News Iran nuke program stopped in 2003

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
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:

mjsd

Homework Helper
725
3
hopefully this will defuse the situation a bit. no one in the "right mind" would want to see yet another war!
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
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 thats 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.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
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.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Of course Cheney was talking about a civilian program! Their "new", 50-year-old program.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,745
4,946
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:
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,745
4,946
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.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
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:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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:
48
0
This report will help put the "crazies" back into the box.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
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.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
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:
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 existant 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.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
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 existant 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:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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?
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
727
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 thats 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:
13
0
Here is something I had posted earlier on the thread "What to do about Iraq".

now were are being led to belive 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 belive 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 any one 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.
 
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 dont 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:

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
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
 

seycyrus

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.
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
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:

seycyrus

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:

Related Threads for: Iran nuke program stopped in 2003

Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
177
Views
16K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top