US News
Iran halted nuclear weapons programme in 2003, US says (1st Lead)
Dec 3, 2007, 18:09 GMT
Washington - Iran halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003 and seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than the Bush administration previously believed, the US intelligence community said in a report released Monday.
As of the middle of this year, it does not appear that Iran has resumed its nuclear weapons programme even as it continues uranium enrichment in defiance of the UN Security Council, the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate said.
The NIE concluded that Iran stopped the weapons aspect of its nuclear work because of greater international pressure and scrutiny in a sign that 'suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously,' the NIE said, in reference to a similar report in 2005.
The intelligence said Iran, because of technical problems, probably will not have enough highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon until some time between 2010 and 2015. The NIE said, however, Iran at a 'minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons' and was still gaining nuclear expertise.
The White House, which has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a third round of Security Council sanctions, said the assessment shows President George W Bush's policy to keep pressure on Iran was working but that Iran's nuclear activities still posed a risk.
'It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen,' Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said.
'But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapons remains a very serious problem,' Hadley added in a statement.
The declassified version of the report was released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the bureau which oversees and coordinates information gathered by the various intelligence agencies.
'Since our understanding of Iran's capabilities has changed, we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available,' said Donald M Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
I think your arguments are correct, what happens when the US exits?
I think that all depends on Egypt and Saudi Arabias position when US forces leave, but I think the plan is to wait till their armies have been restocked then pull out, that way it may slow down any immediate war in the region. Before Gulf War II Saddam was allying itself closely to Iran anyway, this war has only deleted the one obstical Iran had to defeat before complete take over. But having understood Iranian Policy in the region, It's not a take over they want, I believe they respect Iraq's Independance but would support Iraqi's Shia to stay dominant, as this would benefit them in the long run much more than direct involvment in any takeover of Iraq, and we all know the Mullahs think in terms of decades and not day to day like Neo-Cons.
I think your arguments are correct, what happens when the US exits?
(This article gives you a very good indication of what follows our exit - can you spell 'Afghanistan'?)
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/middleeast/02baghdad.html?_r=1&th&emc= th&o ref=slogin
'One recent independent analysis ranked Iraq the third most corrupt country in the world. Of 180 countries surveyed, only Somalia and Myanmar were worse, according to Transparency International, a Berlin-based group that publishes the index annually.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 1 — Jobless men pay $500 bribes to join the police. Families build houses illegally on government land, carwashes steal water from public pipes, and nearly everything the government buys or sells can now be found on the black market.
Painkillers for cancer (from the Ministry of Health) cost $80 for a few capsules; electricity meters (from the Ministry of Electricity) go for $200 each, and even third-grade textbooks (stolen from the Ministry of Education) must be bought at bookstores for three times what schools once charged.
“Everyone is stealing from the state,” said Adel Adel al-Subihawi, a prominent Shiite tribal leader in Sadr City, throwing up his hands in disgust. “It’s a very large meal, and everyone wants to eat.”
Corruption and theft are not new to Iraq, and government officials have promised to address the problem. But as Iraqis and American officials assess the effects of this year’s American troop increase, there is a growing sense that, even as security has improved, Iraq has slipped to new depths of lawlessness.
RE: I think that all depends on Egypt and Saudi Arabias position when US forces leave, but I think the plan is to wait till their armies have been restocked then pull out, that way it may slow down any immediate war in the region.
(We have arms deals in the region, including Israel. If you can't make real friends, buy them_
RE: Before Gulf War II Saddam was allying itself closely to Iran anyway, this war has only deleted the one obstical (sic) Iran had to defeat before complete take over.
(I completely disagree - read up on the 1980-1987 War between Iraq and Iran - Sunni vs. Shia. We used Saddam as a buffer for years following our own problems with Iran, as a stabilizing factor. Bush Sr. had enough sense to understand the situation, and to leave Saddam in power despite his actions against the Kurds and others)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
'The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency influenced by Khomeini's Islamic republic. Although the Iraqis attacked without formal warning, they failed to make progress and were soon repelled by the Iranians. Despite several calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988; the last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003. The war altered regional and even global politics.'
The Saudis have a large Shia minority, abd justifiably fear Iran's growing influence. Hence, this news of today:
www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/asia/iran.php
This appearance by Ahmadinejad at the Gulf Cooperation Council was a clear Arab acknowledgment of Tehran's rising power in the region. The concern of nations such as Saudi Arabia, which have large Shiite minorities, can be understood, since in the post-Saddam era, Iran is free to exert influence. This is a move to offset American influence, and while that won't happen, the Arab leaders have the good sense to hold conversations, even with those they disagree with.
'We call for peace and security without any foreign influence,' said Ahmadinejad , who was escorted along the red carpet by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Ahmadinejad proposed the 'establishment of economical and security pacts and institutions among the seven states' here to 'serve the people of our region' and enable 'peace and prosperity for all.'
Ahmadinejad has proposed similar cooperation with Gulf states in the past, but not a formal pact.'
(Such a security pact would in theory reduce U.S. options)
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5346640.html
BAGHDAD, IRAQ — Top U.S. diplomatic and military officials Sunday urged Iraq's lawmakers to speed up political progress, a sign of Washington's concern that security gains could be squandered amid legislative infighting.
The comments were reminiscent of those heard repeatedly last spring and summer as pressure mounted on Iraq's parliament to pass legislation considered crucial to fostering national reconciliation. Also reminiscent was the political discord in parliament. Now, as before, lawmakers are divided into sectarian blocs, and boycotts and walkouts continue to hamper movement on major bills.
None of the legislation that U.S. officials focused on earlier this year has won approval. What is different now, and what is giving U.S. officials a new sense of urgency, is the reduced violence across the country and in particular the capital, Baghdad.
They say higher violence levels will return if parliament does not use the calmer environment to improve essential services nationwide, forge ties with local and provincial leaders, and sort out disputes blocking major bills splitting Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds.
The pending legislation would manage Iraq's oil wealth and lift rules limiting employment opportunities for former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who served as ambassador to Iraq in 2004, said six days of touring Iraq had left him encouraged by the improved security. 'Now progress on political reconciliation ... is needed to consolidate the gains made thus far,' he told a news conference. 'If progress is not made on these fronts, we risk falling back to the more violent patterns of the past.'
First Bush's imagination gets him in trouble in Iraq - now Iran. Who will he be delusional about next - Canada??
Yes - Canada has that oil sand - good reason to invade ?
page: 1
Bush tries to take credit, anywayDec 3rd, 2007 - 18:47:18
RE: The White House, which has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a third round of Security Council sanctions, said the assessment shows President George W Bush's policy to keep pressure on Iran was working but that Iran's nuclear activities still posed a risk.
'It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen,' Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said.
=================================
Imagine, on the other hand, if Bush had not personally inserted Iran into the 'Axis of Evil' speech, and we could have avoided their election of their current President, who ran on an anti-U.S. agenda. Iran was a big help with Afghanistan, and we blew that apart with Bush's speechifying. Taking Saddam out did Iran a huge favor, and we should have gotten something out of it from Iran before doing so. Now, we lack any cards to play, except proposing sanctions and threatening military actions that all parties realize is not feasible.
Bush's record is not great on this sort of thing. We had the WMD argument as casus belli for Iraq, and that was all a delusion by 'curveball', and those looking for this kind of information regardless of the validity of the source.
Likewise, Petraeus committed us to the surge MONTHS after the Sunni were already battling against al Qaeda, gaving grown sick of their attempts to dominate the Iraqis. What we added was blast walls to enclose their enclaves, and considerable money to pay them for what they were already doing, to buy loyalty. The question is what 'loyalty' will remain when U.S. troops draw down, and the Sunnis are still battling for political recognition in a Shia-led government, and lack their own oil revenues.
Report this comment