WaPo: National Intelligence Estimate says IRAN AT LEAST 10 YEARS FROM BOMB

[Nothing Without Hope]

This was on the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post. This NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) finding on Iran needs to be kept ready to rebut the rabid claims of key US neocons and some Israeli politicians that Iran will have a nuclear bomb very soon unless they are stopped. Note the wording in the article - the best estimates are that at least 10 years are required for Iran to be able to acquire enough of a key component to be able to build a nuclear bomb.

The next time you hear Jerome Corsi screaming about mushroom clouds in New York City:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708
Or Cheney or Bolton spewing about how Iran is a great threat to the US, remember this estimate.

The NIE is the best estimate available, and it says Iran is at least 10 years from nuclear bomb capability. So when the Bush administration tries to spread fear about an imminent nuclear attack from Iran, THEY ARE LYING, just as they lied about Iraq, and we MUST make that crystal clear to all Americans with any sense left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html
washingtonpost.com

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb

U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."

(snip)

In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq.

In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."

(snip)

[queeg]

1. That means the truth is

closer to two weeks. ---

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Not sure if you mean to be sarcastic - the truth is that they are years

away from a bomb and the Bush administration and elements of the Israeli government have been pushing hard for "regime change" in Iran for a long time. If they continue to try to terrify people with visions of imminent mushroom clouds from Iranian bombs, they must be very publicly rebutted.

[aquart]

3. Think WaPo feels guilty over Iraq?

So they thought maybe they'd tell the truth this time?

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. I do think there is more pressure to tell the truth now. But no, I don't

think they feel any guilt - they're just going with the polls here, IMO. People are increasingly against the Iraq adventure and will not tolerate another lie-driven rush to invasion.

These big media companies don't have a conscience. It's just business, and this time they know they would get a lot of resistance if they tried to pull what they did with Iraq.

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. kick - this is important information to combat the fearmongering. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. Extremely important - see the Bush Administration's lying reply to the NIE

here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1672502
Thread title: IPC Co-chair Comments on Leaked U.S. NIE on Iran

This is an interesting ploy to try to make their lies more bellievable - using a front group instead of having people like Cheney, with his lowered credibility, say it directly. As you will see at the other thread, the statement from this "Iran Policy Committee" reads like a laundry list of the same kinds of lies the Administration used to "justify" invasion of Iraq. But the IRC is just a front group for the Administration (excerpt from the document cited in the other thread):

"The Iran Policy Committee is comprised of former officials from the White House, State Department, Pentagon, intelligence agencies, the Congress, as well as experts from think tanks and universities."

In other words, the IRC is just a front for the Bush Administration, a way to get "independent expert" statements to support its fear- and war-mongering lies. The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) is in fact the best intelligence available, but they want regime change in Iran and so they have generated this worthless piece of blatant propaganda.

The Bush administration can't just have its usual pit bulls mouth their lies - this way they can pretend that this spew is from a knowledgeable academic source. In fact, it is a front of the administration.

Just as with Iraq, this is singing a familiar tune:

The intelligence estimate apparently overlooks evidence provided by Iranian dissident groups. ...

(snip)

"If American analysts are using 'creative analysis' to make up for lack of current, actionable intelligence from assets on the ground, it would argue for using information from Iranian dissidents to provide 'lead intelligence,' information that can be used to verify intelligence obtained from other sources and methods," according to Tanter.

(snip)

I wonder if their useful buddy Chalabi is as agile with fake IRANIAN WMD "evidence" as he was with IRAQI WMD "evidence"? Too bad their favorite mouthpiece Judith Miller is in jail at the moment, but they have plenty of other willing sell-outs ready to broadcast their lies. Clearly, the Bushies plan to try the same old lying games with stovepiped "intelligence" from pet "dissidents." It's a sure way to get the "evidence" that they want - the goal is not protection of the US, it is regime change in Iran at any price. After all, THEY wouldn't be the ones in the front lines or under the incoming bombs.

This "report" from this bogus front group is very sinister and should be taken very seriously as a clear statement of intention by the Bush Administration. It must be firmly rebutted when it is cited - as it will be repeatedly - by the Administration as an excuse to warmonger all over again.

We cannot let them lie our country into another unjustified war!!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. Important related article by Ray McGovern underscores how we must fight

the lies of the Bush Administration when they claim that Iran is close to being able to build a nuclear bomb:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4251697
Thread title: Ray McGovern: "Timing makes all the difference."

[H2O Man]

8. This is an important topic .....

I think people do well to listen to anything Ray McGovern says. And I think it is a topic that is going to come to a head soon. The administration is feeling pressures from a number of directions, and they are not to be trusted to not start a crisis to secure their positions.

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Here's some info on Raymond Tanter, the quoted IPC spokesman. Sounds like

he and the Bushies have a lot in common. He's the source of the Iran Policy Commission "rebuttal" of the NIE estimate cited upthread.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/speakers/TANR.shtml
Raymond Tanter is professor of international security and ballistic missile defense at the University of Michigan. He served under Ronald Reagan in the National Security Council. His latest books are "Rogue Regimes, Terrorism and Proliferation," and "Rational Rogues: Saddam, Osama, and Suicide Bombers."

Summary of a 4-6-05 presentation by Tanter:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45532
WASHINGTON, April 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On April 6, a think tank called Iran Policy Committee (IPC) convened on Capitol Hill at the invitation of the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives.

(snip)

Tanter spoke about a race between two clocks. While Iran's nuclear clock is ticking very fast, the clock for a regime change is much too slow, he said. And if Iran were to acquire the bomb before the people are able to change the regime, it might obtain a new lease on life, act to extend the Iranian Revolution throughout the region, and threaten U.S. interests in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.

(snip)

Here is an excerpt from the executive summary of his 2003 book, Classifying Evil: Bush Administration Rhetoric and Policy toward Rogue Regimes. No wonder the Bushies like him!

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=52
(snip)

Anticipating the Bush administration's concern about the conjunction of terrorism and proliferation, Congress expanded the definition of terrorism in 1994 to include efforts by any individual, group, or nonnuclear weapons state to acquire certain nuclear materials or to develop or otherwise acquire a nuclear explosive device.1 Indeed, treating terrorism and proliferation as related threats makes excellent sense for U.S. policymakers. Consider Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea. All possess ballistic missiles and pursue WMD; they also have a history of sponsoring international terrorism and colluding with one another. Given these and other factors, it is reasonable to argue that such regimes constitute a collective threat.

The main advantage of emphasizing the commonality of threats posed by rogue states is the consequent mobilization of public opinion behind tough methods such as coercive diplomacy or brute force. Some argue that grouping dissimilar states together by using "rogue regime" terminology interferes with engagement when the latter is warranted for a particular state. Although such arguments appear at the margin, the Bush administration has demonstrated remarkable consensus regarding the rogue state problem. Because the Bush approach toward outlaw states builds on previous presidential doctrines, it has benefited from continuity of purpose and wider public understanding of the relevant concepts. Reinforced by ideologically charged language, the Bush Doctrine's ambitious goals call for rolling back, rather than simply deterring, nations that engage in proliferation and state-sponsored terrorism, eventually replacing them with peaceful democracies.

Because of the significant benefits and minimal costs of employing terms such as "rogue state," the Bush administration should continue its use of this rhetoric. Moreover, given the collusion between rogue states in the proliferation of missiles and WMD, the United States should work to strengthen international arms control measures such as the Missile Technology Control Regime. Finally, in light of the links among international terrorist groups and their relationship to rogue states, the Bush administration should intensify its strategic approach to the war against terrorism, continuing to avoid a narrow focus on al-Qaeda alone.

(snip)

[Contrary1]

10. Well then, we are in imminent danger

and must commence the bombing immediately.

[merh]

11. Thanks for the information Hope.

Kicked & nominated & bookmarked! :kick:

We can't let them attack another sovereign nation. :argh:
We have to stop the liars.

[Generator]

12. Can we bookmark this

And have it on the home page until Bush Jr. is gone gone gone from our blighted eyes? Please. Bolton's whole job number one is to destroy the UN, thus paving the way for the Iran war, AKA World War 3.

If I (again with my housewife in pajamas reference-wearing my shorts and tank top today-it's hot!) can figure this out can the Congress critters and Senators do the same?? Come on..it's not politics as usuual..it's not about getting elected in 2006 or 2008-it's the fate of millions of people. And I will hold you accountable.

This is way I was so desperate with Bolton getting in there. I know the Dems did all they could..but they have to scream about this..have people on TV..and make sure to hell that no war is shoved down our throats again.

[Coexist]

13. everyone should bookmark this for the future arguments

when we are being lied/scared into another war.

Thanks for the link

[tk2kewl]

14. They'll used manned and unmanned aerial vehicles on us then.

:eyes:

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. To try for more attention to this topic, I've posted a cross-post in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778
Thread title: Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. Not long ago Jerome Corsi was telling everyone he could find on TV and

radio that Iran would be bombing the US very soon. He positively drooled over the terrible details he could give on what a dirty bomb in New York City would do. Here's a thread on his crusade:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708
Thread title: Is anyone watching Jerome Corsi saying Iran planning to nuclear-bomb

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. Important thread from May: “Robert McNamara - Apocalypse Soon”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x123802

McNamara warns of the danger of the Bush administration turning to NUCLEAR BOMBS far too easily. It’s an important article that all of us should read.

And this editorial cartoon complements the article:
http://www.allhatnocattle.net.nyud.net:8090/englehart5505.gif

[PATRICK]

18. ANY industrial nation

with a reactor(and what desert nation losing a dwindling energy resource wouldn't use current wealth to sustain the future?) probably could be said to be ten years from making a bomb. Thanks to Bush trashing treaties
only select enforcement of stopping anyone is in place.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. If they were REALLY worried about "rogue nations" with nuclear bombs,

they'd be talking more about North Korea.

The Bushies and their cronies want Iran. How far will they go to get it? I've seen no sign of any conscience or even sanity from them.

[PATRICK]

28. Or Pakistan or Israel or Russia

or even India, China and France. All people we supply with technology and cooperation. Governments change but nukes are forever. What is MAD among friends, but are friends forever and the stupid positioning of enemies to invade and others to supply great policies for peace?

Yes, the Bush/Cheney people are functionally insane, not just a disagreeable and venal world view. Absolute power does that to anyone much less scoundrels with delusions. From MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) to crippling clumps of YAD(YOUR Assured Destruction) is where the American nuclear policy HAS in fact moved to, not merely progressing toward blindly.

[EVDebs]

20. As Patrick Lang of the DIA knows, Iranian intelligence does good work

And having duped the Bush administration into a 'rope a dope' war next door, the better to wear down its adversary, the Iranians may be doing it a second time. By playing upon WMD fears and obvious US/Israeli intelligence weaknesses-- by that I mean the intelligence agencies CIA and Mossad who became politicized-- the Iranians if ever actually faced with a military threat have been VERY intelligent in creating a defensive posture.

[scarletwoman]

21. I keep wondering; What precisely is WRONG with Iran having nukes?

First of all, I'd prefer that NOBODY had nuclear weapons -- period!

But given the fact that so many countries already DO have nuclear weapons -- Israel and Pakistan among them, why should we freak out at the idea of Iran obtaining them, too?

It seems like a bit of knee-jerk reaction to me. We are a nuclear-weaponized world, it's horrible, it's dangerous, it's insane. But why is it particularily MORE insane for Iran to have nukes, too?

If "mutually assured destruction" was good enough for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. throughout the Cold War, why isn't it good enough for the Middle East?

I'm asking because I've never seen any realistic thinking through of the subject -- just the automatic reaction that it would be a terrible thing for Iran to join the nuclear club. Why?

My own suspicion is that what is really underlying the whole "Iran must not have nukes" assumption actually boils down to the presumption of "Western" cultural supremacy. That is; it's okay for the Western World to hold the planet hostage to its weapons of mass destruction, but the thought of brown people holding equal ground scares the piss out of the underlying white supremacist mindset of our culture.

I'd really like to see some thoughtful analysis of this question.

sw

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. It's also related to the relentless pushing of "peaceful" atomic energy.

I recommend this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0505-20.htm
Title: Nuclear Fundamentalism and the Iran Story

It goes over all of this, plus the fact that Israel has an active nuclear program which is actively ignored - publicly - by the Bush Admnistration.

I remember reading an article on the history of the Iranian nuclear industry in which it was stated that there was much opposition to nuclear reactors until it became clear that the US was going to attack nations that couldn't defend themselves. Wish I had kept the link.

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. Hans Blix ALSO says Iran is years away from a nuclear bomb

This is from a DU thread from June 23, 2005:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1574781

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday it would take many years for Iran to achieve the capability to produce highly enriched uranium needed for an atomic bomb.

Blix also dismissed worries about a new nuclear reactor being built in Iran, saying it was not suitable to produce weapons-grade material.

"They have many years to go before they will be able to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb and I believe there is plenty of room for negotiations," Blix said in an interview with Swedish Radio.

The U.S. has accused Iran of trying to make nuclear arms, but Tehran says its nuclear program is for generating energy.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. AGAIN- I recommend reading the combined thread and all three threads

that relate to this story of the leaked NIE intelligence. The combined thread has links to all three. There are excellent comments at all four threads - the combined one and the three individual threads.

Here's the combined thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778
Thread title: Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda

This current thread is the first of the three cited in the combined thread and the foundation of the overall story.

[usregimechange]

26. Then the time to bomb them is now!

[Time for change]

27. Are you familiar with "Crossing the Rubicon --

The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"?
by Michael C. Ruppert.

I just started reading it. It purports to have the reasons why the Neocons are so bent on war. Claims that by about 2015 there's going to be a precitous decline in world supplies of oil, and by about 2025 the world will have available only a small fraction of what there is today. Believes there is a small cabal of perhaps 50 people who know all about this and have a plan for dealing with it (He hasn't specified precisely who yet, except that it includes the most prominent Neocons, including Cheney).

These people seem to believe that the best way to deal with this crisis is to get the world population down to about two billion pretty soon, primarily by means of war. The author believes that the attacks of 9-11 were not only purposely allowed to occur by those in power, but were facilitated, for reasons related to the above. A good portion of the book is devoted to proving that.

I don't know yet how much to believe, but it seems rather convincing. And I don't know how much more I'll know by the time I finish the book. I was wondering what you know about all this.

[Time for change]

29. Kick for sanity and peace