have documentd the basis of disagreement. And that's a win, which does enable forward movement to address the next level of so what, impacts, etc.

Even if it doing so has to be marginally presumptive based on the disagreement on the underlying assessments, i.e. where one party says "I still don't believe X is true, but accepting for a moment your assertion that it is, then I <---?> with you that the impact will be Y."

[Sean Osborne]

That is unlikely.

Allow me to re-phrase over the course and sum of this post. I think we need agreement on what the NIE does and does not estimate, assess, and hold as key judgements or key assumptions.

But I think we can safely say we have documentd the basis of disagreement.

I concur 100%.

And that's a win, which does enable forward movement to address the next level of so what, impacts, etc.

Identifying the disagreements on the NIE is a win.

However, I still wonder about the possibility of progression to the next level without basic agreement regarding what the NIE does and does not say. What real progress does the thread make in going forward with such a disparity of opinion? We'll repeatedly come back to the basis of the disagreement on the substance of the NIE.

I think it pretty obvious these disagreements on the NIE lie on top of a political or ideological fault line. Some are to the left of the line. Some are to the right.

Even if (in) doing so (it) has to be marginally presumptive based on the disagreement on the underlying assessments, i.e. where one party says "I still don't believe X is true, but accepting for a moment your assertion that it is, then I <---?> with you that the impact will be Y."

((Sorry, if I overstepped bounds in slight editing above... it's the intent of meaning that I think you intended to convey.))

Okay, then it looks as if this is to be a debate with each side free to claim victory at some unknown point which would be based upon their pre-existent postion on the "fault line;" and that the ongoing argument/debate will be for the arguments/debates sake. I doubt a consensus can be achieved in this manner, but let's see where it goes and whether or not this prognositcation is ultimately correct or incorrect.

[Stan]

Center for American Progess writes...

Rebuilding a Coherent Policy Toward Iran
CAP brings in two authors on recent books about Iran to suggest a new policy for the United States in light of the new NIE report.

“If the U.S. had seen the same opening Iran did after 9/11, there wouldn’t be 3000 centrifuges spinning right now,” said Barbara Slavin, a senior diplomatic reporter at USA Today and author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.

Slavin, who is also on leave this year as a fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, joined Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States and president of the National Iranian American Council, in a discussion at the Center for American Progress titled “Nuclear Meltdown: Rebuilding a Coherent Policy Toward Iran.” Joseph Cirincione, Senior Fellow and Director of Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress and co-author of Contain and Engage: A New Strategy for Resolving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis, moderated the panel.

The books, said Cirincione, are “very complementary,” and provided a good starting point for a discussion about what would constitute a new U.S. policy toward Iran in light of the new National Intelligence Estimate that cast doubt on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The authors painted a complex history of U.S.-Iranian relations.

All agreed that the U.S. needs to find a diplomatic way forward with Iran. Parsi thought the turmoil in Pakistan was an issue the United States and Iran could work together on. “Yes, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and instability is great. That is an area where the U.S. and Iran have a common interest, which we should recognize and use to build trust.”

Ultimately, “we should try to get diplomats back to Iran,” said Slavin. “We can’t influence the country from the outside. We need some kind of dialogue and relationship.”

More at the link...

[Sean Osborne]

Center for American Progess writes...

Center for American Progress

Excerpts from the above link:

Leftist think tank run by Hillary Clinton and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta
Helped launch Media Matters for America

The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."

One of CAP's primary missions is to carry out "rapid response" to what it calls conservative "attacks" in the media. To this end, CAP maintains more than a dozen spokespeople ready to appear on short notice on national talk shows to debate or respond to conservative commentators.

It is my opinion that CAP represents a very slick, left of center political front that is more interested in the appeasement of Iran and its own political agenda than serious debate on the issue of ongoing Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons per the (2005 &) 2007 National Intelligence Estimates.

As referenced in my post above.

[Stan]

It is my opinion that CAP represents a very slick, left of center political front that is more interested in the appeasement of Iran and its own political agenda than serious debate on the issue of ongoing Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons per the (2005 &) 2007 National Intelligence Estimates. As referenced in my post above.

Yup, political agendas tend to take center stage. However, I think what this does represent is yet another view (whether you and/or I ever agree with it), that we shouldn’t ignore it, and we definitely should at least be prepared for it, if the Democrats win this next election (God forbid).

I do agree that we should be back ‘there’ at ground zero in any form or function rather than being dependent upon other world organizations monitoring the situation, which will preclude more knee-jerk reactions and pathetic gaps in our ‘intelligence’.

I submit only one naive thought about this - collectively we have exhausted this thread, and I still conclude that there's little evidence that makes me think Iran will ever be able to put a nuke in functioning order. They remind me of rich Africans.

[bourbon]

It is my opinion that CAP represents a very slick, left of center political front that is more interested in the appeasement of Iran and its own political agenda than serious debate on the issue of ongoing Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons per the (2005 &) 2007 National Intelligence Estimates.

As referenced in my post above.

First of all Joe Cirincione and Trita Parsi are experts who transcend common stock partisan bickering. Besides, Dr. Parsi is card carrying member of the Realist school of international relations which conflicts with Senator Clinton's neo-liberal/liberal interventionist camp.

Which leads me a second point, It is not an obvious left/right matter. Paleoconservatives for the most part fall on what you ascribe to the where the left is on this matter. They at best fail to see how neoconservative hawkishness on Iran is in the national interest, and worst question the neocon's motives. Not to mention view the neocons disdainfully as an ideology spawned by red-diaper babies, that has more in common with the Jacobin's and Bolsheviks than with conservatism. Further some fail to see much difference between Sen. Clinton and the likes of Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney on the Iran matter and Foreign Policy.