Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

  • 26-02-2012 7:15am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭


    In the midst of all the media hysteria on Iran, US agencies have reaffirmed that Iran is not trying to build a bomb. The consensus view of America's intelligence agencies is that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
    U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

    A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,1164870,full.story


    It must be pleasing the Israelis to no end that the media keep feeding the public complete garbage about Iran's nuclear ambitions. For the more people that perceive Iran as a nuclear threat the easier it's going to be for the Israelis to carry out a military attack.


«1345

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    I don't think that the US/Israel thinks that they're building a bomb as we speak, rather I think they're worried about the increasing potential of them creating a nuclear weapon. I think Iran is trying to develop fission rectors for domestic energy uses, however, it isn't incredible had to switch the output to create weapons grade materials, if they so wished. An increase in Iranian nuclear technology (even if it's just for nuclear energy) means an increase in Iranian potential (in terms of the technology available for them) to create nuclear weapons.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    We have been down this road before with Blair and Bush on the WMD's. It would be a scandal of another country was invaded and turned upside down on another false basis. Any wonder middle eastern countries despise the US, Israel and to a lesser extent the UK.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Three minor issues.

    1) The report based on information over a year ago may no longer be valid. Compare, for example, a report based on early 2003 information and its applicability in early 2004 (assuming the information presented in the OP link is accurate)

    2) The report could be wrong. They're intelligence estimates, not hard fact. The best way of getting to the latter position right now is the IAEA.

    3) The LA Times could be wrong. Highly classified stuff certainly does leak from time to time, but not always with complete background information. For example, what caveats were issued in the estimate?

    NTM


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭opinionated3


    So OP why are they not upfront and honest with the iaea?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,550 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Three minor issues.


    2) The report could be wrong. They're intelligence estimates, not hard fact. The best way of getting to the latter position right now is the IAEA.

    NTM

    one minor issue here: how can you be sure the IAEA information isn't politicised. Given we know the former head of the agency was put under pressure to step down because reports weren't critical enough of Iran under his watch.
    Also you know as well as anyone that humnit intelligence is still a vital component of any intelligence gathering operation, so surely after the Iraq war sources of information would be vetted in a more thorough manner to ensure they are credible, thus the information they provide would likely be more accurate.
    With this in mind , have you come across any information that well-placed spies in the Iranian nuclear industry have been rumbled by the Iranians authorities? if not, this would indicate those sources are still operating.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog



    The report based on information over a year ago may no longer be valid.


    It's still vaild.

    ...officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1



    2) The report could be wrong. They're intelligence estimates, not hard fact.

    It's not hard fact but i'll take what the intelligence says over the complete garbage the media puts out every time.
    Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an MSNBC and NBC military analyst, said Friday that he predicts Iran will have nuclear weapons within the next five years.

    “The existence of Israel is at stake,” McCaffrey said Friday on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.”

    “In the coming five years the Iranians are going nuclear. Within 60 months they’ll have a dozen weapons.

    ...

    “We’re going to face a nuclear-armed Iran in the very near future,” he said. “And this is bad news for the region and world peace.”

    http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/204043-former-gen-mccaffrey-iran-will-have-a-dozen-nukes-within-5-years

    Such hubris is absurd and dangerous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    So OP why are they not upfront and honest with the iaea?

    The media trump the meme that Iran is not cooperative, but that is simply not true and I believe the allegation in the latest IAEA report which came from an unnamed source is without merit.
    The IAEA wants to visit a specific site at Parchin because of information from an unnamed member state, cited in its November 2011 report, that Iran had “constructed a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments” - tests of nuclear weapons designs without the use of fissile material.

    ...

    The November report claimed the IAEA had obtained information on the dimensions of the containment vessel from the publication of a foreign expert identified as someone who worked “in the nuclear weapons program of the country of his origin”.
    That was a reference to Vlachyslav Danilenko, a Ukrainian scientist who has acknowledged having lectured in Iran on theoretical physics and having helped the country build a cylinder for production of nano-diamonds, which was his research specialty. However, Danilenko has firmly denied ever having done any work related to nuclear weapons.
    The claim that the dimensions of the putative bomb test chamber at Parchin could be gleaned from a publication by Danilenko is implausible.

    The report said the bomb containment chamber at Parchin was “designed to contain the detonation of 70 kilograms of high explosives”. Danilenko’s patented 1992 design for a cylinder for nano-diamond production, however, was built to contain only 10 kg of explosives.
    Former IAEA weapons inspector and nuclear weapons expert Robert Kelley has pointed out, moreover, that a container for only 70 kg of explosives could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design.


    http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/25-Feb-2012/iran-iaea-and-the-parchin-site


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    News for you, the media that apparently irks you so much is your same source...


  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    JustinDee wrote: »
    News for you, the media that apparently irks you so much is your same source...


    To assume that being irked by the media hysteria on one particular issue must mean that all media is a source of irritation is a rather ridiculous point of view. If you can't contribute something of worth to this thread then move on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    cyberhog wrote: »
    To assume that being irked by the media hysteria on one particular issue must mean that all media is a source of irritation is a rather ridiculous point of view. If you can't contribute something of worth to this thread then move on.

    You said: "It must be pleasing the Israelis to no end that the media keep feeding the public complete garbage about Iran's nuclear ambitions"

    &

    "The media trump the meme that Iran is not cooperative"

    You are having a dig at "the media" yet seconding "the media", the very same media, as your source. If you don't find this hypocritical or at the very least, subjective and selective then fine.

    You're not a moderator either, by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Enough of the pointless nitpicking over what exactly is meant by "the media" when someone uses the term. Specifically, that's you, JustinDee.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    The Economist, which is usually not too far off the mark, does not believe that bombing Iran would achieve much that is desirable (from the point of view of the West, that is, of course).

    See here:

    http://www.economist.com/node/21548233

    It might slow down Iran's efforts to achieve the ability to build nuclear weapons, but what do a few years matter to a country that sees itself as the heir to a civilisation 2,700 years old? It would certainly make them all the more determined to build these weapons, thereby breaking Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It would also strengthen Iranian national cohesion and support for the present regime. Perhaps the USA and the West should take another approach and try to bring about complete denuclearisation of the Middle East, in addition to exerting pressure on Israel to begin respecting international law and moderate its brutal policies towards the Palestinians.

    As for Israel itself, it may even be that a few sensible people there are capable of looking at history and seeing that other countries with overwhelming military superiority have overstretched themselves - as did Hitler when he bit off more than he could chew by attacking the Soviet Union. :rolleyes:

    http://www.economist.com/node/21548228


  • Registered Users Posts: 246 ✭✭KIERAN1


    The question must be asked though (why) is Iran blocking the IAEA inspectors from inspecting military sites like the Parchin Complex? Which has long been suspected as being an underground nuclear facility.

    With all the rhetoric their is against Iran wouldn't you think they'll open up these sites for review. The fact their keeping the front doors closed from the IAEA pretty much says Iran is doing something with the nuclear materials that is not entirely peaceful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    KIERAN1 wrote: »
    The question must be asked though (why) is Iran blocking the IAEA inspectors from inspecting military sites like the Parchin Complex? Which has long been suspected as being an underground nuclear facility.

    Iran says they are not required under the IAEA to allow in inspectors to that site:
    What Iran’s Inspection Rebuff Says About Prospects for Nuclear Diplomacy

    --SNIP--
    But Iran argues that is not required by its existing obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to grant the request. That’s because Parchin is a military facility rather than a declared nuclear site, and under Iran’s current NPT obligations, it’s required to grant inspectors access only to designated nuclear sites.

    Tehran would have been obliged to grant access to Parchin were it still voluntarily abiding by an Additional Protocol to its NPT safeguards agreement that it had accepted in December of 2003, granting more intrusive and short-notice inspection powers to the IAEA. Indeed, agency inspectors twice visited Parchin during the period that Iran voluntarily observed the Additional Protocol, and declared themselves satisfied that no military nuclear work had been undertaken there. The IAEA’s November 2011 report, however, based on intelligence from Western agencies, suggested that a steel tank unseen on the inspectors’ previous visits may have been used in 2000 to conduct experiments on what may have been high-explosive trigger devices for nuclear warheads.

    Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/23/what-irans-inspection-rebuff-says-about-prospects-for-nuclear-diplomacy/#ixzz1nbDfj2p2

    --SNIP--

    So why should Iran let anyone inspect a site (which they voluntarily allowed to be inspected twice before, and not to mention the sites were already cleared by IAEA, which make the accusation seem dodgy to me) that they are under no obligation to do so, based on accusations from "Western Inteligence agencies", which aren't even named.

    Perhaps Iran fears espionage, considering the various terror attacks against them recently, so they certainly do have a valid reason imho if what they say is correct.
    KIERAN1 wrote: »
    With all the rhetoric their is against Iran wouldn't you think they'll open up these sites for review. The fact their keeping the front doors closed from the IAEA pretty much says Iran is doing something with the nuclear materials that is not entirely peaceful.

    Except it doesn't mean anything. Again, why should Iran let the IAEA snoop around sites, which they don't have to allow access to, as per the NPT? Why should Iran go above and beyond what they agreed to? If Iran has to uniquely comply with all sorts of extra's to the NPT, then they may just up and leave, meaning no inspections at all. Agian, this whole thing is just hype, if Iran is under no obligation to allow the IAEA to inspect the site under the NPT, then they aren't doing anything wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    KIERAN1 wrote: »
    The question must be asked though (why) is Iran blocking the IAEA inspectors from inspecting military sites like the Parchin Complex? Which has long been suspected as being an underground nuclear facility.

    With all the rhetoric their is against Iran wouldn't you think they'll open up these sites for review. The fact their keeping the front doors closed from the IAEA pretty much says Iran is doing something with the nuclear materials that is not entirely peaceful.

    An argument immensely weakened by its use in exactly similar circumstances in Iraq, where IAEA inspectors were kicked out in 1998, which was then used to claim that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons - but when inspections resumed, it was found that development had ceased in 1998.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    An argument immensely weakened by its use in exactly similar circumstances in Iraq, where IAEA inspectors were kicked out in 1998, which was then used to claim that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons - but when inspections resumed, it was found that development had ceased in 1998.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Do you honestly think that such a relativist approach should be taken when it comes to a nuclear weapons programme?
    "It happened in Iraq and most likely would be the same in Iran"?? Hardly a a solid basis for admonishing Ahmedinijad's regime of any nuclear ambitions.

    The IAEA need access to clear Iran. If Iran has nothing to hide, then they must, as a signatory to the NPT, allow the IAEA inspection to fully take place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    I guess we can expect a 'Tony Blair' on it soon enough.

    "The photocopy was smudged and I thought it said Iraq HAS weapons of mass destruction"

    So the "abandoned their nuclear weapons programme in 2003" may mysteriously reappear as "NOT abandoned their nuclear weapons programme in 2003"


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Do you honestly think that such a relativist approach should be taken when it comes to a nuclear weapons programme?
    "It happened in Iraq and most likely would be the same in Iran"?? Hardly a a solid basis for admonishing Ahmedinijad's regime of any nuclear ambitions.

    The IAEA need access to clear Iran. If Iran has nothing to hide, then they must, as a signatory to the NPT, allow the IAEA inspection to fully take place.

    I can't see why it wouldn't apply - it's not in any sense a positive argument that Iran has a nuclear programme.

    The argument "if they've nothing to hide they've nothing to fear" is also a very heavily misused one.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    When it comes to clearing the regime of what they're accused of, it is hardly "misused".
    Bear in mind also that not everyone is using their refusal to allow access as an excuse to commence a military action.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    cyberhog wrote: »
    It's still vaild.




    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1






    It's not hard fact but i'll take what the intelligence says over the complete garbage the media puts out every time.



    http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/204043-former-gen-mccaffrey-iran-will-have-a-dozen-nukes-within-5-years

    Such hubris is absurd and dangerous.

    It's not really when you think of it.

    Iran develops the bomb, that's fine. The problem is not with Iran owning the bomb or even using it. It's with Iran handing the bomb to one of its terrorist allies in Hamas or Hezbollah, and if Iran felt threathened at any stage by Israel or the US, there is every incentive to give a nuke to one of their allies.

    Then they can say there is a bomb already inside Israel which will be set off if anything happens to Iran. Again, it might be a bluff, but does anyone want to take that chance?

    It's the very real danger of proliferation that the Israeli's are probably fearful of, or the Iranians handing bombs out like confetti to friends and allies such as they have in South America.

    There is no real evidence yet Iran is close to a bomb, but a nuclear armed Iran, given their support for terrorist organisations in the ME, is not something to be taken lightly.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    JustinDee wrote: »
    When it comes to clearing the regime of what they're accused of, it is hardly "misused".
    Bear in mind also that not everyone is using their refusal to allow access as an excuse to commence a military action.

    Sure, it doesn't clear them - but it also doesn't lend any weight to the accusation. It's a largely irrelevant argument because it's both easy to abuse and has a recent history of such abuse.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭InReality


    plasmaguy wrote: »
    It's not really when you think of it.

    Iran develops the bomb, that's fine. The problem is not with Iran owning the bomb or even using it. It's with Iran handing the bomb to one of its terrorist allies in Hamas or Hezbollah, and if Iran felt threathened at any stage by Israel or the US, there is every incentive to give a nuke to one of their allies to be smuggled into Israel.

    Then they can say there is a bomb already inside Israel which will be set off if anything happens to Iran.

    It's the very real danger of proliferation that the Israeli's are probably fearful of, or the Iranians handing bombs out like confetti to friends and allies such as they have in South America.

    The idea of any country handing nuclear weapons to any third party , no matter how trusted , is pretty ridicilous ( sp) to me.

    I think the US may have given some to the UK but thats the only case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    InReality wrote: »
    The idea of any country handing nuclear weapons to any third party , no matter how trusted , is pretty ridicilous ( sp) to me.

    I think the US may have given some to the UK but thats the only case.

    Proliferation doesn't involve just the sharing of an actual ready made bomb alone, but also of sharing the knowledge on how to make one.

    See this article for an example.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6170145/A.Q.-Khan-boasts-of-helping-Irans-nuclear-programme.html

    The Iranians have made pretty spectular progress in recent years, and it's hard to believe that's just been through their own expertise and not outside help from someone like the Pakistanis.

    While most nuclear armed states have done well to stop proliferation, it's hard to see Iran doing the same, since if it was a direct fight, they would lose any nuclear conflict.

    It's hard to trust the Iranians to be honest. Time and again they have lied about their nuclear facilities, and have never been honest and up front. So I really wouldn't trust them when it came to proliferation.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    An argument immensely weakened by its use in exactly similar circumstances in Iraq, where IAEA inspectors were kicked out in 1998, which was then used to claim that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons - but when inspections resumed, it was found that development had ceased in 1998.

    But only weakened after the fact. Is the cat alive or dead? Precedent has no bearing, it's only after the box is opened that you find out.

    NTM


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    But only weakened after the fact. Is the cat alive or dead? Precedent has no bearing, it's only after the box is opened that you find out.

    NTM

    Precedent certainly does have a bearing on the value of the argument - it's quite obvious from last time that refusing inspections doesn't imply there is anything to hide, because Saddam kicked the inspectors out despite having nothing to hide.

    It obviously doesn't tell you there's nothing to hide, either.

    Taken together those two points mean that as an argument bearing on whether there's anything to hide it's entirely valueless. As you put it, you'll only find out after the fact.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Precedent certainly does have a bearing on the value of the argument - it's quite obvious from last time that refusing inspections doesn't imply there is anything to hide, because Saddam kicked the inspectors out despite having nothing to hide.

    It obviously doesn't tell you there's nothing to hide, either.

    Taken together those two points mean that as an argument bearing on whether there's anything to hide it's entirely valueless. As you put it, you'll only find out after the fact.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Maybe they want to follow the policy of deliberate ambiguity that works so well for Israel!


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,550 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    While most nuclear armed states have done well to stop proliferation, it's hard to see Iran doing the same, since if it was a direct fight, they would lose any nuclear conflict.
    .[/QUOTE]

    You're right about Iran losing any nuclear conflict, so it's extremely unlikely, given Israel has hundreds of nuke, they would hand a nuke to a third party to attack Israel. Of course this is all merely hypothetical, as there is no evidence to suggest Iran are building a nuke, despite your attempts to suggest otherwise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,129 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    RichieC wrote: »
    Maybe they want to follow the policy of deliberate ambiguity that works so well for Israel!
    That makes the most sense in fairness. Confirmation that they don't have a weapon would probably be more trouble for Iran that finding out they had one. Tends to make you a little bit braver in a firefight when you know the other guy isn't using bullets.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭Siuin


    Well, just got a phone call earlier from someone close to me who is currently working in an area of the IDF which basically gives orders for everyone else to move...
    he was asking if there was any possibility that his family could come to Ireland asap, and sounded really desperate. I asked what was happening, but he couldn't tell me.
    It doesn't look good :(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Siuin wrote: »
    Well, just got a phone call earlier from someone close to me who is currently working in an area of the IDF which basically gives orders for everyone else to move...
    he was asking if there was any possibility that his family could come to Ireland asap, and sounded really desperate. I asked what was happening, but he couldn't tell me.
    It doesn't look good :(

    They're on alert. Its hardly for the first time.


Advertisement