Iran Abandoned Nukes in 2003 According to NIE

So what to do with this?

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was “determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”

But the latest report says Iran—which declared its ability to produce enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006—could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

First off, this is good news.  Let’s not ignore that fact.  If the intelligence is correct, it is good news that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon.  Something must have been happening in 2003 to cause both Libya and Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions…

But let’s not get too complacent.  Remember that the report also says:

“We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely,” the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes.

2009 9 is all of 13 months away, and 2010 is only a year after that.  According to this NIE, Iran is close… uncomfortable close to becoming a nuclear power. 

1. This is good news.  Did they abandon their program because they knew the people of Iran would not stand for the economy crushing sanctions a program would bring?  We will likely never no the reason they had for shelving their program, but thankfully military action against Iran should now be off the table.  We can’t attack someone for having evil aspirations they are not acting on.

   Posted by on December 03, 2007 at 2308 hrs




2. Or more likely, their nuclear program really was about generating power.

   Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 0958 hrs




3. Or even more likely, the invasion of Iraq gave Iran second thoughts about facing the American military.

   Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 1000 hrs




4. G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

   The rest is here in a nine-page summary of the NIE;

   http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

   Sounds like we have plenty of time to elect someone in 2008 who knows that diplomacy is more than just a four syllable word.

   Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 1023 hrs




5. We could speculate all day long about why they gave up the program.  There are many things that could have caused them to rethink their course of action.

   Some say Libya gave up their program because it was too difficult and costly to develop a nuclear weapon and that the benefits of abandoning the program outweighed the benefits of having a nuclear weapon.  Hopefully Iran can be deterred from restarting anything after diplomats convince them that they are in a similar cost/benefit equation.

   If we have learned anything this decade it should be that we can’t rely on one intellegience estimate.  If the next batch of “intellegience” says they have restarted something the hawks will have all the justification they need to implement the military action they have lusted for all along.

   If there ever was a time for diplomatic intervention this is it.

   Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 1028 hrs




6. Is there something we are to take from this report, besides the fact that dollar for dollar, sanctions and continued inspections, along with persistent diplomatic pressure, are a much better investment than armed conflict?

   The new estimate declares instead with “high confidence” that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with “moderate confidence” that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”
   

   I struggle with how to walk hawks through the logic of diplomacy.

   As many wars have ended because of the work of diplomats, as have from the achievements of generals.

   Posted by Mike on December 04, 2007 at 1217 hrs




7. This time FOR SURE, Rocky!

   Nuthin’ up m’sleeve!

   Posted by still Unreal... on December 04, 2007 at 1502 hrs




8. Maybe we misunderstooded this, eh?

   Funny how hard it is to find an actual video of the production they put together for the world, huh?

   Posted by still Unreal... on December 04, 2007 at 1521 hrs




9. The big, in-your-face takeaway from this report is this:

   Despite Iran having abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years ago, president Bush has been invoking “world war III” and talking about nuking them.  Also, just about everyone running for president with an R after his name has been tripping over himself to appear more hawkish than the next guy, also openly talking about dropping nuclear bombs on Iraq.  These people are out of control, untrustworthy, do not know what’s going on, and have proven themselves--yet again--unworthy of my vote.

   Posted by scott on December 04, 2007 at 1728 hrs




10. I normally agree with what is said here, but why is this good news? As a sovereign country doesn’t Iran have the right to do as its people please (or, at least, what the people put up with)?

    If they launch a nuke at us, we should blow them off the map, but until then… let them be sovereign.

    Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 1740 hrs




11. The Press Conference this morning was highly entertaining.

    “Mr. President, have you actually ever been right on anything, just once?”

    Posted by on December 04, 2007 at 2152 hrs




12. Here’s what I don’t get: if Iran abandoned their nuclear program for whatever reason, why didn’t they say so? The don’t really NEED nuclear power, so why provoke everyone and keep alive the suspicion you have a weapons program by continuing to enrich uranium? Ahmadinejad uses every opportunity to thump his chest and tell the ‘world community’ that they have a right to nuclear technology and they’ll refine all the materials they want.

    It’s deliberately provocative behavior. There is no advantage to abandoning your nuclear program if you don’t make it clear to everyone that you have done so.

    Right? What am I missing?

    Posted by S. Weasel on December 05, 2007 at 0543 hrs




13. Here is one person’s opinion about why Iran would legitimately want to pursue nuclear power. It’s a few years old, but the points are still valid--among them, “why should Iran deplete its nonrenewable oil and gas sources when it can, much like the energy-rich United States and Russia, resort to renewable nuclear energy?”

    As for whether or not Iran told other countries that it shut down its weapons programs...come on. Every country does the same kind of thing. If we like them, it’s strategic. If we don’t, it’s provocative.

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 0739 hrs




14. What am I missing?

    Nothing!  I think you should contact the dozens of intelligence agencies who crafted the NIE and alert them to your astounding analysis!

    Posted by scott on December 05, 2007 at 1003 hrs




15. Sarcasm is not responsive. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of “nuh-uh!”

    Why did Iran give up its nuclear program? I can’t think of any answer to that question that isn’t negated by keeping us from being sure they had done so—except plain old military posturing. But why? And for whom?

    Posted by S. Weasel on December 05, 2007 at 1209 hrs




16. scott wrote: Also, just about everyone running for president with an R after his name has been tripping over himself to appear more hawkish than the next guy, also openly talking about dropping nuclear bombs on Iraq.  These people are out of control, untrustworthy, do not know what’s going on, and have proven themselves--yet again--unworthy of my vote.

    I agree 100% with you on that.

    Not that the NIE is necessarily perfect.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that the same group that claimed Iraq had WMD’s and Iran was on the verge of nukes back in 2003?  What makes them so accurate now?

    Either way, I don’t like the push to start military action against Iran.  It’s like the GOP has nothing better to do with their time.

    Sad.  Pathetic.  Whatever one can call it, it’s wrong - and more reason why the GOP candidates (perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul) are unqualified to occupy the White House.

    Posted by David on December 05, 2007 at 1231 hrs




17. Now in the face of the new NIE, George W. Bush ratcheting up the rhetoric, demanding that Iran “come clean” on its nuclear program, and forging ahead with his insistence that stricter sanctions be imposed. This spin is jaw-dropping, even by Bushian standards. I originally thought that Dick Cheney would be beside himself at this news. Now I’m pretty sure he’s unfazed and continuing to map out invasion plans.

    411 days left.

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 1330 hrs




18. And Israel IS a nuclear country.
    But the world, Bush, IAEA silence forever!

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 1339 hrs




19. Chris wrote:
    “If they launch a nuke at us, we should blow them off the map, but until then… let them be sovereign.”

    And what is your address sir?  I sure hope you dont live anywhere near me..

    If you believe anything coming from the Clinton era holdovers from the U.S. intelligence agency’s, I have some swamp land in Brookfield, Im looking to get rid of.  Im sure Hillary and Bill told the old cronies at the U.S. intelligence Agency to release this to take the heat off Hillary..

    8 more years of Bill pulling the strings..  Next attack on our soil to follow..  I sure hope its not nuclear..  And what was your address again?

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 1736 hrs




20. Hah, you are safe. I don’t live in Wisconsin. I don’t hold any love for Clinton, but neither do I think our country is the only one who has the right to claim sovereignty. There should not be a one world government either.

    Next on the agenda is nuclear fallout. Take a look at this article. Now, with that said, I don’t want it to be nuclear either.

    But if you do want to give me some land, I’m sure I could do something with it.

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 2235 hrs




21. Overtaxed- It is obvious that you have no understanding of the intelligence community.  There are no “holdovers from the Clinton administration”, and if you think there are can you please list them.  Lord knows I would like to know who they are.

    Posted by on December 05, 2007 at 2328 hrs




22. Now in the face of the new NIE, George W. Bush ratcheting up the rhetoric, demanding that Iran “come clean” on its nuclear program, and forging ahead with his insistence that stricter sanctions be imposed. This spin is jaw-dropping, even by Bushian standards.

    Posted by Offshore on March 19, 2008 at 0841 hrs