I know what you said, my point is that neither
the NIE or the IAEA is likely to be totally accurate -- or factual. IMO, of course. YMMV.Originally Posted by JeffC
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.
Russia ships nuclear fuel to Iran
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.
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.
NEGATIVE. I do not agree with Number 1 at all.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.
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.
Last edited by Sean Osborne; 12-17-2007 at 02:14 PM.
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."
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.That is unlikely.
I concur 100%.But I think we can safely say we have documentd the basis of disagreement.
Identifying the disagreements on the NIE is a win.And that's a win, which does enable forward movement to address the next level of so what, impacts, etc.
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.
((Sorry, if I overstepped bounds in slight editing above... it's the intent of meaning that I think you intended to convey.))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."
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.
Nuclear Meltdown: Rebuilding a Coherent Policy Toward Iran
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.
More at the link...“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.”
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."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.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.
As referenced in my post above.
Last edited by Sean Osborne; 12-17-2007 at 08:12 PM.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Stan:
Which leads right back to Rex Brynen's point of: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.
Dumb suggestion in order here, perhaps?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?
Assume that you guys (who have a whole lot of very practical, real life field expertise) are now faced with having a whole bunch of really dumb pols (yeah, I know, an Oxymoron if there ever was one) who know that they done "screwed the pooch" big time, but now they're saying "Help us out here, guys. We haven't done too well so far on our own, so it's time for a change". Suggestions?? (and don't just say "negotiate" - anybody can do that). Give us something that means something".
Right now, the pols out there are scrambling. They don't know what to do, and right now, all the SIG's (special interests, on all sides, and you can imaging who they all are) are pushing their agendas like mad. Problem for them is, most of them are obviously dripping with agendas and this makes them suspect.
SWJ can be an invaluable resource. This is one of those times where it is needed.
Simple question:
Let's say we (US) wants to start talkin to them good folks over there Tehran way? What's the plan?
Just a thought
Have them sell oil to china through pipelines in countries within which we are allied
Have Russia take the responsibility for providing them with the power which is something they both want but which places a necessity for transparent dealings by both parties and puts pressure on a certain someone who wants to work behind the scenes to be on the line for what happens with anything involved in that process.
Call for referendum vote in Iran giving Khomenei the chance to get butt-head out of the way so that those we used to work with before get another chance or at worst shows how confident they aren't in their internal power base right now. Give none of the above approval until the conspirations of the last 12 years amongst aforementioned parties are brought to light and defined to the satisfaction of those nations which stood to lose the most as a result.
Oh and for China,, Naner naner boo boo ,anything you can do we and our friends can do better
Look it's a bird , no it's a plane , no it's the japanese shooting a balistic missile out of the sky.
You just asked for suggestions you didn't say they had to be good one's
I like Rex’s Option 1) Limited under safeguards with quid pro quos.
Since Ron came up with a darn good answer --get Russia and China more involved-- I’ll respond with a little expansion.
You’re correct; we already negotiated our way into nowhere and looked pretty stupid coming back. I don’t see any immediate military involvement; it has to be a diplomatic effort. DOE has literally 100s of programs that deal with just this situation. Get them involved in providing materials and assistance in the construction. There’s no need for spying (and I don’t think we actually have intel types with degrees in nuclear physics) and more political brew ha ha’ing.
Offer them free assistance with rocket scientists at the helm.
Key this assistance package to release of sanctions and to joining the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. There are enough influential players on the GNEP board and I doubt anyone on that board wants to be nuked by Iran
Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Ghana, Hungary, Italy Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, The Ukraine and United States.
We should be prepared like a Boy Scout is prepared.
We need covert HUMINT in almost every area of intelligence collection. As evidenced by the 2005 and 2007 NIE we desperately need covert HUMINT assets in Iran reporting on core capabilities. No more estimations, assessments, judgements or assumptions - just good solid intelligence data.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’.
My Intelligence EstimateI 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.
The Shah's "Surge" nuclear weapons program was progressing until the unfortunate Islamic revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini came along and halted it. Then after Khomeini died Rafsanjani resurrected the nuke program. Ahamadinejad gets elected in 2005 and the "Surge" is back on again - in Iran and in North Korea.
I conclude that Iran paid handsomely for and received priceless data they could not otherwise obtain from the North Korean nuclear program (Ballistic missile program as well). Iran received a half-dozen Kh-55 Granat's sans their 200kT warheads from the Ukraine with Russian assistance in 2001. The warheads are the missing components Iran is surging to complete.
With respect to the 2003 hiatus, (the Iranians assumed the US or Israel would learn of the halt) North Korea was the Iranian ace-in-the-hole. The payoff came with the North Korean nuclear test on October 9, 2006. Mission accomplished. The North Korean's then agree to dismantle their program, and have the dismantling paid for with foreign cash among other bonuses. This is of no concern to Iran - they have what they paid for. A year later North Korea gets caught red-handed in Syria. The US and Israel send a message to the Iranian's from deep in the Syrian desert. The Iranian's are surging ahead to process indigenous HEU for the warhead to put on their missiles. The have AQ Khan's Paki designs and North Korean test results. Ahamdinejad has a bigger mission ahead and a nuke or two is what he needs to create the conditions for his al-Mahdi to pop out of the well.
Last edited by Sean Osborne; 12-18-2007 at 11:11 AM.
LA Times, 9 Dec 07: CIA Has Recruited Iranians to Defect
The CIA launched a secret program in 2005 designed to degrade Iran's nuclear weapons program by persuading key officials to defect, an effort that has prompted a "handful" of significant departures, current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation say.....
.....Intelligence gathered as part of that campaign provided much of the basis for a U.S. report released last week that concluded the Islamic Republic had halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003. Officials declined to say how much of that intelligence could be attributed to the CIA program to recruit defectors.
Although the CIA effort on defections has been aimed in part at gaining information about Tehran's nuclear capabilities, its goal has been to undermine Iran's emerging capabilities by plucking key scientists, military officers and other personnel from its nuclear roster......
.....The program has had limited success. Officials said that fewer than six well-placed Iranians have defected, and that none has been in a position to provide comprehensive information on Tehran's nuclear program.....
U.S. companies with experience in delivering nuclear power as an energy source could flourish in the Middle East. Every nation there wants nuclear energy facilities.I like Rex’s Option 1) Limited under safeguards with quid pro quos.
Since Ron came up with a darn good answer --get Russia and China more involved-- I’ll respond with a little expansion
You’re correct; we already negotiated our way into nowhere and looked pretty stupid coming back. I don’t see any immediate military involvement; it has to be a diplomatic effort
Offer them free assistance with rocket scientists at the helm.
Key this assistance package to release of sanctions and to joining the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. There are enough influential players on the GNEP board and I doubt anyone on that board wants to be nuked by Iran
Dang... there goes my coveted HUMINT. POOF!.....The program has had limited success. Officials said that fewer than six well-placed Iranians have defected, and that none has been in a position to provide comprehensive information on Tehran's nuclear program.....
Rasmussen conducted "National Survey of 800 Likely Voters" on 5/6 December 2007. Here is the report on the results of that poll (emphasis added) which reflects the mindset of the American citizen with a high degree of confidence (95%).
Sounds to me like the most recent NIE accomplished zip with respect to the voting American public (i.e.: was a big time failure).Toplines - Iran Nuclear Program - December 5-6, 2007
National Survey of 800 Likely Voters
1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about Iran’s nuclear program?
43% Very closely
40% Somewhat closely
2* A U.S intelligence report found that Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Do you believe that Iran has stopped their nuclear weapons program?
66% No
3* Is Iran still a threat to the national security of the United States?
67% Yes
4* Should the United States continue to impose economic sanctions on Iran?
59% Yes
5* How likely is it that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in the future?
47% Very likely
34% Somewhat likely
Last edited by Jedburgh; 12-18-2007 at 05:05 PM. Reason: Edited for content. Do not cut-and-paste items in their entirety.
The target of the NIE was not, however, the American voting public, and its "failure" can therefore hardly be assessed in those terms.
And I'm not a big fan of trusting an 800 person survey as reflecting much other than the mindset of those 800 people. Sorry, but most polling organizations shroud their methods and certain key points of information (like response rate, refusal rate, polling locations, times called, and so on) in so much secrecy that it's impossible to tell what they really reflect.
Polls can be an interesting general indicator, but at the end of the day they reflect little more than the opinion of the people who actually answered the phone and stuck with the survey all the way through.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks