I'm surprised that no one has yet to create a thread about the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which states that Iran has most likely ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but continues to enrich uranium.

Initial reaction is that the Bush administration has finally been put into place by the intelligence community and that the American war machine is not about to invade the Islamic Republic. Yet the weird thing is that many of the critics who claim the first point are the same that asserted that the administration had some sort of lock down on the very same intelligence community, manipulating it for its own nefarious schemes. If that's the case, then that means that the administration wanted this report; at very least green lighted its release. Perhaps the administration has lost control of the intelligence community, or perhaps it never had control of it to begin with.

I've personally been a strong believer over the last several years that the administration never intended to invade Iran despite all the rhetoric, that such an attack, even if desired, was simply impossible and unwise even with by Dubya's standards. Perhaps this was a way to make the case for further sanctions (look they do work!) while trying to deescalate all the talk of an imminent war...

So what are your opinions on this?

12/5/2007 1:39:15 AM

My reaction? It's good news.

It will be better news when Bush and Ahmadinejad are out of power.

12/5/2007 2:03:58 AM

I think that the current administration isn't controlling the intelligence community now and was not controlling them prior to Iraq. The intelligence community just fucked up pre-Iraq and may more may not be fucking up right now.

Regardless of intelligence reports, the US should not begin hostilities with Iran until a) another major world power engages them, with a probable cause OR b) Intelligence reports that they are an immediate threat and that they plan to engage in hostilities with the US. Anything other than that would crush our military resources and even if not disastrous for the US military, it would continue to destroy US foreign relations.

12/5/2007 2:30:04 AM

The intelligence community didn't fuck up pre-Iraq. The intelligence that showed Iraq wasn't a threat was gathered, along with conflicting evidence from unreliable sources. Over time, for political reasons, more of the latter made its way up the chain of power.

Aside from the entire political climate being different, infamous personalities such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove are no longer there to beat the war drums.

12/5/2007 3:25:18 AM

^True. I suppose I was also including the "chain of power" as a part of the intelligence community, when that's not really accurate.

12/5/2007 4:06:55 AM

I think the report is great news.

I also think the policy of staying in Iran's face with strong talk is a great thing. They are still a huge threat. They are still arming terrorists that kill us in Iraq and want to kill us in the United States. They still want to wipe israel off the map. There has been no serious talk about invading Iran from the administration. I know we get second hand stray reports from random people here and there. But there has been no real talk of it. 99% of it is the libs and the media freakin out about strong talk and wanting to paint Bush as Hitler and they do a pretty good job of it.

Even if they dont have nukes, Ahmedinajad (sp?) is no boy scout. Stay in this dudes grill and keep him on his toes. It's a policy that is apparently working.

12/5/2007 7:41:52 AM

I think it was the intelligence community forcing the administration's hand.

12/5/2007 8:44:27 AM

I think thats fine. Proof that the policy is working.

12/5/2007 9:16:03 AM

Quote :

"There has been no serious talk about invading Iran from the administration."

lol...if you want to avoid world war 3...

12/5/2007 9:36:00 AM

exactly...

12/5/2007 9:45:15 AM

Quote :

"I think that the current administration isn't controlling the intelligence community now and was not controlling them prior to Iraq. The intelligence community just fucked up pre-Iraq and may more may not be fucking up right now."

I am sure its a matter of W ignoring or only hearing what he wanted to hear from the intelligence community. Although their is speculation that Darth Cheney "touched" up the information before reaching the oval office.

12/5/2007 9:47:56 AM

I've been reading that the new sec. of defense is much more level headed than certain others (current and former) in the admin, and has had a sort of calming effect on the admin's warmongering.

12/5/2007 10:53:43 AM

Quote :

"I've been reading that the new sec. of defense is much more level headed than certain others (current and former) in the admin, and has had a sort of calming effect on the admin's warmongering."

and here i thought i thought it was the boondoggle in iraq that was keeping people's warmongering in check.

12/5/2007 10:59:09 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boGw3VciDig&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Bush claims he didn't know about it.

12/5/2007 1:18:45 PM

Quote :

" WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush said Tuesday that Iran remains a danger and refused to rule out a military attack, despite a US intelligence report saying Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. ADVERTISEMENT "The best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one in which all options are on the table," Bush said one day after the new intelligence assessment which has reopened the international controversy over Iran's disputed program. Iran said the US report had vindicated its stance, while UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the document could help defuse tensions though he added that Iran must step up cooperation with his agency. Bush was adamant. "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," he told a White House press conference. The president called on US allies to step up pressure on Iran. "The best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians we are going to isolate you.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071204/wl_afp/irannuclearuspolitics_071204161210
No silly little reports or gay-ass facts are gonna change ol' Dubya's mind! Stay the course, good buddy!!!

12/5/2007 2:12:41 PM

just cause they stopped their nuclear weapons program doesnt mean they're not still dangerous...last time i checked Ahmadinejad still believed "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"...but hey at least Iran doesn't have homosexuals right?

12/5/2007 2:34:04 PM

I say again. This is great news. And its 100% proof that Bush should keep doing exactly what he is doing because it is 100% working.

12/5/2007 2:42:36 PM

All the saber rattling that's been going on for the past year as been under the presumption that Iran did have an ongoing nuclear program, right? At least, that's what Bush has been telling us.

So, are you saying that he has been 100% wrong on that point, but that his policy just happens to have been the right one? Or that he did know already they stopped 4 years ago and he's kept us in the dark about it, or what?
because at some point, it's clear that someone has been using incorrect data to create and make policy judgments. But it is your contention that even though the policy judgments were based on false data, they were still the correct judgments, right?

12/5/2007 2:48:32 PM

nope. I am saying that it doesnt matter whether or not Iran had a program or not. After we went into Iraq, Iran backed down. Thats all I need to know. Whether or not Bush knew that, or if ANYone knew that is totally irrelevant. Bush is 100% correct to keep the pressure on. Better safe that sorry when you are dealing with insane muslims who want everyone but themselves dead.

12/5/2007 2:59:09 PM

See...you guys are just pissed about this because you see everything through the template of Bush being a liar and warmonger and only trying to start wars for oil and crap like that. Get past that. What this NIE proves is that Bush and everyone else in the administration as well as the intelligence agency is working hard. And they have learned from the mistakes of the past.

It also absolutely proves that Bush's policy of keeping all options on the table is working.

12/5/2007 3:29:02 PM

ok, so as long as we're "keeping all options on the table", would you consider easing sanctions to Iran because they're apparently not, as we've been accusing them, in violation of anti-nuclear weapon treaties or UN resolutions or whatever. That is, for whatever reason (the Iraq invasion, our threats, secret deals with Condi Rice, whatever) they do seem to be complying. Under normal circumstances, that would warrant a "reward", such as lessening of sanctions.

This would be carrot-and-stick diplomacy. beat them when they do something bad, reward them when they do something good.

Not changing our tactic at all, when it is apparent they have changed their own policy, would be stick-and-stick diplomacy, as a co-worker of mine put it. If we continue to treat them no differently, where does the motivation for continuing to act good come from?

12/5/2007 4:23:24 PM

Yeah. good point. I do think backing off would be good. Maybe approach them now and see how we can all move forward.

I think thats a great idea.

12/5/2007 4:38:28 PM

It'd have been a lot funnier if we'd invaded them first.

12/5/2007 4:44:50 PM

trikk311

Quote :

"I also think the policy of staying in Iran's face with strong talk is a great thing. Even if they dont have nukes, Ahmedinajad (sp?) is no boy scout. Stay in this dudes grill and keep him on his toes. It's a policy that is apparently working. "

@ 7:41:52 AM on 12/5/2007

Quote :

" Yeah. good point. I do think backing off would be good. Maybe approach them now and see how we can all move forward. "

@ 4:38:28 PM on 12/5/2007

12/5/2007 5:00:00 PM

a guy isn't allowed to change his mind when presented with a point he agrees with? i commend him on his open mind (seriously)

12/5/2007 5:13:08 PM

Quote :

"It also absolutely proves that Bush's policy of keeping all options on the table is working. "

I partially agree, but it also shows, if the NIE hasn't screwed up, that Iran wasn't lying to us when they said they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2007 5:21:15 PM

Quote :

"that Iran wasn't lying to us when they said they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons."

yeah, kind of like Iraq wasn't lying to us about WMDs. When Chemical Ali was out there on TV and you could practically see the US tanks rolling up in the background saying "really guys, we swear, we don't have WMDs". and he was telling the truth, because at that point when war was inevitable, they had nothing to gain by lying.
But nope -
W: "give up your weapons or we'll invade"
Iraq: "we don't have any"
W: "give up your weapons or we'll invade"
Iraq: "seriously, we don't have any"
W: "give up your weapons or we'll invade"
Iraq: "ALLAH FUCKING CHRIST WE DON'T HAVE ANY ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?"
W: "we're invading anyway"

12/5/2007 5:28:11 PM

Quote :

"a guy isn't allowed to change his mind when presented with a point he agrees with? i commend him on his open mind (seriously)"

Way to reduce the situation to essentially nothing to make a post.

He was lock stock and smoking barrel in his first post earlier today...made the same statement twice, and now without any sort of explanation or real debate he just decides to agree with what agentlion said? That doesn't make sense at all.

Sarijoul - I'm the coolest mofo here
Me - You are the uncoolest mofo here
Sarijoul - I agree

12/5/2007 5:30:56 PM

maybe because he saw agentlion's logic

12/5/2007 6:25:39 PM

of course, I purposefully left a huge hole in my argument that should have been picked apart already

Quote :

"If we continue to treat them no differently, where does the motivation for continuing to act good come from?"

clearly, their motivation in this case is to not get attacked. It just depends on how you define stick-and-carrot. Maybe in the case of Iran, the Carrot is actually "only sanctions", where the stick is getting bombed to hell.

i'm not saying that's the answer. but this all shows that nobody can say that Bush has been and is 100% right (like twista, hooksaw and trikk often do), and conversely, nobody can say he is and always is wrong (like a lot of haters and liberals do)

12/5/2007 7:25:47 PM

Yeah I think you are right. Bush AND AND AND the intelligence agencies have been wrong in the past sure. But I do think this shows how the policy talk big and "get in his face" has worked and has been largely effective. Iran and North Korea both baked off seriously after Iraq and I think thats good. It vindicates Bush's general stance.

Thats said, much in the same way we have begun to talk to North Korea, we should do the same thing with Iran. All the posturing can stop and REAL talking should begin.

But those people who see this through the lense of Bush being a oil hungry murderous nazi war mongerer..(Chance....idiot). Of couse they will see it as Bush lying and trying to start a war and stuff....well..screw them...Bush should keep it up.

12/5/2007 7:50:18 PM

Quote :

"Iran and North Korea both baked off seriously after Iraq and I think thats good. It vindicates Bush's general stance. "

Baked off? Damn, sounds tasty!

Them "backing off" had nothing to do with Iraq. N. Korea tested what many think was a nuke device on October 11th, 2006. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION WITH IRAQ AND STRONG RHETORIC? Bush blasted his strong "we'll only deal with N Korea in six party talks, not 1v1" rhetoric repeatedly at the American public and the World. Then, in September we went and negotiated with them 1v1 and they agreed to end their atomic programs. So much for strong rhetoric.

And where do you get Iran is backing off? In 2006 they said if we didn't back off them, they'd destroy da Joos. You said it yourself we need to stay in his grill. If he is backing off, why?

Quote :

"They are still arming terrorists that kill us in Iraq and want to kill us in the United States. "

Reports are saying otherwise. Just how little do you know about the topic you are attempting to discuss?

Quote :

"But those people who see this through the lense of Bush being a oil hungry murderous nazi war mongerer..(Chance....idiot)."

Don't even begin to think you know me.

12/5/2007 9:50:51 PM

^Like I said..


I do, though think the NIE means several things for the intelligence community. It means the reforms made to the community after the failures of intel in Iraq have worked. The reforms that were made seem to be working. Which is also good for everyone.

Quote :

"I partially agree, but it also shows, if the NIE hasn't screwed up, that Iran wasn't lying to us when they said they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons."

This is true too. Which is why I think we really gotta take a new look at the situation from a new place. While Iran may not have been seeking nukular (hahaha) weapons, they are still a huge problem (arming terrorists and threatneing to blow up a country). I like keeping some pressure on them but I do think we need to take a new look at the situation.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason : adsf]

12/5/2007 9:56:40 PM

the famous asshole chimes in:

U.S. intel report on Iran was political: Bolton

Quote :

"BERLIN (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence services were seeking to influence political policy-making with their assessment Iran had halted its nuclear arms program in 2003, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said. Der Spiegel magazine quoted Bolton Saturday as saying the aim of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contradicting his and President George W. Bush's own oft-stated position, was not to provide the latest intelligence on Iran. "This is politics disguised as intelligence," Bolton was quoted as saying in an article appearing in next week's edition. Bolton described the NIE, released Monday, as a "quasi-putsch" by the agencies, Der Spiegel said. The NIE said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago but was continuing to develop the technical means that could be applied to producing weapons. This contradicted the oft-stated position of President Bush that Iran is actively trying to develop an atomic weapon. In Washington, a senior official at the office of the Director of National Intelligence, defended the NIE and said intelligence agencies were confident in their analysis. "National Intelligence Estimates contain the coordinated judgments of the intelligence community regarding the likely course of future events and the implications for U.S. policy," said Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald Kerr. "The task of the intelligence community is to produce objective, ground truth analysis," he said in a statement. "We feel confident in our analytic tradecraft and resulting analysis in this estimate." The hawkish Bolton has long criticized Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for refusing to declare that there was hard evidence Tehran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. ElBaradei said the new NIE "somewhat vindicated" Iran, which has always denied allegations it was secretly trying to build atom bombs. Earlier this year Bolton said: "Regime change or the use of force are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if they want it." U.S. intelligence has shouldered much of the blame for the Bush administration's unfounded allegations that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had revived his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, the official justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."

12/8/2007 4:37:32 PM

Im sure part of it was....part of it wasnt.

12/9/2007 12:10:36 PM

It's definitely a curious story, RedGuard. Years back, we were bombarded with claims about Iran being a decade away from developing nuclear weapons. More recently we've been presented with numerous bits and pieces of evidence implicating Iranian involvement in the insurgency. This NIE must be quite the cold shower to the hawks who viewed each as a coordinated strategy.

Our official reaction to this report doesn't square with our reactions to two similar recent events. North Korea recently caved in on nuclear advancement as a result of exhaustive six-party talks, and Libya recently abandoned their weapons programs as well. Our administration could portray this news as a victory on diplomatic and military fronts--even if posturing was the extent of their diplomatic efforts, as it did with the above-named cases.

I don't understand why they don't at minimum portray it as a victory on the military front.

In Libya's case, the administration claimed our decisive military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan laid the groundwork for Libya's leadership to back down. In North Korea's case, the administration dispassionately credited the State Department and China's diplomatic wing. But in Iran's case, the President's reaction seems almost like a flat refusal to recognize the NIE's conclusions.

Bush's rhetoric softened after he first received the report in August, but he remains no less committed to portraying Iran as a rogue state in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons. Since the NIE's release, his statements continue to bear that out. From his standpoint, a halted program does not relieve the threat nor diminish the strategic need to confront Iran--even militarily. Why? Because at any point, the regime may simply resume the programs.

The President seems to have made war with Iran a strategic priority. I highly doubt that this report, however starkly in opposition to the idea that Iran presents an imminent threat to our country its conclusions may be, will sway that judgment. With neighboring Pakistan rapidly deteriorating in a barely-disguisable terrorist state and permanent American bases in Iraq a certainty, our conflict with Iran looks to be only a matter of time. Probably after a substantial draw down of forces from Iraq.

I expect an invasion, of course, despite the impossibility of successfully maintaining order after any such conflict and that is to say nothing about the wisdom of such action.

What's more, I don't get the sense that the course outlined above would be substantially different depending on the particular candidate who assumes office Jan. 20, 2008.

12/9/2007 8:49:56 PM

I'm surprised they were able to get this report off without being censored by the government

12/9/2007 9:36:09 PM

March 18, 2003: Iraq is attacked by the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

October 2003: Libya begins to disclose and dismantle all weapons of mass destruction programs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031219-9.html

2003: According to the latest NIE, Iran stopped atomic weapons development

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVp6OcsznLJpeFv8SenE_EhxIpmgD8TE4P6G1

Any post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy aside, there sure seems to be a pattern here.

12/10/2007 2:48:13 AM

Create a thread?

Anyone with any bit of intelligence already knew Iran didn't have nuclear weapons and that the administration was war mongering for ideological purposes.

12/10/2007 2:53:47 AM

^^^^good post except its 2009.....i def. see the probable candidates both kinda being on that course

12/10/2007 3:02:18 AM

bttt by request

6/6/2008 9:11:50 AM

We need more than just harsh words on this. Iran getting nukes is a very bad thing.

6/6/2008 9:42:46 AM

Quote :

"Yet the weird thing is that many of the critics who claim the first point are the same that asserted that the administration had some sort of lock down on the very same intelligence community, manipulating it for its own nefarious schemes."

Who needs a critic?

Norman Podhoretz, an architect of the neocon movement, claims it's a CIA conspiracy against Bush. Stands to reason, I guess. They were thrown under the bus for two massive intelligence failures in a row (9/11, WMDs) when the facts didn't support the administration's claims. I could see an internal war bleeding out like this.

6/8/2008 6:00:42 PM

Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons

Quote :

"Israel 'will attack' Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be 'unavoidable' if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs. Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. 'If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it,' he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. 'The UN sanctions are ineffective.' Mofaz was born in Iran, giving his remarks extra edge after repeated threats against Israel from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also denied the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad 'would disappear before Israel does', Mofaz said. Mofaz's remarks came at the end of a week of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran. They were also the most explicit threat yet against the Islamic Republic from a member of the Israeli government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should UN sanctions be deemed to have failed. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, told pro-Israeli lobbyists this week that the military option against Iran remained on the table, though he also offered 'meaningful concessions' if it bowed to international demands. Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power. Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to lead a team of high-ranking diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, who will present a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has rejected it in advance. Experts doubt whether Israel could destroy Iran's extensive and heavily defended nuclear facilities without American help. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Last September its planes bombed a site in Syria that the US said was a nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. Israel is believed to have an arsenal of 150-400 nuclear warheads. Unlike Iran, it has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran denied seeking to develop nuclear weapons and insisted it would not abandon enrichment. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has demanded 'full disclosure' from Tehran over allegations that it covertly studied how to design a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed intelligence on this as baseless, forged or irrelevant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran

U.N. Says Iran May Not Have Come Clean on Nuclear Past

Quote :

"Iranian documents obtained by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog strongly suggest that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons design as recently as four years ago, U.N. officials disclosed last week in a private briefing. The documents suggest that Iran's research on nuclear weapons continued for several months after U.S. intelligence officials say the effort was suspended, the International Atomic Energy Agency's top nuclear security expert told diplomats in Vienna, according to notes taken by a participant."

Quote :

"In the technical briefing Monday with diplomats from IAEA member states, Heinonen offered new details about the Iranian documents, according to notes obtained by The Washington Post. He revealed that the IAEA had collected corroborating evidence, from the intelligence agencies of several countries, that pointed to sophisticated research into some key technologies needed to build and deliver a nuclear bomb. Some of the documents, for example, described studies on modifying Iran's Shahab missile to allow it to accommodate a large warhead, which would detonate 600 meters above its target. The feature would make sense only if the warhead was nuclear, Heinonen suggested. Iran now faces a tougher challenge in convincing the world that it has never sought nuclear arms, according to a nuclear weapons expert who reviewed the briefing notes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101722.html

Obligatory:

1. OBAMA'S A WARMONGER!!!1

2. THE U.N. WATCHDOGS ARE WARMONGERS!!!!1

3. Will some of you have the decency--for once--to admit that (1) Iran may have continued nuclear weapons development after they claimed to have stopped, and (2) that the NIE every Iran apologist was waving around and screaming about a while back is not even close to the final word on Iran's nuclear weapons development?

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 12:38:39 AM

Quote :

" (1) Iran may have continued nuclear weapons development after they claimed to have stopped, and (2) that the NIE every Iran apologist was waving around and screaming about a while back is not even close to the final word on Iran's nuclear weapons development?"

(1) who hasn't said they may have continued nuclear weapons development? (2) who has suggested that this is the final word on irans nuclear weapons development?

is that the point you are trying to make?

6/9/2008 1:30:58 AM

^ Read the thread or GTFO.

6/9/2008 1:41:56 AM

Not to sound like a hawk here (because I certainly think threatening military action against Iran is a monumentally bad idea, just as the harsh rhetoric has been thus so far counterproductive), but I think people overlook something here - Iran doing its own Uranium enrichment is still a very bad thing. This is a detail I think many people are overlooking when they say, "Hey, look, Iran stopped working on a weapons program!"

This comes as a "Yes, but..." In this case, yes, but having a uranium enrichment infrastructure in place makes it trivially easy for them to restart a weapons program at any time. Further is the fact that we've gotten nowhere in demanding open inspections of facilities - to ensure that our intelligence is correct, and they're not in fact producing HEU (or diverting material in general).

Essentially - there's just no good reason for Iran to be in the enrichment business, and nothing good can come of it. Until they agree to open inspections or shut down enrichment entirely, I'd hold the accolades.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 1:51:27 AM

nvm

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:53 AM. Reason : mccain 08]

6/9/2008 1:52:08 AM

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Resolution adopted on 4 February 2006

Quote :

"(f) Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearly three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran, (g) Recalling Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and the absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities, the nature of those activities and other issues arising from the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002, (h) Recalling that the Director General has stated that Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue for the Agency to be able to clarify outstanding issues (GOV/2005/67),"

Quote :

"3. Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and, noting that the decision to put this document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency; 4. Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities which the Board has declared essential to addressing outstanding issues, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility on 8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment activities on 10 January 2006;"

Quote :

"9. Decides to remain seized of the matter. "

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf



[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 2:22:51 AM

Bush, Sarkozy warn Iran on nuclear program
Tehran rejects incentives to halt uranium enrichment

Quote :

"PARIS - Iran rejected a six-nation offer of incentives to stop enriching uranium on Saturday, prompting President Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to jointly warn Tehran anew against proceeding toward a nuclear bomb. 'Our allies understand that a nuclear-armed Iran is incredibly destabilizing, and they understand that it would be a major blow to world peace,' Bush said at a news conference with Sarkozy at Elysee Palace. The quickly unfolding series of events began in Tehran, where European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana played the role of messenger for the offer from the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China. Solana presented the plan — a refreshed version of a 2006 package that Iran ignored — to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. There were no plans for Solana to see Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even before Solana's meetings, however, Iran gave its pre-emptive judgment of the deal that holds out the promise of economic, technological, educational and political rewards: dead on arrival, assuming the offer is conditioned on Iran halting its uranium enrichment, which it is. 'If suspension is included in the package, it won't be considered at all,' the official IRNA news agency quoted Iran's government spokesman, Gholam Hossein Elham, as saying Saturday. 'The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran is clear. Preconditions can't be raised for any halt or suspension.' United against Iran Bush and Sarkozy were informed of this as as they went into morning meetings. Their session capped warm talks that began over an elegant palace dinner Friday night. When the U.S. and French leaders appeared together before reporters in a grand palace hall around lunchtime, they presented a single front — contrasting with the tension shown between Bush and Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy's predecessor. 'I'm disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand,' Bush told reporters. Said Sarkozy: 'As far as military nuclear access is concerned, this is "no" on the part of the international community.' Bush said the issue has been dominating his discussions this week with leaders as he travels through Europe. With his time in office ticking down and it widely presumed that Iran could have enough fissile material for a weapon within a few years, Bush has been hoping to inject new urgency into the extremely slow-moving diplomatic process. Iran claims its enrichment is to generate nuclear energy, while the West believes it is designed as part of a now-dormant warhead program that could easily be restarted. Getting through to Iran The package is hardly different from the 2006 offer, said a senior State Department official. It includes 'more meat in terms of how Iran could prosper' from going along, including new help developing civilian nuclear power in the form of energy partnerships and other measures, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the offer. The official said that Tehran's dismissive stance was expected and that allies will allow some time before acting, in the hope that officials there will decide to more seriously weigh the proposal. Perhaps reflecting this, Bush did not repeat his strongest rhetoric on Tehran, which he has repeatedly threatened with new sanctions — or even the last-resort possibility of a military strike if it remains defiant. The farthest the president went Saturday was to promise the implementation of existing sanctions — three rounds of mild penalties through the auspices of the United Nations. He said the United States was 'working with our friends and allies' on unspecified tasks. Entitled, but not trusted Both Bush and Sarkozy gave special emphasis to their position that Iran is entitled to civilian nuclear power, while it can't be trusted to enrich. And they spoke in unison on the point that the people there have a right to be better represented by a government that Bush said is 'creating the depravation inside Iran.' 'Our view is we want the Iranian people to flourish and to benefit,' he said. It was left to Sarkozy to augment this softer message with tough talk. 'If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, that is totally unacceptable,' he said. 'Our position will not change.' Like Bush, he declined to offer specifics about what allies will do next. But, he said, 'The only solution ... is a faultless, seamless sanctions regime.' Enforcing sanctions Europeans have appeared more inclined recently to get aggressive about current loosely enforced sanctions, to support new, tougher ones at the U.N., and to possibly even adopt unilateral measures to squeeze oil-rich Iran by curtailing dealings with its banks. Bush and Sarkozy spoke with one voice on Syria as well, saying that it must stop backing terrorism that destabilizes the Mideast and calling it a dangerous partner with Iran in that effort. In a warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad, Bush said: 'Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists.' Bush remains upbeat In a statement issued by the French presidential palace, the United States and France sought to dispel signs that they have divergent thoughts on Syria. Sarkozy also sought to play down a growing controversy about an invitation extended to Assad — among other Arab leaders — to France's Bastille Day military parade next month, and plans to include Syria in a new Union for the Mediterranean that Sarkozy has championed. 'If, when we go around the Mediterranean, we start by only inviting the countries that meet our exact criteria, that runs the risk of holding a meeting where very few people attend,' Sarkozy said. He said that discussions of normalized relations with France would require Syria to guarantee Lebanon's independence and 'peel off, as much as possible, from Iran in its desire to lay its hands on a nuclear weapon.' Bush also was confronted with questions about Iraq, and his administration's desire to negotiate with Baghdad a long-term deal to provide the legal authority and rules covering an ongoing U.S. military and diplomatic presence there. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Friday that initial talks with the U.S. were deadlocked, in part over American demands such as immunity for U.S. troops and the ability to detain terror suspects. Al-Maliki said talks would continue. Bush was upbeat. 'If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis,' he said. Bush said the U.S. side would 'work hard' on answering Baghdad's concerns. But he did not promise that Washington would give up its most controversial proposals. A U.N. mandate for the U.S. military mission expires at the end of the year."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25160269/

6/15/2008 12:18:45 AM