Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

cyberhog · 26-02-2012 8:15am #1

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A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007.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.

Pacifist Pigeon · 26-02-2012 2:00pm

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.

woodoo · 26-02-2012 3:02pm

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.

Manic Moran · 26-02-2012 7:36pm

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

opinionated3 · 26-02-2012 10:48pm

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

nacho libre · 27-02-2012 12:03am

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

cyberhog · 27-02-2012 5:36am

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

cyberhog · 27-02-2012 5:37am

opinionated3 wrote: »

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

JustinDee · 27-02-2012 7:04am

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

cyberhog · 27-02-2012 8:20am

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.

JustinDee · 27-02-2012 9:45am

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.

Scofflaw · 27-02-2012 4:04pm

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

Ellis Dee · 27-02-2012 4:24pm

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

KIERAN1 · 27-02-2012 4:59pm

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.

wes · 27-02-2012 5:15pm

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.

Scofflaw · 27-02-2012 5:18pm

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

JustinDee · 27-02-2012 6:52pm

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.

gbee · 27-02-2012 6:56pm

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"

Scofflaw · 27-02-2012 8:26pm

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

JustinDee · 27-02-2012 8:35pm

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.

plasmaguy · 27-02-2012 8:48pm

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.

Scofflaw · 27-02-2012 8:51pm

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

InReality · 27-02-2012 8:55pm

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.

plasmaguy · 27-02-2012 9:25pm

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.

Manic Moran · 27-02-2012 10:11pm

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

Scofflaw · 28-02-2012 2:49am

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

RichieC · 28-02-2012 2:56am

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!

nacho libre · 28-02-2012 6:29am

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.

Overheal · 28-02-2012 2:48pm

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.

Siuin · 28-02-2012 5:53pm

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

JustinDee · 28-02-2012 6:24pm

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.

gbee · 28-02-2012 6:29pm

Siuin wrote: »

It doesn't look good

I'd say it's great, a good shooting war is just what we want, fuel at €100 a litre and riots and anarchy everywhere.

They always cause depressions and bubbles to burst and plunge people in desperation prior to war. We've been preparing for war for several years already.

Siuin · 28-02-2012 6:40pm

JustinDee wrote: »

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

They've been on alert for the past few months, and have already gone through the drills for when/if something does happen, but this was rather worrying.

WakeUp · 28-02-2012 8:24pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

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.

Nuclear armed states , all of them , are a threat to our very existance and nuclear weapons a freak of science I dont think there is anything well about them or who has them. All nuclear weapons should be disbanded and put beyond use the onus is on the nations who have them to start the process and this in turn will discourage other nations from seeking them. All nations have a responsibility to us as people to get rid of them - no more nations should be allowed develop them including Iran if that's what they intend to do but maybe there wouldn't be a need for that if the nations who already had such devasting life ending power at the finger tips got rid of theirs.
Nobody is absolved of blame when it comes to nukes not the nations who have them nor the nations that might seek them we need to do away with them before they destroy us.

In a nuclear conflict all of us lose not just the nations pushing the button, one goes off most if not all of them go off and we all lose.

People paying attention to what is going on right now with regard to Iran would know full well we have three fully armed ( minus the EU ) nuclear nations making moves at the moment, US, Russia and Israel. This isn't a game its happening. This push toward manufactured war with Iran can not be allowed succeed it just cant there is way too much at stake. There is a reason why many leaders and nations none more so than Russia are warning of dire consequences should an attack on Iran take place.

In light of the fact a potential strike upon Iran is probably imminent unless enough people speak out against to stop it from happening insane as it would be to go ahead with it, I would like post this video.

It isnt really relevant to the thread although its content with regard to the nations involved is scarily similar to what is taking place right as we speak and is relevant to the comment Im replying to - we all lose out.

I believe it should be mandatory viewing for all supporters of war, war mongers and politicians - the people who make war happen. This drama was made in 1984 its a BBC production if you have the time to watch it its a powerful production. Maybe after watching this people who are quick to rally behind calls to arms might think twice in the future. We need men and women of peace running our world not the people who run it at the moment - they want war and destruction and one day they are going to start something if they are allowed continue and none of us will walk away from it.

This drama is sobering, powerful, depressing, factual and quite brilliant I hope the MOD's will leave it up as its never been more relevant than it is today. We are but the press of a button away from this I hope it changes some peoples mind about starting futile destructive wars at the whim of some politician/s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg

happyman81 · 28-02-2012 8:39pm

cyberhog wrote: »

It's still vaild.

No it isn't.

See what I did?

gbee · 28-02-2012 9:03pm

WakeUp wrote: »

Nuclear armed states , all of them , are a threat to our very existance ]

Threads was reportedly responsible already for the disarmament that has taken place since it's production. It was based on the almost inevitability of conflict with the USSR, growing public awareness of dirty nukes as well as escalating arms race and the 'star wars' project led to the collapse of the CCCP.

We have been primed for another war, that's a certainty, as bad as war is, we'd not have the technology today that we all enjoy, including typing on this internet thingie.

The Israeli · 28-02-2012 10:42pm

We are all gonna die. We are all gonna dieeee ughhh hehhhh

But first of all, I have to finish taking all my tests for the semester. They will wait. I've talked to them.

I was thinking about something:
In my opinion the chosen date of the attack is March 7th. I'll tell you why:
On this day we celebrate Purim. It's a holiday that symbolizes the victory of the Jews in Persia on the Haman - a Persian minister who wished to kill all the Jews, and Haman's supporters.
That's why, it's the 7th. Makes sense?

Be like Nutella · 28-02-2012 11:18pm

This white paper by The Brookings Institute pretty much covers everything anyone needs to know about the military reality of this thing. Here's a link... just sign up to scribd..takes two secs and download the pdf. I read it for the first time a while back and it clarified a lot of things for me anyway. Written by an ex Persian Gulf CIA analyst, an ex ambassador to Israel etc etc people who know what they're on about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52444400/Which-Path-to-Persia-Options-for-a-New-American-Strategy-toward-Iran-1999

anyone wants me to email the pdf just pm me.

Be like Nutella · 28-02-2012 11:27pm

Fair play 'Wake up' I second all of that !

Here is another paper on the subject if anyone is interested is some more intensively boring reading.

Study on a Possible Israeli Strike

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]

on Iran’s Nuclear Development [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Facilities

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

Be like Nutella · 28-02-2012 11:34pm

This is an article from Global Security Newswire today.

Israel Would Not Notify U.S. of Impending Iran Attack: Report

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/israel-would-not-warn-us-impending-iran-attack-official/?mgh=http://www.nti.org&mgf=1

RichieC · 29-02-2012 12:30am

Be like Nutella wrote: »

This white paper by The Brookings Institute pretty much covers everything anyone needs to know about the military reality of this thing. Here's a link... just sign up to scribd..takes two secs and download the pdf. I read it for the first time a while back and it clarified a lot of things for me anyway. Written by an ex Persian Gulf CIA analyst, an ex ambassador to Israel etc etc people who know what they're on about.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52444400/Which-Path-to-Persia-Options-for-a-New-American-Strategy-toward-Iran-1999

anyone wants me to email the pdf just pm me.

It just opened for me, no sign up required.

The Israeli · 29-02-2012 12:34am

RichieC wrote: »

It just opened for me, no sign up required.

Probably because you were logged in to Facebook..

After checking: I was wrong. It does log you in automatically through your facebook account, but it's unnecessary in this case.

Be like Nutella · 29-02-2012 12:38am

I don't do the ould facespace twitter malarky so yeah it'll prob just open for yez... I put it up on scribd meself for people to DL... I figure the more stuff out there the better... rationality can only triumph when people can learn about **** ... scribd is awesome !

cyberhog · 29-02-2012 4:02am

plasmaguy wrote: »

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.

Exactly why I believe it is absurd and dangerous for people like Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey to claim without any real evidence that the “The existence of Israel is at stake,”and "Within 60 months" Iran will "have a dozen weapons."

You have two options here. You either subscribe to the view held by the intelligence agencies that Iran is not trying to build a bomb or you believe the wild speculation swirling around in the media from the likes of McCaffrey that Iran will have a dozen weapons within 60 months. If you have a rational mind and can use good judgment it should be pretty clear to you who is talking sense, and who is talking out of another orifice.

cyberhog · 29-02-2012 6:44am

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

Give me a break!

Your friend sounds like the type of person the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt decries.

“People go nuts here, they go nuts. There’s no nuance, there’s no middle ground, it’s taking any shade of grey and stomping on it. There are no voices of calm, there are no voices of reason, not in this country, not in Israel. "

“This is the kind of thing that scares me,” she said. “Jews have always been neurotic – I mean everyone’s neurotic, we just recognize it more – but we’ve raised our neuroses to a level that’s not healthy. We should eschew hysteria, but we don’t. Hysteria is never useful."

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/top-holocaust-scholar-blasts-holocaust-abuse-by-u-s-israeli-politicians-1.401821

Manic Moran · 29-02-2012 8:25am

Be like Nutella wrote: »

This is an article from Global Security Newswire today.

Israel Would Not Notify U.S. of Impending Iran Attack: Report

Meh. I wouldn't tell the US either. First rule of operational security. Don't tell anyone.

NTM

Siuin · 29-02-2012 8:51am

cyberhog wrote: »

Give me a break!

Your friend sounds like the type of person the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt decries.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/top-holocaust-scholar-blasts-holocaust-abuse-by-u-s-israeli-politicians-1.401821

Not sure how he qualifies as some kind of 'neurotic Jew' - tbh I'd be inclined to believe that he did hear something (although it probably won't happen until around passover by the sounds of things)

Nodin · 29-02-2012 3:54pm

"security alerts" go on all the time in countries with a "terrorist" problem, or with overseas interests. Units are put on standby 'ready to go' just in case.

RichieC · 29-02-2012 3:59pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Meh. I wouldn't tell the US either. First rule of operational security. Don't tell anyone.

NTM

It's going to be you guys digging them out of the **** and paying for it either way.

Iran does not view Israel as a real country. merely a satellite state of the USA.

Manic Moran · 29-02-2012 5:42pm

In which case, what difference does it make to the Israelis if they think they can rely on US help either way?

A jaunt against Iran would be a one-time opportunity that they can't afford to have go wrong. The more people that know about something, the more likely there will be a leak, either deliberate or accidental. So, don't tell anyone and reduce the chances of something going wrong.

NTM

WakeUp · 29-02-2012 6:16pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I wouldn't tell the US either. First rule of operational security. Don't tell anyone.

NTM

MM youre a military man and I'm sure you know more about such things than me maybe you can clear something up for me and other people on thread with regard to US knowledge of any prior attack

Before I get to it, my own opinion of this will they wont they tell us if they are going to attack and all that lark, I think it is but a smokescreen between the US and Israel, an act , to give the Americans "plausible deniability".

To the best of my knowledge Israeli defense radar , part of it anywayx- band early warning system , is integrated with US systems meaning the idea of the US being unaware of any upcoming action is either remote or impossible? Not only that but the US are in control of part of Israeli air defense?? I'm wondering can you confirm this or is there no truth in it. I understand your position I dont expect a detailed reply of something which is probably sensitive a simple yes or no would be grand:)

And even if part of both nations defense isn't integrated, surely US radar and satellite coverage of the region would pick up the mass movement of Israeli Fighter jets in no time at all. Again as far I'm aware Israel do not possess stealth fighter jets and they wont exactly be sending a plane or two I would imagine any attack will involve their entire air-force? Surely this would be picked up I cant see how it couldn't be - making US and Israeli claims that one wouldnt know what the other is doing null and void??..

Intelligence agencies debunk the media hysteria on Iran

Comments