US Intel says Iran not Developing Nukes

[Nycfly75]

A big wrench has been thrown into the Neocon's Grand Plan:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7126429.stm

Fair Use:

US report cools crisis on Iran
By Paul Reynolds
BBC world affairs correspondent

The US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has acted like a safety valve, letting off the steam that had been building up over a possible American military attack.

It is also likely to make it more difficult to significantly increase international sanctions.

Russia and China in particular might argue that Iran is contained for the moment.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin remarked the other day that there was no "concrete evidence" that Iran was building a bomb and his judgment is now accepted by the US intelligence report.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei had also expressed a similar opinion.

[ChrisW]

Enter NYCAv Right-Wing Kool Aid Drinkers: "Typical liberal media bias."

Exit NYCAv Right-Wing Kool Aid Drinkers.

[Matt Molnar]

If anything this shows that the sanctions are working, and must continue to be enforced and reinforced. Just because they stopped doesn't mean they are no longer a threat.

[adam613]

I hate to burst all of your KoolAid-filled bubbles, but this intellegence could never have been released without the OK of the Bush administration, and the conservative media is playing it up too.

[NIKV69]

Enter NYCAv Right-Wing Kool Aid Drinkers: "Typical liberal media bias."

Exit NYCAv Right-Wing Kool Aid Drinkers.



The only people drinking Kool Aid are people that feel Iran is no longer a threat. Iran may not be making nukes but they remain mortal enemies of Isreal and must be monitored. Not to mention their aide to terrorism.

[adam613]

The only people drinking Kool Aid are people that feel Iran is no longer a threat. Iran may not be making nukes but they remain mortal enemies of Isreal and must be monitored. Not to mention their aide to terrorism.

The only people I've heard say that Iran is no longer a threat are the Iranians. They're using this news as proof that Bush is full of it. I have to say, I'm very curious to see what angle the Bush administration is playing with this, given their history with intelligence releases.

[T-Bird76]

If anything this shows that the sanctions are working, and must continue to be enforced and reinforced. Just because they stopped doesn't mean they are no longer a threat.

I agree with Matt 100%, these kind of governments won't remain in power for to long without capitualating to the west. The recent vote in Venezuela is another example of how these saber rattle leaders are only rattling a baby's rattle. Libya is another example of how countries like this must enter the community of nations or remain isolated from the world.

[Nycfly75]

If anything this shows that the sanctions are working, and must continue to be enforced and reinforced. Just because they stopped doesn't mean they are no longer a threat.

I agree with Matt 100%, these kind of governments won't remain in power for to long without capitualating to the west. The recent vote in Venezuela is another example of how these saber rattle leaders are only rattling a baby's rattle. Libya is another example of how countries like this must enter the community of nations or remain isolated from the world.

Libya is a great example on how dialogue and shuttle diplomacy can prevail. Libya finally came to its senses to join the world community at large mainly from the shuttle diplomacy of Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi and they transmitted the US Government's wishes to Col. Gaddafi. Syria can be engaged in the same way as Libya because President al-Assad has a similar style to Gaddafi. Iran requires a different formula but much an be achieved without guns pointed at Iran. Venezuela you have a case where the leader is an overgrown child and regardless of ideology leaders like this need to be put in their place, which happened on Sunday.

[Tom_Turner]

On the contrary, I believe Libya came to the table, offering up its NUKE work precisely because the US invaded/liberated/attacked Iraq...moreso, because Sadam himself was targeted.

This is not to suggest I think it would be wise at this point for the US to engage Iran militarily.

Tom

[NIKV69]

The recent vote in Venezuela is another example

That vote was too close, Sometimes I think we should fear Chavez more than Ahmadinejad. He is off his mind. Worse is he holds some nice cards with his oil. Glad the people of Venezuela spoke. If he gets absolute power there could be a big problem.

Needless to say Iran is a whole other thing. Their hatred for us, Isreal and aide to terrorism needs to be watched closely. No matter what the NIE says. And that is no Kool aide.

[Midnight Mike]

Report proves that Iran can not be trusted. Iran has said time & time again that their Nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, so, why did they have a Nuclear weapons program.

In addition:
Weapons Claim Denied

The government in Tehran yesterday dismissed the assessment that the country was developing nuclear weapons as recently as 2003, saying the program didn't exist. Iran, which has said its work is intended to fuel power stations, has ``never sought'' to build atomic weapons, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said yesterday.



Iran suspended its atomic weapons program in 2003 and probably can't produce enough uranium for a bomb until 2010 at the earliest

Good for the US, UK, France, Germany, & the other nations for keeping the pressure on Iran....

[Nycfly75]

On the contrary, I believe Libya came to the table, offering up its NUKE work precisely because the US invaded/liberated/attacked Iraq...moreso, because Sadam himself was targeted.

This is not to suggest I think it would be wise at this point for the US to engage Iran militarily.

Tom


It played a small role, but the Europeans would have put up more resistance to any military intervention in Libya than any resistance they showed for Iraq, plus the UK and especially Italy, (allies in Iraq) would have stood in the way. There was more invested in Libya than Iraq at the time. Italy has a large natural gas pipeline running from Libya to Sicily and many other European countries have oil/gas interests there. As I said, Berlusconi and Blair conducted diploamtic missions to Libya and had consultations with the US to bring upon a deal to normalize relations with Libya. The Pan AM 103 agreement also played a role in this, but at the urging of Italy and the UK with US backing, Gaddafi agreed to renounce terrorism and end any chemical weapons projects in Libya.

[Tom_Turner]

Yes, there were internal economic pressures, and the Europeans did the legwork on this, and I would leave it at that, but for what its worth, some of the reports that I had read - some purporting to quote Gaddafi, seemed to show great concern on which head of state Bush was going to train his sights on next.

Regardless of the Libyan motives, I certainly hope the US embraces the opportunity to the fullest, and doesn't let some of it slip away.

[PhilDernerJr]

I agree with Tom. Libya saw what we did with Iraq, and justified or not, knew we wouldn't take any poop from them, and straightened up their act. It's that simple. It's a great shame that other similar nations are not taking the example.

Iran seems to have the desire to martyr themselves. Part of me thinks that Ahmadinejad knows that his days are numbered and doesn't want to go out like a punk at the hand of his own people, and would rather make himself out to be victim of US aggression.

[Nycfly75]

Actually, Libya started coming out of its shell during the late 90s, but things started progressing right after 9/11. Despite it being from wikipedia, it sums up what happened nicely:

"Gaddafi also appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons program to international inspection. The Clinton administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority. Following the attacks of September 11, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. Gaddafi also appeared on ABC for an open interview with George Stephanopoulos, a move that would have seemed unthinkable less than a decade earlier.
There are many explanations for the change of Gaddafi's politics. The most obvious is that the once very rich Libya became much less wealthy as oil prices dropped significantly during the 1990's. Since then, Gaddafi has tended to need other countries more than before and hasn't been able to dole out foreign aid as he once did. In this environment, the increasingly stringent sanctions placed by the UN and US on Libya made it more and more isolated politically and economically. Another possibility is that strong Western reactions have forced Gaddafi into changing his politics. It is also possible that realpolitik changed Gaddafi. His ideals and aims did not materialize: there never was any Arab unity, the various armed revolutionary organizations he supported did not achieve their goals, and the demise of the Soviet Union left Gaddafi's main symbolic target, the United States, stronger than ever.
Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted.[7][8]International inspectors turned up several tons of chemical weaponry in Libya, as well as an active nuclear weapons program. As the process of destroying these weapons continued, Libya improved its cooperation with international monitoring regimes to the extent that, by March 2006, France was able to conclude an agreement with Libya to develop a significant nuclear power program.
In March 2004, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair became one of the first western leaders in decades to visit Libya and publicly meet Gaddafi. Blair praised Gaddafi's recent acts, and stated that he hoped Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terrorism. In the run-up to Blair's visit, the British ambassador in Tripoli, Anthony Layden, explained Libya's and Gaddafi's political change thus:
"35 years of total state control of the economy has left them in a situation where they're simply not generating enough economic activity to give employment to the young people who are streaming through their successful education system. I think this dilemma goes to the heart of Colonel Gaddafi's decision that he needed a radical change of direction."[9]
On May 15, 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. The State Department also said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism[10]. On August 31, 2006, however, Gaddafi openly called upon his supporters to "kill enemies" who asked for political change.[11]
In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi.[12]"

[Tom_Turner]

I don't doubt Libya was in flux anyway, but I would not ignore the direct words of Gadhafi. The last sentence is quite instructive...

<< Gadhafi doesn't hide the fact that he always described Saddam as a dictator, but he openly criticised the United States when it invaded Iraq three years ago: "Who gave it [the United States] the right to depose a head of state?" He maintains that the invasion was unjustified, as Saddam had already renounced weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, he says that the use of armed force to eliminate any head of state one does not like is improper: "According to that principle, tomorrow might be Castro's turn, with troops sent to Cuba or to Gadhafi, or Mugabe, but also China or North Korea." >>

http://watchingamerica.com/tgcom000001.shtml

For what its worth though, Gadhafi and Sadam et al, were not friends of Al Quida and company to begin with.

[Nycfly75]

I don't doubt Libya was in flux anyway, but I would not ignore the direct words of Gadhafi. The last sentence is quite instructive...

<< Gadhafi doesn't hide the fact that he always described Saddam as a dictator, but he openly criticised the United States when it invaded Iraq three years ago: "Who gave it [the United States] the right to depose a head of state?" He maintains that the invasion was unjustified, as Saddam had already renounced weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, he says that the use of armed force to eliminate any head of state one does not like is improper: "According to that principle, tomorrow might be Castro's turn, with troops sent to Cuba or to Gadhafi, or Mugabe, but also China or North Korea." >>

http://watchingamerica.com/tgcom000001.shtml

For what its worth though, Gadhafi and Sadam et al, were not friends of Al Quida and company to begin with.


No they weren't. In fact Bin Laden openly criticized al-Assad, Gadhafi and Saddam as secular Arab socialists.