National Intelligence Estimate - Iran ‘Halted’ Nuclear Weapons Program In 2003
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Re: Iran HAS NO NUKES, Bush is a warmongering imp!
Let's not act like there is not enough time for them to F*** something else up in his remaining tenure. They don't need years to F*** up. They got FN up down to a science. A week or a day is all it takes now for them. Maybe you didn't hear about Kosovo just last week:
Serbian leaders blame U.S. for Kosovo's violence
HARD-LINE leaders in Serbia have called the United States (U.S.) "the main culprit" in the violence that has broken out since Kosovo declared independence while American Ambassador warned Serbian leaders to prevent future violence against diplomatic missions.
Ambassador Cameron Munter, according to The Associated Press (AP) yesterday, said he was angry about riots that damaged the U.S. Embassy last week, adding that he expected the government to make certain it would not happen again.
Protesters had on Thursday night, in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, set fire to the U.S. embassy, angered by Washington's recognition of Kosovo. The U.S. and the European Union responded by demanding Serbia protect foreign embassies.
Several thousand Serbs chanting "Kosovo is Serbia!" and "Russia, Vladimir Putin!" at the weekend, again, protested peacefully in the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, the sixth day of demonstrations against Kosovo's break with Serbia. Russia backs Serbia's fierce resistance to Kosovo's secession.
"The United States is the main culprit ... for all those violent acts," Serbia's Minister for Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic said in Belgrade.
Other Serbian leaders have called for calm after the riots. But an aide to hard-line Serbian Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica, said any future violence also would be blamed on the U.S.
"If the United States sticks to its present position that the fake state of Kosovo exists ... all responsibility in the future will be on the United States," Kostunica adviser Branislav Ristivojevic said in a statement.
The comments were an indication that Serbia is drifting further from the West and more toward ally Russia.
The vast majority of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian and Serbs represent about 10 per cent of the region's two million people.
Kosovo had formally remained a part of Serbia even though it has been administered by the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) since 1999, when NATO air-strikes ended former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists, which killed 10,000 people.
Kosovo's minority Serbs have staged protests daily since the territory's ethnic Albanian leadership proclaimed independence last Sunday. They have vented their anger by destroying UN and NATO property as well.
In the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica in Serb-dominated northern Kosovo, a few protesters hurled firecrackers as UN police in riot gear formed a cordon across the main bridge separating the Serb and ethnic Albanian sides. Demonstrators waved Serbian and Russian flags and chanted in support of Moscow's refusal to recognise Kosovo's independence.
The protest was far less violent than one on Friday, when angry demonstrators hurled stones, glass bottles and firecrackers at UN forces protecting the bridge.
In the Serb enclave of Strpce in southern Kosovo, about 100 Serbs also marched peacefully at the weekend. They carried Serbian flags to a nearby church, where they rang the bells to sound their disapproval of Kosovo's statehood. Some carried posters reading "Kosovo is Serbia" and "Kosovo will never be Albania."
"The whole nation is angry," said Sinisa Tasic, one of the organisers. "We are furious with the Americans. Wherever they go they create problems."
There, too, solidarity with Moscow was on display.
"For the first time ever, Serbia is not alone, it has Russia by its side. Sooner or later, Serbia will get Kosovo back," added Radojko Kecic, 48.
Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's chosen successor and the man expected to easily win Russia's presidential election March 2, is scheduled to visit Belgrade today.
The U.S. State Department on Friday, ordered between 80 and 100 nonessential embassy employees, their families and the families of American diplomats in Belgrade to leave Serbia.
"We are not sufficiently confident that they are safe here," Munter said in an interview.
The U.S. and the EU have warned Serbia to boost protection of foreign diplomats and missions, and the UN Security Council has unanimously condemned the attacks on foreign missions.
EU representative Pieter Feith said Saturday he recalled his staff from Kosovo's restive north.
There have been scattered protests against Kosovo's independence in other countries as well. In Athens, Greece, about 2,000 pro-Communist demonstrators marched to the U.S. embassy on Saturday. And in Germany, about 1,200 people demonstrated in a square in downtown Stuttgart and 500 others protested in Frankfurt.
In Belgrade, the chief Serbian state prosecutor said at the weekend that authorities were searching for participants in Thursday night's riots when the U.S. embassy was attacked. Police said have they arrested nearly 200 rioters in the worst anti-Western violence seen since the ouster of Milosevic in 2000.
Protesters torched several offices of the U.S. Embassy's consular section and attacked the missions of Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Croatia and other countries. One person died and more than 150 were injured in the violence.
Authorities identified the dead person as Zoran Vujovic, 21, of the northern Serbian city of Novi Sad. Serbian media said Vujovic used to live in Kosovo, but fled in the wake of the 1998 war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush and Co. can exacerbate the most minute issue (questionable Straight of Hormuz) or they can keep their "The NIE is S***. Trust us" approach until the end and further deteriorate relations more. So it dose not matter how long they have.
If John "Bomb, Bomb,Bomb,Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain wins (GOD FORBID). What the hell kind of significance will this report have? None. Just like it means nothing to Bush now.
Let's not act like there is not enough time for them to F*** something else up in his remaining tenure. They don't need years to F*** up. They got FN up down to a science. A week or a day is all it takes now for them. Maybe you didn't hear about Kosovo just last week:
Serbian leaders blame U.S. for Kosovo's violence
HARD-LINE leaders in Serbia have called the United States (U.S.) "the main culprit" in the violence that has broken out since Kosovo declared independence while American Ambassador warned Serbian leaders to prevent future violence against diplomatic missions.
Ambassador Cameron Munter, according to The Associated Press (AP) yesterday, said he was angry about riots that damaged the U.S. Embassy last week, adding that he expected the government to make certain it would not happen again.
Protesters had on Thursday night, in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, set fire to the U.S. embassy, angered by Washington's recognition of Kosovo. The U.S. and the European Union responded by demanding Serbia protect foreign embassies.
Several thousand Serbs chanting "Kosovo is Serbia!" and "Russia, Vladimir Putin!" at the weekend, again, protested peacefully in the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, the sixth day of demonstrations against Kosovo's break with Serbia. Russia backs Serbia's fierce resistance to Kosovo's secession.
"The United States is the main culprit ... for all those violent acts," Serbia's Minister for Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic said in Belgrade.
Other Serbian leaders have called for calm after the riots. But an aide to hard-line Serbian Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica, said any future violence also would be blamed on the U.S.
"If the United States sticks to its present position that the fake state of Kosovo exists ... all responsibility in the future will be on the United States," Kostunica adviser Branislav Ristivojevic said in a statement.
The comments were an indication that Serbia is drifting further from the West and more toward ally Russia.
The vast majority of Kosovo's population is ethnic Albanian and Serbs represent about 10 per cent of the region's two million people.
Kosovo had formally remained a part of Serbia even though it has been administered by the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) since 1999, when NATO air-strikes ended former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists, which killed 10,000 people.
Kosovo's minority Serbs have staged protests daily since the territory's ethnic Albanian leadership proclaimed independence last Sunday. They have vented their anger by destroying UN and NATO property as well.
In the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica in Serb-dominated northern Kosovo, a few protesters hurled firecrackers as UN police in riot gear formed a cordon across the main bridge separating the Serb and ethnic Albanian sides. Demonstrators waved Serbian and Russian flags and chanted in support of Moscow's refusal to recognise Kosovo's independence.
The protest was far less violent than one on Friday, when angry demonstrators hurled stones, glass bottles and firecrackers at UN forces protecting the bridge.
In the Serb enclave of Strpce in southern Kosovo, about 100 Serbs also marched peacefully at the weekend. They carried Serbian flags to a nearby church, where they rang the bells to sound their disapproval of Kosovo's statehood. Some carried posters reading "Kosovo is Serbia" and "Kosovo will never be Albania."
"The whole nation is angry," said Sinisa Tasic, one of the organisers. "We are furious with the Americans. Wherever they go they create problems."
There, too, solidarity with Moscow was on display.
"For the first time ever, Serbia is not alone, it has Russia by its side. Sooner or later, Serbia will get Kosovo back," added Radojko Kecic, 48.
Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's chosen successor and the man expected to easily win Russia's presidential election March 2, is scheduled to visit Belgrade today.
The U.S. State Department on Friday, ordered between 80 and 100 nonessential embassy employees, their families and the families of American diplomats in Belgrade to leave Serbia.
"We are not sufficiently confident that they are safe here," Munter said in an interview.
The U.S. and the EU have warned Serbia to boost protection of foreign diplomats and missions, and the UN Security Council has unanimously condemned the attacks on foreign missions.
EU representative Pieter Feith said Saturday he recalled his staff from Kosovo's restive north.
There have been scattered protests against Kosovo's independence in other countries as well. In Athens, Greece, about 2,000 pro-Communist demonstrators marched to the U.S. embassy on Saturday. And in Germany, about 1,200 people demonstrated in a square in downtown Stuttgart and 500 others protested in Frankfurt.
In Belgrade, the chief Serbian state prosecutor said at the weekend that authorities were searching for participants in Thursday night's riots when the U.S. embassy was attacked. Police said have they arrested nearly 200 rioters in the worst anti-Western violence seen since the ouster of Milosevic in 2000.
Protesters torched several offices of the U.S. Embassy's consular section and attacked the missions of Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Croatia and other countries. One person died and more than 150 were injured in the violence.
Authorities identified the dead person as Zoran Vujovic, 21, of the northern Serbian city of Novi Sad. Serbian media said Vujovic used to live in Kosovo, but fled in the wake of the 1998 war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush and Co. can exacerbate the most minute issue (questionable Straight of Hormuz) or they can keep their "The NIE is S***. Trust us" approach until the end and further deteriorate relations more. So it dose not matter how long they have.
If John "Bomb, Bomb,Bomb,Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain wins (GOD FORBID). What the hell kind of significance will this report have? None. Just like it means nothing to Bush now.
Re: Iran HAS NO NUKES, Bush is a warmongering imp!
(1) Don't interject Kosovo in this thread. That is a separate and distinct matter that can be analyzed on its own in a separate thread.
(2) There could be enough time for this administration to launch an attack, somewhere, but, in my opinion, the window is closing on Iran and the more it closes, it closes more rapidly. A target like Iran cannot be struck on a mere whim. While I feel certain that Bush has had the Pentagon prepare plans for a strike, there is a walk-up and a build-up that must precede the execution of the plans.
The "walk-up" or preparatory rhetoric to get the country "in the mood" must occur. Of course, you will probably say, the "Lemmings" are easy to convince. I simply disagree. I think it will take some doing to cause the national mood to rise to the level of war. In the aftermath of Iraq, FEW people will acquiese to an attack on Iran without serious and in-depth debate. The evidence will be scrutinized and re-scrutinized and counter-scrutinized such to the point that there is a danger that over-scrutinization and not wanting to make the "Iraq-like" mistakes over the evidence could result in a chance that we might not counter a legitimate Iranian strike, unless its egregious.
Build-up. Of course, I don't know what our current deployments are, but I doubt seriously its anywhere near what it was before Christmas when we had the huge naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the near waters of the I.O., Hormuz, Red Sea and Med. It takes time to move naval forces. A carrier battle group deploying from CONUS or anywhere else substanially outside of the area will not likely arrive in-theatre battle-ready for some time. Or course, we could launch a few B2's and B52's for a quick strike-but-not-prepared-for-the-consequences in little more than a heartbeat, but a massive, sustained punishing blow requires more than a notion.
Hence, it would take a bit of time to launch a serious attack. The longer it takes to start the walk-up and build-up, the less likely it will get off the ground, in this administration.
And the current administration has how many days left ???
QueEx
(1) Don't interject Kosovo in this thread. That is a separate and distinct matter that can be analyzed on its own in a separate thread.
(2) There could be enough time for this administration to launch an attack, somewhere, but, in my opinion, the window is closing on Iran and the more it closes, it closes more rapidly. A target like Iran cannot be struck on a mere whim. While I feel certain that Bush has had the Pentagon prepare plans for a strike, there is a walk-up and a build-up that must precede the execution of the plans.
The "walk-up" or preparatory rhetoric to get the country "in the mood" must occur. Of course, you will probably say, the "Lemmings" are easy to convince. I simply disagree. I think it will take some doing to cause the national mood to rise to the level of war. In the aftermath of Iraq, FEW people will acquiese to an attack on Iran without serious and in-depth debate. The evidence will be scrutinized and re-scrutinized and counter-scrutinized such to the point that there is a danger that over-scrutinization and not wanting to make the "Iraq-like" mistakes over the evidence could result in a chance that we might not counter a legitimate Iranian strike, unless its egregious.
Build-up. Of course, I don't know what our current deployments are, but I doubt seriously its anywhere near what it was before Christmas when we had the huge naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the near waters of the I.O., Hormuz, Red Sea and Med. It takes time to move naval forces. A carrier battle group deploying from CONUS or anywhere else substanially outside of the area will not likely arrive in-theatre battle-ready for some time. Or course, we could launch a few B2's and B52's for a quick strike-but-not-prepared-for-the-consequences in little more than a heartbeat, but a massive, sustained punishing blow requires more than a notion.
Hence, it would take a bit of time to launch a serious attack. The longer it takes to start the walk-up and build-up, the less likely it will get off the ground, in this administration.
And the current administration has how many days left ???
QueEx
Last edited:
Re: Iran HAS NO NUKES, Bush is a warmongering imp!
"(1) Don't interject Kosovo in this thread. That is a separate and distinct matter that can be analyzed on its own in a separate thread."
What are you talking about? Don't talk about Kosovo?!?! That is FN "exhibit A". Kosovo, if nothing else, validates my point perfectly. You interject the notion of "time" to denote that there is little that can be done with what time this administration has left. I outright reject your assertion with what happened in Kosovo. IF Bush did not acknowledge the separation WE would not be viewed as the impetus for other nations to recognize the new sovereign state. NOW, whoever get in the White House has another fire to put out. In less than a week this happened with little time left on the Bush watch. So time is irrelevant to him FN up like a previously stated.
So lets ask the question again: "And the current administration has how many days left ???"
Answer: Enough days to F-up the US's stature in the world and impair future relationships.
"The "walk-up" or preparatory rhetoric to get the country "in the mood" must occur. Of course, you will probably say, the "Lemmings" are easy to convince. I simply disagree. I think it will take some doing to cause the national mood to rise to the level of war. In the aftermath of Iraq, FEW people will acquiese to an attack on Iran without serious and in-depth debate. The evidence will be scrutinized and re-scrutinized and counter-scrutinized such to the point that there is a danger that over-scrutinization and not wanting to make the "Iraq-like" mistakes over the evidence could result in a chance that we might not counter a legitimate Iranian strike, unless its egregious."
No disrespect, but I expected you to. As I have stated in numerous posts with you. If you continue to want to look at the trajectory of the Iran rhetoric and posturing from our government as "isolated incidents" as opposed to being linear then that cool for you. I am no longer in the market to convince you or anyone else otherwise. However, from the stanpoint of an observer of current events, that you are, I find it difficult to understand how you consistently form the same view of most events we discuss.
When you posted the initial NIE how many reports did you read that Bush outright rejected it? I know you saw the report that said that the White House sat on the report - and the surrounding controversy. I know you read how Iran made overtures to the US to have private talks and Condi rejected them. I know you saw the Straigh of Hormuz hoax.
Taken from an article (The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy) YOU posted in the "BREAKING! Iran & U.S. Navy have confrontation at sea" thread:
By dropping the Iranian nuclear threat and shifting to the threat to the strait, Bush moves the Iran issue from being one involving the United States and Israel to being one that excludes Israel but involves every oil producer in the region. None of them wants this to happen, and all of them must take the threat seriously. If it can establish the threat, the United States goes from being an advocate against Iran to being the guarantor of very real Arab interests. And if the price Arabs must pay for the United States to keep the strait open is helping shut down the jihadist threat in Iraq, that is a small price
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=225314&page=2&highlight=hormuzindeed.
There does NOT have to be a big build up for Bush to forge ahead with some type of action against Iran. He does not need another year to F*** something up. There is an ideological agreement inside this administration that leaves all options on the table for whatever.How many battleships are in the Persian Gulf already?!!? There is another realm of strategizing that is going on that has noting to do with your logical progression of escalation view of this administrations tactics. But again. I'm not going to argue after this point. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Peace.
"(1) Don't interject Kosovo in this thread. That is a separate and distinct matter that can be analyzed on its own in a separate thread."
What are you talking about? Don't talk about Kosovo?!?! That is FN "exhibit A". Kosovo, if nothing else, validates my point perfectly. You interject the notion of "time" to denote that there is little that can be done with what time this administration has left. I outright reject your assertion with what happened in Kosovo. IF Bush did not acknowledge the separation WE would not be viewed as the impetus for other nations to recognize the new sovereign state. NOW, whoever get in the White House has another fire to put out.
In less than a week this happened with little time left on the Bush watch. So time is irrelevant to him FN up like a previously stated.So lets ask the question again: "And the current administration has how many days left ???"
Answer: Enough days to F-up the US's stature in the world and impair future relationships.
"The "walk-up" or preparatory rhetoric to get the country "in the mood" must occur. Of course, you will probably say, the "Lemmings" are easy to convince. I simply disagree. I think it will take some doing to cause the national mood to rise to the level of war. In the aftermath of Iraq, FEW people will acquiese to an attack on Iran without serious and in-depth debate. The evidence will be scrutinized and re-scrutinized and counter-scrutinized such to the point that there is a danger that over-scrutinization and not wanting to make the "Iraq-like" mistakes over the evidence could result in a chance that we might not counter a legitimate Iranian strike, unless its egregious."
No disrespect, but I expected you to. As I have stated in numerous posts with you. If you continue to want to look at the trajectory of the Iran rhetoric and posturing from our government as "isolated incidents" as opposed to being linear then that cool for you. I am no longer in the market to convince you or anyone else otherwise. However, from the stanpoint of an observer of current events, that you are, I find it difficult to understand how you consistently form the same view of most events we discuss.
When you posted the initial NIE how many reports did you read that Bush outright rejected it? I know you saw the report that said that the White House sat on the report - and the surrounding controversy. I know you read how Iran made overtures to the US to have private talks and Condi rejected them. I know you saw the Straigh of Hormuz hoax.
Taken from an article (The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy) YOU posted in the "BREAKING! Iran & U.S. Navy have confrontation at sea" thread:
By dropping the Iranian nuclear threat and shifting to the threat to the strait, Bush moves the Iran issue from being one involving the United States and Israel to being one that excludes Israel but involves every oil producer in the region. None of them wants this to happen, and all of them must take the threat seriously. If it can establish the threat, the United States goes from being an advocate against Iran to being the guarantor of very real Arab interests. And if the price Arabs must pay for the United States to keep the strait open is helping shut down the jihadist threat in Iraq, that is a small price
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=225314&page=2&highlight=hormuzindeed.
There does NOT have to be a big build up for Bush to forge ahead with some type of action against Iran. He does not need another year to F*** something up. There is an ideological agreement inside this administration that leaves all options on the table for whatever.How many battleships are in the Persian Gulf already?!!? There is another realm of strategizing that is going on that has noting to do with your logical progression of escalation view of this administrations tactics. But again. I'm not going to argue after this point. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Peace.
Re: Iran HAS NO NUKES, Bush is a warmongering imp!
POLITICS-US: Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (IPS) - A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
A former CIA intelligence officer who has asked not to be identified told IPS that an official involved in the NIE process says the Iran estimate was ready to be published a year ago but has been delayed because the director of national intelligence wanted a draft reflecting a consensus on key conclusions -- particularly on Iran's nuclear programme.
The NIE coordinates the judgments of 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue.
There is a split in the intelligence community on how much of a threat the Iranian nuclear programme poses, according to the intelligence official's account. Some analysts who are less independent are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmist view coming from Cheney's office, but others have rejected that view.
The draft NIE first completed a year ago, which had included the dissenting views, was not acceptable to the White House, according to the former intelligence officer. "They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it," he says.
As recently as early October, the official involved in the process was said to be unclear about whether an NIE would be circulated and, if so, what it would say.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.
"The White House wants a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy," says Giraldi. Despite pressures on them to change their dissenting conclusions, however, Giraldi says some analysts have refused to go along with conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence.
In October 2006, Giraldi wrote in The American Conservative that the NIE on Iran had already been completed, but that Cheney's office had objected to its findings on both the Iranian nuclear programme and Iran's role in Iraq. The draft NIE did not conclude that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming the Shiite insurgents in Iraq, according to Giraldi.
Giraldi said the White House had decided to postpone any decision on the internal release of the NIE until after the November 2006 elections.
Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007.
Negroponte had angered the neoconservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade."
Neoconservatives immediately attacked Negroponte for the statement, which merely reflected the existing NIE on Iran issued in spring 2005. Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney, contradicted Negroponte the following day. He suggested that Iran's nuclear programme was nearing the "point of no return" -- an Israeli concept referring to the mastery of industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
Frank J. Gaffney, a protégé of neoconservative heavyweight Richard Perle, complained that Negroponte was "absurdly declaring the Iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons".
On Jan. 5, 2007, Pres. George W. Bush announced the nomination of retired Vice Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell to be director of national intelligence. McConnell was approached by Cheney himself about accepting the position, according to Newsweek.
McConnell was far more amenable to White House influence than his predecessor. On Feb. 27, one week after his confirmation, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he was "comfortable saying it's probable" that the alleged export of explosively formed penetrators to Shiite insurgents in Iraq was linked to the highest leadership in Iran.
Cheney had been making that charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates, as well as Negroponte, had opposed it.
A public event last spring indicated that White House had ordered a reconsideration of the draft NIE's conclusion on how many years it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. The previous Iran estimate completed in spring 2005 had estimated it as 2010 to 2015.
Two weeks after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in mid-April that Iran would begin producing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Thomas Fingar, said in an interview with National Public Radio that the completion of the NIE on Iran had been delayed while the intelligence community determined whether its judgment on the time frame within which Iran might produce a nuclear weapon needed to be amended.
Fingar said the estimate "might change", citing "new reporting" from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as "some other new information we have". And then he added, "We are serious about reexamining old evidence."
That extraordinary revelation about the NIE process, which was obviously ordered by McConnell, was an unsubtle signal to the intelligence community that the White House was determined to obtain a more alarmist conclusion on the Iranian nuclear programme.
A decision announced in late October indicated, however, that Cheney did not get the consensus findings on the nuclear programme and Iran's role in Iraq that he had wanted. On Oct. 27, David Shedd, a deputy to McConnell, told a congressional briefing that McConnell had issued a directive making it more difficult to declassify the key judgments of national intelligence estimates.
That reversed a Bush administration practice of releasing summaries of "key judgments" in NIEs that began when the White House made public the key judgments from the controversial 2002 NIE on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programme in July 2003.
The decision to withhold key judgments on Iran from the public was apparently part of a White House strategy for reducing the potential damage of publishing the estimate with the inclusion of dissenting views.
As of early October, officials involved in the NIE were "throwing their hands up in frustration" over the refusal of the administration to allow the estimate to be released, according to the former intelligence officer. But the Iran NIE is now expected to be circulated within the administration in late November, says Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and founder of the anti-war group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
The release of the Iran NIE would certainly intensify the bureaucratic political struggle over Iran policy. If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents.
Both sides may be anticipating another effort by Cheney to win Bush's approval of a significant escalation of military pressure on Iran in early 2008.
(END/2007)
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
POLITICS-US: Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE
By Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (IPS) - A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
A former CIA intelligence officer who has asked not to be identified told IPS that an official involved in the NIE process says the Iran estimate was ready to be published a year ago but has been delayed because the director of national intelligence wanted a draft reflecting a consensus on key conclusions -- particularly on Iran's nuclear programme.
The NIE coordinates the judgments of 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue.
There is a split in the intelligence community on how much of a threat the Iranian nuclear programme poses, according to the intelligence official's account. Some analysts who are less independent are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmist view coming from Cheney's office, but others have rejected that view.
The draft NIE first completed a year ago, which had included the dissenting views, was not acceptable to the White House, according to the former intelligence officer. "They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it," he says.
As recently as early October, the official involved in the process was said to be unclear about whether an NIE would be circulated and, if so, what it would say.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.
"The White House wants a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy," says Giraldi. Despite pressures on them to change their dissenting conclusions, however, Giraldi says some analysts have refused to go along with conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence.
In October 2006, Giraldi wrote in The American Conservative that the NIE on Iran had already been completed, but that Cheney's office had objected to its findings on both the Iranian nuclear programme and Iran's role in Iraq. The draft NIE did not conclude that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming the Shiite insurgents in Iraq, according to Giraldi.
Giraldi said the White House had decided to postpone any decision on the internal release of the NIE until after the November 2006 elections.
Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007.
Negroponte had angered the neoconservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade."
Neoconservatives immediately attacked Negroponte for the statement, which merely reflected the existing NIE on Iran issued in spring 2005. Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney, contradicted Negroponte the following day. He suggested that Iran's nuclear programme was nearing the "point of no return" -- an Israeli concept referring to the mastery of industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
Frank J. Gaffney, a protégé of neoconservative heavyweight Richard Perle, complained that Negroponte was "absurdly declaring the Iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons".
On Jan. 5, 2007, Pres. George W. Bush announced the nomination of retired Vice Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell to be director of national intelligence. McConnell was approached by Cheney himself about accepting the position, according to Newsweek.
McConnell was far more amenable to White House influence than his predecessor. On Feb. 27, one week after his confirmation, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he was "comfortable saying it's probable" that the alleged export of explosively formed penetrators to Shiite insurgents in Iraq was linked to the highest leadership in Iran.
Cheney had been making that charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates, as well as Negroponte, had opposed it.
A public event last spring indicated that White House had ordered a reconsideration of the draft NIE's conclusion on how many years it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. The previous Iran estimate completed in spring 2005 had estimated it as 2010 to 2015.
Two weeks after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in mid-April that Iran would begin producing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Thomas Fingar, said in an interview with National Public Radio that the completion of the NIE on Iran had been delayed while the intelligence community determined whether its judgment on the time frame within which Iran might produce a nuclear weapon needed to be amended.
Fingar said the estimate "might change", citing "new reporting" from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as "some other new information we have". And then he added, "We are serious about reexamining old evidence."
That extraordinary revelation about the NIE process, which was obviously ordered by McConnell, was an unsubtle signal to the intelligence community that the White House was determined to obtain a more alarmist conclusion on the Iranian nuclear programme.
A decision announced in late October indicated, however, that Cheney did not get the consensus findings on the nuclear programme and Iran's role in Iraq that he had wanted. On Oct. 27, David Shedd, a deputy to McConnell, told a congressional briefing that McConnell had issued a directive making it more difficult to declassify the key judgments of national intelligence estimates.
That reversed a Bush administration practice of releasing summaries of "key judgments" in NIEs that began when the White House made public the key judgments from the controversial 2002 NIE on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programme in July 2003.
The decision to withhold key judgments on Iran from the public was apparently part of a White House strategy for reducing the potential damage of publishing the estimate with the inclusion of dissenting views.
As of early October, officials involved in the NIE were "throwing their hands up in frustration" over the refusal of the administration to allow the estimate to be released, according to the former intelligence officer. But the Iran NIE is now expected to be circulated within the administration in late November, says Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and founder of the anti-war group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
The release of the Iran NIE would certainly intensify the bureaucratic political struggle over Iran policy. If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents.
Both sides may be anticipating another effort by Cheney to win Bush's approval of a significant escalation of military pressure on Iran in early 2008.
(END/2007)
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
Re: Iran HAS NO NUKES, Bush is a warmongering imp!
<font size="5"><center>Strike on Iran nuclear sites under discussion again</font size>
<font size="4">Six months ago, after American intelligence agencies (through
the NIE) declared that Iran had shelved its nuclear-weapons
program, the chances of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran
before President Bush left office seemed remote . . . But
now, thanks to persistent pressure from Israeli hawks and
newly stated concerns by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the idea of a targeted strike meant to cripple
Iran's nuclear program is getting a new hearing.</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By Dion Nissenbaum
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
JERUSALEM —
As Bush travels across Europe to gain support for possible new sanctions against Iran, Israeli leaders have been working to lay the psychological foundation for a possible military strike if diplomacy falters.
In public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Temperatures are rising," said Emily Landau, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies, an independent Israeli research center.
Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met twice in recent weeks for extended talks on Iran. America's intelligence chief, Mike McConnell, has traveled to Israel for private briefings, and Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz publicly declared that a military strike on Iran may be "unavoidable."
In Germany on Wednesday, Bush said that "all options are on the table" if Iran doesn't abandon its uranium enrichment programs.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greeted Bush's initiative by mocking the latest international efforts.
"They've tried by military threats ... and political pressure to stop you from your luminous path," Ahmadinejad reportedly told a rally in Iran on Wednesday. "But today they have seen that all their planning has failed.
"Today the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Intelligence analysts disagree over the likelihood of a military strike on Iran before Bush leaves office. But there's little disagreement about the possible repercussions, which could include missile strikes on Israel, an attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, renewed attacks on Israel from Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon, a resurgence of Shiite Muslim resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq or an attack on oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, which could send crude oil prices well above $200 a barrel.
Some analysts view the latest Israeli threats as an attempt to put pressure on Iran to capitulate to Western demands. Other analysts see the Israeli campaign as intended to press the Bush administration to take the lead if the two nations decide to launch a military strike on Iran.
"The most likely scenario is that the Israelis will train and prepare as if they are very serious — and that's part of the bluff to get the U.S. engaged," said John McCreary, a retired intelligence analyst for the U.S. Department of Defense.
The key factor in any decision to launch a military strike is likely to be solid intelligence that Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear ambitions.
"I don't think there is that smoking gun that we can hold up and say that everyone should stand behind this," said Landau, who recently wrote an analysis titled "The Elusive Smoking Gun" for her think tank.
But Landau said the international debate had shifted in the weeks since the IAEA expressed "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear ambitions and demanded more answers.
Israel already has demonstrated an ability to persuade reluctant Bush administration officials of the need to stage a pre-emptive strike. Before launching an airstrike on Syria last September, Israel provided the United States with intelligence suggesting that its Middle East neighbor was building a nuclear plant.
In April, the CIA publicly unveiled detailed images of the Syrian target and said that it was a nuclear reactor built with help from North Korea. Syria has denied the allegation. International inspectors are expected to visit the site for the first time later this month.
Considering Ahmadinejad's refusal so far to accept the international incentives, some analysts see support growing in Israel and the United States for a military strike.
"I think more and more people are looking to the military option as possibly the only thing that will work, and people are more and more feeling that negotiations won't work," said Meir Javendanfar, a co-author of "The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran."
Hard-liners in the U.S. and Israel also dismiss the notion that U.S. or Israeli nuclear weapons would deter Iran from using such weapons itself if it succeeded in obtaining them.
The very fact that a military strike is percolating back into mainstream debate is a significant shift in the political discourse.
Most analysts dismissed the military option last December after U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons work in 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 or 2015.
Though Bush and Olmert challenged the assessment at the time, the analysis made it more difficult to make a case for swift military action.
Since then, Israel has shared more of its intelligence with the Bush administration.
Last week, Olmert traveled to Washington for extended talks with Bush that focused primarily on Iran.
"Every passing day the world acts, under the leadership of the United States, to achieve that goal that will prevent Iran's armament," Olmert said after meeting Bush.
On Wednesday, Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said that Iran must understand that it must give up its nuclear ambitions in order to receive international incentives.
"Only if they understand that there is a clear and stark choice, that there isn't wiggle room, only then can diplomacy succeed," Regev said. "I think in dealing with the Iranians it's important to have both carrots and sticks."
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40764.html
<font size="5"><center>Strike on Iran nuclear sites under discussion again</font size>
<font size="4">Six months ago, after American intelligence agencies (through
the NIE) declared that Iran had shelved its nuclear-weapons
program, the chances of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran
before President Bush left office seemed remote . . . But
now, thanks to persistent pressure from Israeli hawks and
newly stated concerns by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the idea of a targeted strike meant to cripple
Iran's nuclear program is getting a new hearing.</font size></center>
McClatchy Newspapers
By Dion Nissenbaum
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
JERUSALEM —
As Bush travels across Europe to gain support for possible new sanctions against Iran, Israeli leaders have been working to lay the psychological foundation for a possible military strike if diplomacy falters.
In public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Temperatures are rising," said Emily Landau, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies, an independent Israeli research center.
Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met twice in recent weeks for extended talks on Iran. America's intelligence chief, Mike McConnell, has traveled to Israel for private briefings, and Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz publicly declared that a military strike on Iran may be "unavoidable."
In Germany on Wednesday, Bush said that "all options are on the table" if Iran doesn't abandon its uranium enrichment programs.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greeted Bush's initiative by mocking the latest international efforts.
"They've tried by military threats ... and political pressure to stop you from your luminous path," Ahmadinejad reportedly told a rally in Iran on Wednesday. "But today they have seen that all their planning has failed.
"Today the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Intelligence analysts disagree over the likelihood of a military strike on Iran before Bush leaves office. But there's little disagreement about the possible repercussions, which could include missile strikes on Israel, an attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, renewed attacks on Israel from Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon, a resurgence of Shiite Muslim resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq or an attack on oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, which could send crude oil prices well above $200 a barrel.
Some analysts view the latest Israeli threats as an attempt to put pressure on Iran to capitulate to Western demands. Other analysts see the Israeli campaign as intended to press the Bush administration to take the lead if the two nations decide to launch a military strike on Iran.
"The most likely scenario is that the Israelis will train and prepare as if they are very serious — and that's part of the bluff to get the U.S. engaged," said John McCreary, a retired intelligence analyst for the U.S. Department of Defense.
The key factor in any decision to launch a military strike is likely to be solid intelligence that Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear ambitions.
"I don't think there is that smoking gun that we can hold up and say that everyone should stand behind this," said Landau, who recently wrote an analysis titled "The Elusive Smoking Gun" for her think tank.
But Landau said the international debate had shifted in the weeks since the IAEA expressed "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear ambitions and demanded more answers.
Israel already has demonstrated an ability to persuade reluctant Bush administration officials of the need to stage a pre-emptive strike. Before launching an airstrike on Syria last September, Israel provided the United States with intelligence suggesting that its Middle East neighbor was building a nuclear plant.
In April, the CIA publicly unveiled detailed images of the Syrian target and said that it was a nuclear reactor built with help from North Korea. Syria has denied the allegation. International inspectors are expected to visit the site for the first time later this month.
Considering Ahmadinejad's refusal so far to accept the international incentives, some analysts see support growing in Israel and the United States for a military strike.
"I think more and more people are looking to the military option as possibly the only thing that will work, and people are more and more feeling that negotiations won't work," said Meir Javendanfar, a co-author of "The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran."
Hard-liners in the U.S. and Israel also dismiss the notion that U.S. or Israeli nuclear weapons would deter Iran from using such weapons itself if it succeeded in obtaining them.
The very fact that a military strike is percolating back into mainstream debate is a significant shift in the political discourse.
Most analysts dismissed the military option last December after U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons work in 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 or 2015.
Though Bush and Olmert challenged the assessment at the time, the analysis made it more difficult to make a case for swift military action.
Since then, Israel has shared more of its intelligence with the Bush administration.
Last week, Olmert traveled to Washington for extended talks with Bush that focused primarily on Iran.
"Every passing day the world acts, under the leadership of the United States, to achieve that goal that will prevent Iran's armament," Olmert said after meeting Bush.
On Wednesday, Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said that Iran must understand that it must give up its nuclear ambitions in order to receive international incentives.
"Only if they understand that there is a clear and stark choice, that there isn't wiggle room, only then can diplomacy succeed," Regev said. "I think in dealing with the Iranians it's important to have both carrots and sticks."
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40764.html
Seymour Hersh: Despite Intelligence Rejecting Iran as
Nuclear Threat, US Could Be Headed for Iraq Redux
June 6, 2011
by: Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!
http://www.truthout.org/seymour-her...ar-threat-us-could-be-headed-iraq-redux/13073
In his latest article for The New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says the United States might attack Iran based on distorted estimates of Iran’s nuclear and military threat—just like it did with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Hersh reveals that despite using Iranian informants and cutting-edge surveillance technology, U.S. officials have been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran has been moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.
Get the entire New Yorker Magazine Article pdf HERE
Nuclear Threat, US Could Be Headed for Iraq Redux
June 6, 2011
by: Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!
http://www.truthout.org/seymour-her...ar-threat-us-could-be-headed-iraq-redux/13073
In his latest article for The New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says the United States might attack Iran based on distorted estimates of Iran’s nuclear and military threat—just like it did with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Hersh reveals that despite using Iranian informants and cutting-edge surveillance technology, U.S. officials have been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran has been moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.
Get the entire New Yorker Magazine Article pdf HERE
Similar threads
