Iran nuke program stopped in 2003

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nuke Program
In summary, a US intelligence report released Monday suggests that Iran halted its atomic weapons program in 2003, but has continued to enrich uranium and could have enough material to build a bomb between 2010 and 2015. This report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, also suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to international pressure on the issue than previously thought. Vice President Cheney has previously stated that Iran is a top threat to world peace and stability, accusing them of sponsoring terrorism and having a "fairly robust new nuclear program." However, the recent NIE update indicates that Iran's nuclear program is mostly focused on fuel enrichment rather than weapons development. Senator Webb has stated that he does not believe impeachment should be called for in the event
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
Washington (dpa) - Iran halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003 and seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than previously believed, but has continued to enrich uranium and could have enough material to build a bomb between 2010 and 2015, according to a US intelligence report released Monday.


The report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, concluded that Iran stopped the weapons aspect of its nuclear work because of increased international pressure and scrutiny, suggesting "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously." [continued]
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124200 [Broken]

Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A02

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that Iran is a top threat to world peace and Middle East stability, accusing Tehran of sponsoring terrorism against Americans and building a "fairly robust new nuclear program." [continued]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24677-2005Jan20.html

Luckily, even Sen. Webb said that were Bush to bomb Iran, he would likely be impeached. Hopefully the fear mongering will end.

Why anyone still believes these guys is beyond me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
hopefully this will defuse the situation a bit. no one in the "right mind" would want to see yet another war!
 
  • #3
according to a US intelligence report released Monday.
Hold on. The stopped nuclear weapons work information has just been released, realized in the last few months; Hadley briefed the press on it today. The quote from the US VP is from 2005, and posting it to imply they must have known otherwise is misleading. I trust that's not intentional.

Luckily, even Sen. Webb said that were Bush to bomb Iran, he would likely be impeached. Hopefully the fear mongering will end.
If that is in reference to the interview this past Sunday, then it is a gross distortion of what he said.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden said that if President Bush attacks Iran without authorization from Congress that impeachment charges should be brought against the president. Do you agree with that?

SEN. WEBB: Here’s what I think. We don’t need to get to that process. We—to that point where we would, we would call for an impeachment. We have the availability, inside the constitutional process, to prevent this from happening. I introduced a bill in March which basically said no funding will be authorized for the assumption of unilateral military actions against Iran...
And goes on mention impeachment only as last resort possibility. Sen Webb is no impeachment cowboy.

Why anyone still believes these guys is beyond me.
uh, yeah.
 
  • #4
mheslep said:
Hold on. The stopped nuclear weapons work information has just been released, realized in the last few months; Hadley briefed the press on it today. The quote from the US VP is from 2005, and posting it to imply they must have known otherwise is misleading.
The new NIE says that in all likelihood there is no serious nuke program. This doesn't mean that the previous state of the intelligence was that there was a program, as Cheney said. More likely, as has repeatedly been the case, the intelligence agencies were mostly unsure and had no strong evidence (and we now know they couldn't have had any), but Cheney decided to make the slam-dunk assertion, nevertheless.
 
  • #5
Gokul43201 said:
The new NIE says that in all likelihood there is no serious nuke program. This doesn't mean that the previous state of the intelligence was that there was a program, as Cheney said. More likely, as has repeatedly been the case, the intelligence agencies were mostly unsure and had no strong evidence (and we now know they couldn't have had any), but Cheney decided to make the slam-dunk assertion, nevertheless.
Eh? VP said in '05 about Iran that there was a "...fairly robust nuclear program", period. Its public knowledge that there was. Then Pres. Khatamiand invited in the IAEA to see the enrichment facility! Now we know, gasp, that there still is one. The recent NIE now clarifies that the extent of that program is mostly fuel enrichment vs weapons directed. I assume that means reactor grade vs highly enriched.
 
  • #6
Of course Cheney was talking about a civilian program! Their "new", 50-year-old program.
 
  • #7
Well, regardless of Ivan's implications about who-knew-what-when, I guess we can ring up another score for Bush's foreign policy (cowboy diplomacy), right? :biggrin:
 
  • #8
Gokul43201 said:
The new NIE says that in all likelihood there is no serious nuke program. This doesn't mean that the previous state of the intelligence was that there was a program, as Cheney said. More likely, as has repeatedly been the case, the intelligence agencies were mostly unsure and had no strong evidence (and we now know they couldn't have had any), but Cheney decided to make the slam-dunk assertion, nevertheless.
That is covered in the article:
The NIE contains the views gathered from the 16 US intelligence agencies, and the latest version is an update from the 2005 report, which concluded with "high confidence" that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons.
 
  • #9
Gokul43201 said:
Of course Cheney was talking about a civilian program! Their "new", 50-year-old program.
First, 50 yrs is misleading. Yes the Shaw built it up ~50 yrs ago but Iraq repeatedly destroyed the facilities in the Iran/Iraq war. Second, you're implying a sharp line between a 'civilian' program and weapons knowledge when with a physics background you must know there is no such line. Further, its again public knowledge that the http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf" (A.2. Implications) that
Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its [NPT] Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored
That report goes on to detail many unreported U acquisitions and enrichment facilities. Now really, how could one rationally object to an '05 statement that Iran's nuclear ambitions were worrisome and had a "...fairly robust nuclear program". Just what would you have a western leader say on the subject. (in '05)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
I'd have no problems with statements that Iran's nuclear ambitions are personally worrisome. I've felt the same way myself (and have been saying so, in this forum, for over 3 years now). But time and again, we've heard assertions, even if carefully worded, of Iran's developing/seeking nuclear weapons. In the above example, as in many (but not all) recent speeches of this nature, care is taken to not specify "weapons". But clearly, the intent of these remarks is not lost and point of making such statements is to raise fear.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
That is covered in the article:
Didn't see that before. In that case, I don't have an argument, as that was the same impression I'd gotten from reading FAS and Globalsecurity.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
This report will help put the "crazies" back into the box.
 
  • #13
  • #14
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday said he can't believe President Bush hasn't known for months about a recent intelligence estimate that downplays the nuclear threat from Iran.

...Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" Biden asked in a conference call with reporters.

"I refuse to believe that," he added. "If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history." [continued]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/bush.iran/index.html

I think we already know that he ranks as one of if not the most incompetent president in history.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
Well, regardless of Ivan's implications about who-knew-what-when, I guess we can ring up another score for Bush's foreign policy (cowboy diplomacy), right? :biggrin:

I don't listen to crooks or idiots. No matter the reason, he is not to be believed.

Please quit inferring things and stating it as my opinion, or as implications made by me. You usually have no idea where I'm coming from.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
The very idea that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone is utterly ridiculous. Ahmedinijad is not a very nice guy, but he's not stupid, he knows that as soon as a nuke left Iran his entire country, and all of his beloved people, would be annexed back to the stoneage by Isral and the US. Iran would benefit NOTHING from having a nuke. And their not even making one! the official body which investigates nuclear issues, the IAEA, has never found any evidence of nukes. You really are left with the question againl who made this one up? its beggining to look like another non existent WMD situation.

I always knew that Iran was not making nukes, if there was any evidence i can assure you it would be all over the press as there are a lot of people who have an interst in portarying Iran in this way.
 
  • #17
PlasmaSphere said:
The very idea that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone is utterly ridiculous. Ahmedinijad is not a very nice guy, but he's not stupid, he knows that as soon as a nuke left Iran his entire country, and all of his beloved people, would be annexed back to the stoneage by Isral and the US. Iran would benefit NOTHING from having a nuke. And their not even making one! the official body which investigates nuclear issues, the IAEA, has never found any evidence of nukes. You really are left with the question again who made this one up? its beginning to look like another non existent WMD situation.
Yeah. Maybe this guy http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml" [Broken]:
"Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.
The statement was video'd, its around somewhere. By the way, he's right in a sense, 'Isral' is only 10mi wide at its center, just N. of Tel Aviv.

I always knew that Iran was not making nukes, if there was any evidence i can assure you it would be all over the press as there are a lot of people who have an interst in portarying Iran in this way.
You always knew? You can assure' me? Cool dude! The West can dump the IAEA and its expensive intelligence agencies and give you the job as the Man in Iran.
Oh wait. Turns out the IAEA http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf" many times on the Iranian violations of the NPT in U acquisition and enrichment, and the earlier NIE from 2005 clearly says Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. Sorry dude, no job for you. Bummer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
russ_watters said:
I guess we can ring up another score for Bush's foreign policy (cowboy diplomacy), right? :biggrin:
This makes me wonder...what exactly was the source of pressure in 2003? I don't recall the US putting any kind of diplomatic pressure on Iran at that time. What am I missing?
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
This makes me wonder...what exactly was the source of pressure in 2003? I don't recall the US putting any kind of diplomatic pressure on Iran at that time. What am I missing?
I'm not convinced of any cause and effect (or wisdom), but how about these:
- 'Axis of Evil' state of the union in Jan '02.
- Iraq war build up and UN security council actions in '02 which, at least at the security council level, amounted to 'give up your WMD or else'. Bathist's fall in 6 weeks; if you're a government that's what threatens you and not the 3-4 years of insurrection.
- Libya gave up its nuke program and in return had had two decades of US sanctions end. Thats late '03 / '04 so maybe late.

The theory being that any aspiring nuke power would see all this say fogetaboutit.

Of course if you strictly meant polite diplomatic conversation then, and this is even more off the cuff on my part, but I believe that given the history of strained US - Iranian relations (Shaw support and the '79 hostages), the US policy was this: its more effective to have the Europeans take the lead. http://http://www.armscontrol.org/country/iran/ParisAgreement.asp" [Broken] (France, Germany, UK) was '03 - Iran reaffirms commitment to honor NPT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Here is something I had posted earlier on the thread "What to do about Iraq".

now were are being led to believe that a nuclear Iran will be a threat to world peace, which is as big a load of bull as the WMD story.

Why dosen't the American government have an issue with nuclear arms in Pakistan or India or Israel, these are some of the most volitile areas on the planet.

It would be naive to believe that these operation in the Gulf are for anything else other than oil. It is about installing puppet governments in the entire Middle East just as in Saudi and Kuwait and gain control over this oil producing region. Imagine what could be done if anyone particular country had complete control on the majority of the worlds oil supply... the possibilities are endless...


What we really need to worry about is a nuclear America.
 
  • #21
novaa77 said:
What we really need to worry about is a nuclear America.

I worry more about a nuclear Israel than the US. Some Israeli officials have publically stated they would support a nuclear attack on Iran, which would likely cause the worlds muslim population to start WW3 in my opinion.

I found this highly ironic quote from John Bolton about this intelligence;

I really think the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have to look at how this NIE was put together because there are a lot unexplained points in here. […]

I think there is a risk here, and I raise this as a question, whether people in the intelligence community who had their own agenda on Iran for some time now have politicized this intelligence and politicized these judgments in a way contrary to where the administration was going. I think somebody needs to look at that.

I don't think that is is the NIE that have an agenda, i think it is people like Bolton that have an agenda against Iran.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
There are indications that the White House knew last fall that the NIE would say that Iran had stopped any nuclear arms program four years ago, but that they repeatedly rejected that version of the NIE and tried to get it changed to portray Iran as a serious threat. Unless somebody didn't bother telling Bush the truth, he has been lying through his teeth about Iran for over a year.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
 
  • #23
There are indications that the white house knew a few months back that *new information* was coming, bt that it had to be analyzed.

Regarding the question of "What would Iran do with a Nuclear weapon?"

The answer is: Whatever it wanted!

The mere possession of such a device would enable Iran to act without restraint in any manner of ways, simply because other countries would not want a confrontation with a nuclear power. Iran itself has called for or supports entities who call for the destruction of at least one member of the UN.

P.S. Remember, there are no homosexuals in Iran.
 
  • #24
No, the White House knew that the NIE would scuttle their claims that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, and they suppressed the release of the NIE by demanding revisions. Here's another source.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22487.html [Broken]

I should point out at this time that this administration outed Valerie Plame, and that she was a CIA agent with non-official cover (NOC). Her specialty was non-proliferation of WMDs, and her primary concern was nuclear weapons in Iran. By getting rid of her, Cheney, Bush, et al may have created a dangerous gap in our intelligence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
turbo-1 said:
No, the White House knew that the NIE would scuttle their claims that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, and they suppressed the release of the NIE by demanding revisions. Here's another source.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22487.html [Broken]

That source does not support your contention. It does mention that questions about classified and unclassified material kept the information from being released.

One notes, that the classified material is still classified.

One also notes that the article also claims that the current release despite the fact that it might endnger classified material was to prevent public opinion from claiming that intelligence was being withheld.

Furthermore, the article also supports the position that Iran has only recently begun cooperating in any manner with the IAEA.

****
Only last summer did it begin answering key IAEA questions about the history of its uranium enrichment program and the purchases of technology and know-how, including weapons-related materials, from the smuggling ring led by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.
****

That timeline strongly supports the white houses position that they got new information and were in the process of looking into the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
seycyrus said:
That timeline strongly supports the white houses position that they got new information and were in the process of looking into the matter.

very well... Mr. Bush, just take your time with your bedtime readings and don't rush us into another war...ok? :zzz:
 
  • #27
From the McClatchy article:
It said that because of unidentified "intelligence gaps," U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy assessed with "moderate confidence" that Iran "had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007."
Could the unidentified "intelligence gaps" have anything to do with the loss of Valerie Plame and her assets in Iran? We'll never know, will we? The timing is fortuitous, though.
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
From the McClatchy article:
Could the unidentified "intelligence gaps" have anything to do with the loss of Valerie Plame and her assets in Iran? We'll never know, will we? The timing is fortuitous, though.

Fortuitous?

You are claiming that they outed her because they thought that 5 years later they would need some intelligence gaps in order to delay the release of an intelligence report by a few months?

Whew, I need me one of dem high powered crystal balls! Mine only works for a few months!

Pretty ridiculous.
 
  • #29
turbo-1 said:
... she was a CIA agent with non-official cover (NOC). Her specialty was non-proliferation of WMDs, and her primary concern was nuclear weapons in Iran. By getting rid of her, Cheney, Bush, et al may have created a dangerous gap in our intelligence.

LOL :rofl:

Danger Will Robinson! Danger, Danger!

Here's a source for ya
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
 
Last edited:
  • #30
seycyrus said:
Fortuitous?

You are claiming that they outed her because they thought that 5 years later they would need some intelligence gaps in order to delay the release of an intelligence report by a few months?

Whew, I need me one of dem high powered crystal balls! Mine only works for a few months!

Pretty ridiculous.
No, they outed her because her husband disproved the claim that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger. I'm just noting that the loss of a NOC who was coordinating efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran is significant. The fact that the NIE is a concordance document with 16 participating agencies may have prevented the CIA from noting this little factor in the intelligence gap.
 
  • #31
mheslep said:
LOL :rofl:

Danger Will Robinson! Danger, Danger!

Here's a source for ya
Somehow right-wingers seem to think that outing a CIA NOC is no big thing because Bush and Cheney did it. If Clinton had done such a treasonous thing, Congress would have (rightly) impeached him. Different rules for your guys, huh?
 
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
...I'm just noting that the loss of a NOC who was coordinating efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran is significant.

Oh c'mon. Just fess up. You threw down the word "fortuitous"

You were just looking to vent your daily dose of hate-bush.
 
  • #33
turbo-1 said:
Somehow right-wingers seem to think that outing a CIA NOC is no big thing because Bush and Cheney did it. If Clinton had done such a treasonous thing, Congress would have (rightly) impeached him. Different rules for your guys, huh?

Rightbackatcha!

Funny how liberals have always hated the CIA and all of it's operatives. Except for when they can use one small incident to throw dirt at bush.
 
  • #34
Gokul43201 said:
This makes me wonder...what exactly was the source of pressure in 2003? I don't recall the US putting any kind of diplomatic pressure on Iran at that time. What am I missing?
mhslep gave some specifics related to Iran, but I think a lot is more general than that. Just knowing that the US has someone in office who is not afraid to use the military to fix problems would give a semi-rational enemy pause.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't listen to crooks or idiots. No matter the reason, he is not to be believed.
I said nothing about believing Bush/Cheney - by all means, believe the new NIE.
Please quit inferring things and stating it as my opinion, or as implications made by me. You usually have no idea where I'm coming from.
I inferred nothing at all, but by all means, feel free to clarify what you meant by responding to post #3. Since you went after me instead of responding to the point I was referring to, let me repeat it: It seems pretty clear that you are focused on Bush (or Cheney) being a liar (you keep saying it), but I'm just not seeing how you can get that from the quote you posted. As is pointed out in post 3, what Cheney said in '05 was clearly not a lie - it fit with the intelligence at the time.
 
Last edited:
<H2>1. What is the Iran nuke program and when did it stop?</H2><p>The Iran nuke program refers to Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. According to a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, the program was halted in 2003.</p><H2>2. What led to the halt of the Iran nuke program in 2003?</H2><p>The halt of the Iran nuke program in 2003 was a result of international pressure, including economic sanctions and diplomatic negotiations.</p><H2>3. Is there any evidence to support the claim that Iran's nuke program stopped in 2003?</H2><p>Yes, the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate provided evidence that Iran's nuke program was halted in 2003. Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons since 2003.</p><H2>4. Has Iran resumed its nuke program since 2003?</H2><p>According to the IAEA, there is no evidence that Iran has resumed its nuke program since 2003. However, there have been concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, such as the enrichment of uranium, which could potentially be used for nuclear weapons development.</p><H2>5. What is the current status of the Iran nuke program?</H2><p>The current status of the Iran nuke program is a topic of ongoing debate and investigation. While there is evidence that the program was halted in 2003, there are ongoing concerns about Iran's nuclear activities and the potential for the country to develop nuclear weapons in the future. International efforts, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aim to monitor and limit Iran's nuclear activities to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.</p>

1. What is the Iran nuke program and when did it stop?

The Iran nuke program refers to Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. According to a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, the program was halted in 2003.

2. What led to the halt of the Iran nuke program in 2003?

The halt of the Iran nuke program in 2003 was a result of international pressure, including economic sanctions and diplomatic negotiations.

3. Is there any evidence to support the claim that Iran's nuke program stopped in 2003?

Yes, the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate provided evidence that Iran's nuke program was halted in 2003. Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons since 2003.

4. Has Iran resumed its nuke program since 2003?

According to the IAEA, there is no evidence that Iran has resumed its nuke program since 2003. However, there have been concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, such as the enrichment of uranium, which could potentially be used for nuclear weapons development.

5. What is the current status of the Iran nuke program?

The current status of the Iran nuke program is a topic of ongoing debate and investigation. While there is evidence that the program was halted in 2003, there are ongoing concerns about Iran's nuclear activities and the potential for the country to develop nuclear weapons in the future. International efforts, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aim to monitor and limit Iran's nuclear activities to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
193
Views
20K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top