U.S. Report:

[Lt_Ripley]

U.S. Report: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapon Program in ‘03Posted on Dec 3, 2007

A new report released by American intelligence officials profoundly contradicts President Bush’s claims on the Iran nuclear threat and casts his “World War III” fear-mongering in a dubious light. The National Intelligence Estimate’s declassified assessment, compiled from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, says Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 “in response to international pressure,” and that, although the country still hopes to have the capacity to produce its own nuclear weapon, that potential development is still a long way off.

Read the National Intelligence Estimate’s “Key Points” summary here

[stevewinn]

U.S. Report: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapon Program in ‘03Posted on Dec 3, 2007

A new report released by American intelligence officials profoundly contradicts President Bush’s claims on the Iran nuclear threat and casts his “World War III” fear-mongering in a dubious light. The National Intelligence Estimate’s declassified assessment, compiled from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, says Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 “in response to international pressure,” and that, although the country still hopes to have the capacity to produce its own nuclear weapon, that potential development is still a long way off.

Read the National Intelligence Estimate’s “Key Points” summary here

Just the other week people where saying how wrong the CIA was over Iraq and now that the CIA is dancing to the beat of the Anti War Drum all of a sudden the CIA are credible again,

I'll say the CIA are wrong with this report, just like they got it wrong with Iraq,

Edited December 3, 2007 by stevewinn

[coughymachine]

I'll say the CIA are wrong with this report, just like that got it wrong with Iraq

Alternatively, the CIA were misrepresented where Iraq was concerned and they're taking care to make sure their evidence is not being massaged by a trigger-happy administration this time.

That aside, why rely solely on US intelligence, which is inevitable susceptible to politicisation. Why not, instead, look at the IAEA's findings. They said that Iraq didn't have WMD's and their assessment was shown to be accurate. Now they say that Iran isn't pursuing a weaponised nuclear programme. I'd be inclined to trust their judgement again.

[stevewinn]

to be honest its hard to know who to trust, CIA MI5/6 or the IAEA-E-I-O, it just a ****ing guessing game, its thee old i dont need the weather man to tell me its p***ing down, but in this case i dont need the IAEA to tell me why Israel has two suns.

Edited December 3, 2007 by stevewinn

[AROCES]

Here we go again. If CIA, UN or IAEA claim something then make an official declaration or announcment that Iran does not have any WMD, that they are assuring the whole world with it and show all your documentation.

Not this report, that report, he said this and that, and then more evidence will show up 5 years from now prior to a book release.

[nickoli]

Seems to me that the 2005 report is highly contradictory of the current report or did I read it wrong? Why would they state in 2005 "with high confidence that Iran is determined to devolop nuclear weopons " then further state in 2007 that Iran halted its program in 2003? At least one of the reports is wrong huh? More political doublespeak? I dont know if Amiwhatshisname is just saber rattleing or not but I for one think the man is a threat and should be treated as such. The kidnapping of the British sailors was enough for me to see he likes to play dangerous games and doesnt believe in diplomacy before military options. If war with Iran can be averted great I'm all for it but the recent arms build-up seems to be war mongering rather than peaceful. I wonder what these will be used for? http://www.missilethreat.com/?gclid=CODg2L...CFQlxOAodUGArtQ (fixed link)

Edited December 3, 2007 by nickoli

[Q24]

The kidnapping of the British sailors was enough for me to see he likes to play dangerous games and doesnt believe in diplomacy before military options.

'Kidnapping' - what a joke. I do wonder how the US/UK would react if they found a group of the Iranian military right on their border. I guess it would be called 'detainment' then though rather than 'kidnapping'.

If war with Iran can be averted great I'm all for it but the recent arms build-up seems to be war mongering rather than peaceful. I wonder what these will be used for?

Most likely self defense from an Israel/US attack. If you want to see an arms build-up in the region, look to the US. And can anyone seriously see Iran striking another country unless militarily provoked first?

Edit: I suppose I should be a good poster and comment on the topic whilst I'm here - the latest American intelligence report seems correct and the IAEA findings in Iran (that is lack of nuclear weapon development findings) should be taken note of. Unfortunately that is should be, not will be.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Q24

[Unlimited]

I believe this is a good report...anything to stop bush from attacking Iran...

[nickoli]

I think it was proven that the Brits were in international waters unless you go by Iranian maps and not the rest of the free worlds. The coalition is persucuting a war, in such times of war those not involved would be wise to not interfere lest they get drawn in. Hostile actions were not taken against Iran to warrent their responce, a simple phone call through proper channels would have probably been all that was needed for the ever so polite Royal Navy to have backed off a little. No I'll stick with my beliefs that the man plays very dangerous games and he best not try that same little stunt with the US Navy or he'll probably have a few sunken gunboats at best.

[Q24]

I think it was proven that the Brits were in international waters unless you go by Iranian maps and not the rest of the free worlds.

I think it was proven that the territorial line along the Shatt al-Arab waterway was in great dispute between Iraq and Iran, having never been entirely settled. Even the British Foreign Affairs Committee report on the incident stated: -

"

We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway provided by the Government was less clear than it ought to have been. The Government was fortunate that it was not in Iran’s interests to contest the accuracy of the map.

"

As for 'dangerous games', people need to take a look at the one the Bush administration are playing in the Middle East right now.

[nickoli]

As for 'dangerous games', people need to take a look at the one the Bush administration are playing in the Middle East right now.

Agreed, we are playing games, we should be much much more intense in our supposed hunt for Bin Laden. We should also be asking Suadi Arabia some serious questions. Americans should be put on a gas ration and the US should concentrate all efforts on getting off of foriegn oil,forever. No matter the cost it has to be done sooner or later anyhow. Lets see Beruit,USS Cole ,9 /11 I guess you beleive we should just sit on our hands and give the extremists a hug and the world will be peachy.

[The Silver Thong]

It has been proven that the current administration cherry picked Intel from the c.i.a. to perpetuate the efforts of invading Iraq. The u.n. new of no wmd's and the c.i.a. backed that. Guess what? they were right. I still don't have any reason to believe Iran is forging it's way to become a nuclear threat. Not because of a report from 2003 but the simple fact is that the U.S. wants this war and will again cherry pick what ever intel it so desires to achieve the goal of yet further planting themselves in the M.E. I do think that if the U.S. does follow through with this it will prove to be the final nail in the coffin. How do you make money off a war when the cost is more than the profit. What a sec it's not about the free oil trade or the wmd's. It's about making a sellect few very rich and changing policy so that it can be done over and over again. This is a dangerous game and one that will not be won at least not the way we the people can imagine.

[Q24]

Agreed, we are playing games, we should be much much more intense in our supposed hunt for Bin Laden.

Yes I agree, the focus should be on Bin Laden and terrorist organisations. If this were the case, it begs the question - why in 2001 when the Taliban offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden for trial in a neutral country, did Bush turn down the offer?

The Iraq/Afghan wars, and future possible Iran war, come down to the complete lack of serious US diplomacy. You can draw two conclusions from that - either the US are poor at negotiation or the US do not always want a peaceful solution.

[Lt_Ripley]

here's a nice little tidbit coming to light -------sound familiar ?

A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy

By Peter Baker and Robin Wright

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, December 4, 2007; Page A01

President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120302210.html?nav=rss_email/components" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...mail/components</a>

the slimy corrupt Bas **** knew Iran had stopped yet still kept up his lies....... like usual info he chose to ignore to go after his own screwing up american agenda

Edited December 4, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Cradle of Fish]

If this, combined with the Ayatollah issuing a Fatwa prohibitting the development of nuclear weapons, doesn't convince people that Iran isnt building them, nothing will.

I have a bad feeling though that the US will go ahead no matter what the 'facts' say.

[coughymachine]

But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

As the article states, this appears to offer encouragement to both sides of the argument. But what I can't understand is, if there was incontravertible proof that Iran did have an active programme in 2003, why were they not found in breach of the NPT?