we're talking about stopping a nuclear weapons program here.
But the unanimous consensus ("with high confidence") of all 16 US intelligence agencies remains that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. I haven't seen that mentioned once in any discussion of this subject here. That's just weird.
I don't follow this stuff closely and obviously have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but it seems likely that everything about this business is stuffed to the gills with propaganda. Is there any credibly objective source anywhere?
But the unanimous consensus ("with high confidence") of
all 16 US intelligence agencies remains that Iran does
not have a nuclear weapons program.
Israel has enough to worry about without Iran developing nuclear weapons. I sincerely doubt they would keep bringing it up if it obviously wasn't the case. They really don't need it for their case. So I would like to see the evidence for your assertion.
I'm not the original poster, but the idea that the US intelligence agencies have collectively decided that Iran's nuclear weapons program is inactive is not some crazy conspiracy theory: the most recent NIE really does say that. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-ira...
Today is the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower's historic speech criticising the rise of the American milittary industrial complex. So if you're wondering why Israel would make up a nuclear program that doesn't exist in Iran check it out.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/01...
I also invite you read this document. Specifically section 4.5 starting on page 30."Despite pressure from the US, successive reports by the IAEA have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, past or present."
http://www.transcend.org/tri/downloads/The_Iran_Threat.pdf
I didn't include a link because I don't have time to vet any particular source. But you can take your pick of countless ones: http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+nie.
“Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a ‘high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.’ A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992.”
“February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier.”
“January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003.”
“January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although ‘how soon…depends how they go about getting it.’”
“April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says ‘he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.’”
“October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years. ‘If I were a betting man,’ he said, ‘I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.’”
“January 17, 2000: A new CIA assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities says that the CIA cannot rule out the possibility that Iran may possess nuclear weapons. The assessment is based on the CIA’s admission that it cannot monitor Iran’s nuclear activities with any precision and hence cannot exclude the prospect that Iran may have nuclear weapons.”
You'd think that after consistently making false predictions for decades, people might be a little more careful about this, but no....
The people making these predictions have great interest in making them false. It's quite possible the ETA keeps getting pushed back exactly because of things like Stuxnet.
It's not charitable, it's realistic. I think sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail, like any organization. I don't assume they're completely incompetent when they fail, nor that they are perfect when they succeed.
A project like Iran's would have its own setbacks even in ideal environment. When there are organizations working against it, it's likely to have even more setbacks.
It is also possible that these people are simply irrational or paranoid. Intelligence is always fragmentary and uncertain, but people who are intent on believing that Iran is a deadly enemy about to acquire a vast nuclear arsenal can interpret arbitrary data to justify that belief.
I don't think it's in dispute that Iran has nuclear aspirations, or that it's an enemy of Sunnis and Jews in the Middle East.
Whether they would actually manage to build a bomb and whether they'd actually use it are different questions - but given the Middle East's practices and history, not ones people would tend to ponder too long over.
"Halted in 2003" is how I remember it. How can you push back the progress of something that was halted in 2003 (if it was)? Anyway, (a) I haven't read the report; (b) an objective discussion of this matter seems impossible; (c) I already regret contributing to something that probably shouldn't be on HN; (d) I think I'll stop here.
But the unanimous consensus ("with high confidence") of all 16 US intelligence agencies remains that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program _anymore thanks to stuxnet_
Comments
we're talking about stopping a nuclear weapons program here.
But the unanimous consensus ("with high confidence") of all 16 US intelligence agencies remains that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. I haven't seen that mentioned once in any discussion of this subject here. That's just weird.
I don't follow this stuff closely and obviously have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but it seems likely that everything about this business is stuffed to the gills with propaganda. Is there any credibly objective source anywhere?
I'm not the original poster, but the idea that the US intelligence agencies have collectively decided that Iran's nuclear weapons program is inactive is not some crazy conspiracy theory: the most recent NIE really does say that. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-ira...
Today is the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower's historic speech criticising the rise of the American milittary industrial complex. So if you're wondering why Israel would make up a nuclear program that doesn't exist in Iran check it out. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/01...
Here is a good debate concerning the issue of trusting Iran that they have no nuclear program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVZGREqdfZ8
I also invite you read this document. Specifically section 4.5 starting on page 30."Despite pressure from the US, successive reports by the IAEA have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, past or present." http://www.transcend.org/tri/downloads/The_Iran_Threat.pdf
Source please.
I didn't include a link because I don't have time to vet any particular source. But you can take your pick of countless ones: http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+nie.
Yet. The unanimous consensus was that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapons program, but that it was attempting to establish one.
The purpose of Stuxnex was to push back Iran's progress by a few years.
The purpose of Stuxnex was to push back Iran's progress by a few years.
Ah, but why bother? Iran's nuclear weapons are always just a few years away, in the future: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/bad-intelligence-but-in-which...
“Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a ‘high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.’ A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992.”
“February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier.”
“January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003.”
“January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although ‘how soon…depends how they go about getting it.’”
“April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says ‘he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.’”
“October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years. ‘If I were a betting man,’ he said, ‘I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.’”
“January 17, 2000: A new CIA assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities says that the CIA cannot rule out the possibility that Iran may possess nuclear weapons. The assessment is based on the CIA’s admission that it cannot monitor Iran’s nuclear activities with any precision and hence cannot exclude the prospect that Iran may have nuclear weapons.”
You'd think that after consistently making false predictions for decades, people might be a little more careful about this, but no....
The people making these predictions have great interest in making them false. It's quite possible the ETA keeps getting pushed back exactly because of things like Stuxnet.
That's a remarkably charitable view of intelligence service/government statements given what we now know of Iraq's capabilities.
It's not charitable, it's realistic. I think sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail, like any organization. I don't assume they're completely incompetent when they fail, nor that they are perfect when they succeed.
A project like Iran's would have its own setbacks even in ideal environment. When there are organizations working against it, it's likely to have even more setbacks.
It is also possible that these people are simply irrational or paranoid. Intelligence is always fragmentary and uncertain, but people who are intent on believing that Iran is a deadly enemy about to acquire a vast nuclear arsenal can interpret arbitrary data to justify that belief.
I don't think it's in dispute that Iran has nuclear aspirations, or that it's an enemy of Sunnis and Jews in the Middle East.
Whether they would actually manage to build a bomb and whether they'd actually use it are different questions - but given the Middle East's practices and history, not ones people would tend to ponder too long over.
Unfortunately this sort of success results in publicly perceived failure. For more examples, see y2k.
Maybe the predictions were true, until somebody made them false?
"Halted in 2003" is how I remember it. How can you push back the progress of something that was halted in 2003 (if it was)? Anyway, (a) I haven't read the report; (b) an objective discussion of this matter seems impossible; (c) I already regret contributing to something that probably shouldn't be on HN; (d) I think I'll stop here.
But the unanimous consensus ("with high confidence") of all 16 US intelligence agencies remains that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program _anymore thanks to stuxnet_
FTFY