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

[Sean Osborne]

I see Iran's 2003 conciliatory outreach to us, after we had just walloped Saddam's Army, as more evidence of Iran's ability to think and act rationally.

bourbon,

What Iranian 2003 "conciliatory outreach' to the United States are you referring to?

With respect to the NIE we're talking about - the US discovered in 2002 that Iran had covert nuclear weapons research ongoing at Natanz and Arak. An Iranian opposition group was responsible for pointing an accusatory finger at both the covert uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as well as the covert heavy water facility at Arak. At the time of this discovery both facilities were completely unknown to the pros in the U.S. intelligence community.

Moreover, the dual-use (geared for primarily military applications) Iranian HEU enrichment we did know about continued without interuption.

I repeat, what "conciliatory outreach" in 2003 are you referring to?

[bourbon]

bourbon,

What Iranian 2003 "conciliatory outreach' to the United States are you referring to?

With respect to the NIE we're talking about - the US discovered in 2002 that Iran had covert nuclear weapons research ongoing at Natanz and Arak. An Iranian opposition group was responsible for pointing an accusatory finger at both the covert uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as well as the covert heavy water facility at Arak. At the time of this discovery both facilities were completely unknown to the pros in the U.S. intelligence community.

Moreover, the dual-use (geared for primarily military applications) Iranian HEU enrichment we did know about continued without interuption.

I repeat, what "conciliatory outreach" in 2003 are you referring to?

See the thread: May 2003 Iranian Offer

See also:
Report: Cheney rejected Iran's offer of concessions in 2003, By Tom Regan.
csmonitor.com, January 18, 2007

What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran, By Flynt Leverett, New America Foundation with Hillary Mann. The New York Times, December 22, 2006

I repeat See the thread: May 2003 Iranian Offer

[Sean Osborne]

See the thread: May 2003 Iranian Offer

I see nothing here that proves the verified existence of a viable "offer" from Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions.

I saw that the primary news source was uncertain of the source of the "offer." In fact, I saw something about a "proposal," but nothing specific about an "offer."

The most current report on Iranian nuclear activity comes from Amir Taheri entitled "Appeasement Yesterday and Appeasement Today".

Excerpt:

In other words, even if we accept the NIE’s claim that the programme was stopped in 2003, something that we have no reason to do, there is no evidence that it has not been resumed.

There is, in fact, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

As already noted, the uranium enrichment project has been resumed and continues at much faster pace.

•According to official estimates in Tehran, allocations for the nuclear programme have risen by almost 40 per cent.

•The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that all of Iran’s known nuclear sites remain in full operation.

•The IAEA also reports that it has no access to a number of other industrial sites in Iran that may well be linked to the nuclear programme. In other words, we know what we don’t know but don’t know what we don’t know.

[Ken White]

Oh, come on. You might as well be quoting Karl Rove. Show me the IAEA report that verifies the current state of Iranian nuclear production. Verified facts, please.

of the NIE? How can anyone in the US show verified facts on the Iranian nuclear program?

Speculation is speculation, regardless of who prints it, seems to me. Been my observation that most who print speculation and try to couch it as fact have a bias that will come out in their statements and that all too frequently, there's an agenda at work -- and that agenda may not be what seems apparent.

[Sean Osborne]

of the NIE? How can anyone in the US show verified facts on the Iranian nuclear program?

Speculation is speculation, regardless of who prints it, seems to me. Been my observation that most who print speculation and try to couch it as fact have a bias that will come out in their statements and that all too frequently, there's an agenda at work -- and that agenda may not be what seems apparent.

I concur. Moreover it seems that at least some to the left of center deem the NIE to be chiseled-in-granite verifiable intelligence fact instead of the multi-faceted compiled intelligence estimate and assessment that it really is. All estimates and assessments are subject to additional review with the application of new data and a subsequent re-estimation and re-assessment as the net result.

[JeffC]

of the NIE? How can anyone in the US show verified facts on the Iranian nuclear program?

No, Ken, not of the NIE. From the IAEA. I objected to Sean's use of evidence which turned out to be an editorial by Amir Taheri. I'm simply saying to wait until the IAEA finishes it's work and issues a report rather than state editorial positions as if they're facts.

I concur. Moreover it seems that at least some to the left of center deem the NIE to be chiseled-in-granite verifiable intelligence fact instead of the multi-faceted compiled intelligence estimate and assessment that it really is. All estimates and assessments are subject to additional review with the application of new data and a subsequent re-estimation and re-assessment as the net result.

Lots of people use the NIE to support their own agenda, Sean, not just the "left of center", or are you actually saying that members of the political Right are exempt from that error?

[Sean Osborne]

I objected to Sean's use of ... an editorial by Amir Taheri.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Amir Taheri's analysis of Iran, the IAEA or the NIE.

From the above link:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can also spin the new NIE in favour of its own exercise in diplomatic chiaroscuro. It (the IAEA) has demonstrated that Iran has had a hidden and illegal nuclear programme at some point but refuses to commit itself on whether or not this is still the case.

Bingo. Dead-on correct based upon all available OSINT.

Yes. It's from Khan.

This is not from Khan and it says nothing about whether or not Iran has used the Khan proliferated P2 designs to build Iranian centrifuges.

[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?

[Ken White]

No, Ken, not of the NIE. From the IAEA. I objected to Sean's use of evidence which turned out to be an editorial by Amir Taheri. I'm simply saying to wait until the IAEA finishes it's work and issues a report rather than state editorial positions as if they're facts.

the NIE or the IAEA is likely to be totally accurate -- or factual. IMO, of course. YMMV.