Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb

[Nbadan]

I guess the Bush Administration missed this important intelligence review...

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."

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of the evidence on which it is based.

Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the intelligence.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.

One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.

The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions.

Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry. The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.

"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.

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

Using front groups like the IRC is an interesting ploy to try to make the lies more believable - using a front group instead of having people like Cheney, with his lowered credibility, say it directly. As you will see below 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.


"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."

[xrayzebra]

^^ But, but, Dan didn't you say our intelligence sucked? Was politicized? Out of
touch?

How can this assessment be correct. And Bush says something else. Oh, Dan,
you are in such dilemma. What are you to do?

[Procrastinator]

Wow.

[boutons_]

But who do you believe?

The Repugs are shameless, evil, incorrigible liars (eg, recent dubya: "I didn't want war.").

The FBI/CIA/NSA are useless and politicized (missed the collapse of Soviet Union, missed 9/11, screwed up about Iraq WMD, etc).

Iran has been "10 years away" for the last 10 years, or more.

In Washington's extremely polarized Tower of Lying Babble, no one is held accountable or responsible for anything they say or do, so they say and do any old fucking thing.

The Repugs' refusal to even try to deflate the price oil in any way, and inflate the price of oil by bogus wars, assure that Iran (and Russia) will have 100s of $Bs for many years to do whatever the fuck they want to do.

Oil is the key, and the Repugs won't touch it because their energy industry owners pay them not to touch it.

[xrayzebra]

But who do you believe?

The Repugs are shameless, evil, incorrigible liars (eg, recent dubya: "I didn't want war.").

The FBI/CIA/NSA are useless and politicized (missed the collapse of Soviet Union, missed 9/11, screwed up about Iraq WMD, etc).

Iran has been "10 years away" for the last 10 years, or more.

In Washington's extremely polarized Tower of Lying Babble, no one is held accountable or responsible for anything they say or do, so they say and do any old fucking thing.

The Repugs' refusal to even try to deflate the price oil in any way, and inflate the price of oil by bogus wars, assure that Iran (and Russia) will have 100s of $Bs for many years to do whatever the fuck they want to do.

Oil is the key, and the Repugs won't touch it because their energy industry owners pay them not to touch it.

The one solution for you is to move to a nice socialist country like Cuba.
Where all is paradise. Everything is free there except the people.

[Nbadan]

'Some people' have obviously missed this post, but there it is August 2,2005 from the Washington Post...


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."

Now we are to believe the W.H.'s claims that Iran already may have a nuke or is enriching uranium for a nuke, all that is crap because they don't even have the centrifuges it would take to weaponize the uranium (which would take at least a decade or more to produce from a low-water reactor, but that's another story). Once they got the centrifuges, then the 10 year clock would start.

[xrayzebra]

^^When you see the mushroom cloud, which will be sooner, rather than later,
then you will be talking a different tune. They just successfully test their
new MIRV rocket, which can reach American troops and Israel. It want be long
now. Oh, and they will have the atom bomb, you cant stop them by any means
other than force, and people like you and others on this board have no stomach
for that. Just roll over and play dead, you will be okay. Maybe! Or you can
start practicing you disaster drills, cause next time it could be in San Antonio
like at Fiesta time when there are hundreds of thousands of people in downtown
San Antonio. But you can still blame Bush, I'm sure.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Repugs are shameless, evil, incorrigible liars (eg, recent dubya: "I didn't want war.").

Look in the mirror asshole.

I guess the only reassuring thought (if you can call it that) is that Israel would probably get nuked first, so we'd have a little warning.

But I could also see Iran wait until it can (through whatever means - probably AQ) position a nuke in DC or NYC for a simultaneous attack.

Sadly that's what it will take for some of you pacifist liberal fags to get the picture.

[boutons_]

AHF, why aren't you over in the M/E?
highschool deferment?
You could hide your gayness if you really wanted to go enlist and waste your pitiful "life" for dubya.

[ChumpDumper]

When you see the mushroom cloud, which will be sooner, rather than laterActually, they just said it would be later, rather than sooner.

[chode_regulator]

Actually, they just said it would be later, rather than sooner.
lol
yeah ahf reach down and grab a pair. enlist. do it. do it.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

your anti american

[Vashner]

I doubt it.. maybe for an H bomb but a basic bomb like little boy won't take them 10 years. If they get enough enriched it's well known how they make it go off...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Why the fuck would I enlist with a college degree? Y'all are retards.

[George W. Bush]

you could run the place, take it from me.

[jochhejaam]

Rebuttal

Intelligence Assessment and the Point of No Return:

According to an August 2 report in The Washington Post, a recent US 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. If the report is accurate, then some time in the not-too-distant future, there will probably be a Congressional hearing involving something like the following exchange:

Question: How long does it take for a country to build a military uranium enrichment capability from scratch?

Answer: About ten years.

Question: Was Iran at square one when the intelligence estimate was produced?

Answer: No. According to its own admissions and statements and IAEA verification findings, it was much more advanced than that.

Question: How come, then, that the US intelligence estimate projected that "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon…"?

Intelligence assessments of covert unconventional weapons production programs are notoriously problematic, and recent experience with Iraq inevitably prompts analysts to be even more cautious than before. Nevertheless, the known facts of Iran's program, as reported by both the IAEA and Iran itself, suggest that Iran is much less than ten years' away from a military nuclear capability.

Analyses of the time-frame of any weapons program depend on technical information and knowledge about the intentions of the country's leaders. In this case, at least the technical question is fairly easy to address. Iran is in the midst of a major project to establish a uranium enrichment capability. The nuclear weapons plutonium production route is not being considered here since it is longer, more complicated and probably more vulnerable to outside disruption. But the Iranians have already made major breakthroughs in the enrichment process; they have constructed and operated a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) and produced the first quantities of feed stocks for the next stage of the project, the gas centrifuge enrichment plant.

The Iranians have also illicitly obtained the centrifuge technology and have manufactured, assembled and tested centrifuges at a concealed facility. By their own admission, they have managed to enrich some quantities to low levels. What remains is for them to assemble, test and run a few thousand centrifuges with the feed stocks produced at the UCF. Should they choose to do so, the Iranians could use the large underground facility at Natanz, which is probably almost complete and will be ready in the near future to host the relatively small number of centrifuges needed (the facility can hold about fifty thousand machines). Once the machines are installed and run-in, it is a matter of months, not years, before Iran could have the necessary quantity of military-grade enriched uranium for its first nuclear explosive device.

Thus, if Iran decides to withdraw from all existing agreements and obligations, it could arrive at its destination within 2-4 years, assuming that there is no outside interference with the program.

There are several ways that this process could be delayed. There could be local technical problems or international interference with the procurement of essential materials and equipment. Other delays could be induced by international political and economical pressure; suspension of work in response to international pressure has thus far been the most effective cause of delay. But there are many unknowns in this equation. It is not clear that a universal embargo on supplies for Iran's nuclear program can be adopted and strictly enforced. And even if sanctions were approved by the Security Council, it is not clear that they would have the desired effect, because Iran may already have passed the stage of dependence on any foreign sources.

That raises the possibility that the situation has gone beyond the "point of no return," a term ordinarily used to imply that enough progress has already been achieved to preclude the possibility of outsiders being able any longer to stop the Iranians from achieving their goal of building nuclear weapons. In fact, the history of military nuclear development shows that such a point does not exist, because leaders' intentions are at least as important a variable. Many states have stopped their nuclear development while the program was still in its early stages. At the other extreme, South Africa had already produced nuclear weapons and then decided to dismantle them. The motivations for arresting or reversing weapons development programs have ranged from realization that nuclear weapons were irrelevant to real security needs to the fear that they could fall into the hands of undesirable entities.

But whatever Iran might ultimately choose to do, it will quite clearly not have to wait ten years in order to decide. That time-frame can only be sustained by "creative analysis" and reliance on "alternative theories" about known behavior (of the type usually supplied by defense attorneys) whose plausibility depends entirely on acceptance of Iranian explanations of past and current deeds and misdeeds. There are many telltale signs, from missile development to the development of neutron initiators for nuclear devices, which all point in the direction of a weapons program. Therefore, according to the IAEA, the burden of proof for any other explanation of Iranian activities now falls squarely on Iran.

It is entirely possible that the latest Iran estimate by the US was influenced by the backlash against the Iraq WMD intelligence failure. Moreover, such "optimistic" intelligence estimates about Iran lead to strategic scenarios that relieve western policy-makers of the need to take difficult decisions in the near term. "There is time," many will say, and that will reduce the international pressure on Iran. But reducing the pressure will only accelerate Iran's nuclear development, because it will remove the last obstacle for a leadership bent on pushing ahead. And if the more realistic assessment turns out to be correct, the consequences of this intelligence failure could be at least as bad as those of the last one.

http://www.wadinet.de/news/iraq/newsarticle.php?id=1267

[RandomGuy]

The one solution for you is to move to a nice socialist country like Cuba.
Where all is paradise. Everything is free there except the people.

Yeah. I mean in cuba the government doesn't detain people indefinitely without trial, listen in on phone conversations, keeps anything even minorly embarrassing a state secret.

In Cuba the leadership doesn't play on people's fears to rally the population behind an incompetant leader...
:rolleyes

[boutons_]

Experts: Iran May Retaliate With Terror If Nuclear Sites Attacked

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 1, 2006; 6:30 PM

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Iranian government views the Islamic Jihad, the name of Hezbollah's terrorist organization, "as an extension of their state. . . . operational teams could be deployed without a long period of preparation," said Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism.

The possibility of a military confrontation has been raised only obliquely in recent months by President Bush and Iran's government. Bush says he is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but he has added that all options are on the table for stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Speaking in Vienna last month, Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, warned the United States that "it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll," although he did not specify what type of harm he was talking about.

Government officials said their interest in Iran's intelligence services is not an indication that a military confrontation is imminent or likely, but rather a reflection of a decades-long adversarial relationship in which Iran's agents have worked secretly against U.S. interests, most recently in Iraq and Pakistan. As confrontation over Iran's nuclear program has escalated, so has the effort to assess the threat from Iran's covert operatives.

U.N. Security Council members continue to debate how best to pressure Iran to prove that its nuclear program is not meant for weapons. The United States, Britain and France want the Security Council to threaten Iran with economic sanctions if it does not end its uranium enrichment activities. Russia and China, however, have declined to endorse such action and insist on continued negotiations. Security Council diplomats are meeting this weekend to try to break the impasse. Iran says it seeks nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

Former CIA terrorism analyst Paul R. Pillar said that any U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iranian territory "would be regarded as an act of war" by Tehran, and that Iran would strike back with its terrorist groups. "There's no doubt in my mind about that. . . . Whether it's overseas at the hands of Hezbollah, in Iraq or possibly Europe, within the regime there would be pressure to take violent action."

Before Sept. 11, the terrorist arm of Hezbollah, often working on behalf of Iran, was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group. In 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241, and in 1996 truck-bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service members.

Iran's intelligence service, operating out of its embassies around the world, assassinated dozens of monarchists and political dissidents in Europe, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East in the two decades after the 1979 Iranian revolution, which brought to power a religious Shiite government. Argentine officials also believe Iranian agents bombed a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 86 people. Iran has denied involvement in that attack.

Iran's intelligence services "are well trained, fairly sophisticated and have been doing this for decades," said Crumpton, a former deputy of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. "They are still very capable. I don't see their capabilities as having diminished."

Both sides have increased their activities against the other. The Bush administration is spending $75 million to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including funding non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts. Iran's parliament then approved $13.6 million to counter what it calls "plots and acts of meddling" by the United States.

"Given the uptick in interest in Iran" on the part of the United States, "it would be a very logical assumption that we have both ratcheted up [intelligence] collection, absolutely," said Fred Barton, a former counterterrorism official who is now vice president of counterterrorism for Stratfor, a security consulting and forecasting firm. "It would be a more fevered pitch on the Iranian side because they have fewer options."

The office of the director of national intelligence, which recently began to manage the U.S. intelligence agencies, declined to allow its analysts to discuss their assessment of Iran's intelligence services and Hezbollah and their capabilities to retaliate against U.S. interests.

"We are unable to address your questions in an unclassified manner," a spokesman for the office, Carl Kropf, wrote in response to a Washington Post query.

The current state of Iran's intelligence apparatus is the subject of debate among experts. Some experts who spent their careers tracking the intelligence ministry's operatives describe them as deployed worldwide and easier to monitor than Hezbollah cells because they operate out of embassies and behave more like a traditional spy service such as the Soviet KGB.

Other experts believe the Iranian service has become bogged down in intense, regional concerns: attacks on Shiites in Pakistan, the Iraq war and efforts to combat drug trafficking in Iran.

As a result, said Bahman Baktiari, an Iran expert at the University of Maine, the intelligence service has downsized its operations in Europe and the United States. But, said Baktiari, "I think the U.S. government doesn't have a handle on this."

Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses.

They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.

A report by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks cited al-Qaeda's long-standing cooperation with the Iranian-back Hezbollah on certain operations and said Osama bin Laden may have had a previously undisclosed role in the Khobar attack. Several al-Qaeda figures are reportedly under house arrest in Iran.

Others in the law enforcement and intelligence circles have been more dubious about cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, largely because of the rivalries between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda adherents are Sunni Muslims; Hezbollah's are Shiites.

Iran "certainly wants to remind governments that they can create a lot of difficulty if strikes were to occur," said a senior European counterterrorism official interviewed recently. "That they might react with all means, Hezbollah inside Lebanon and outside Lebanon, this is certain. Al-Qaeda could become a tactical alliance."

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[ChumpDumper]

So the former Israeli Atomic Energy Commissioner thinks they are closer than 10 years, and we should invade now because of that?

What course of action are you advocating exactly? No fair googling the administration's position to parrot it, what do you think should be done. Right now.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah. I mean in cuba the government doesn't detain people indefinitely without trial, listen in on phone conversations, keeps anything even minorly embarrassing a state secret.

In Cuba the leadership doesn't play on people's fears to rally the population behind an incompetant leader...
:rolleyes

Always room for one more in Cuba. Why don't
you move to that nice, freedom loving, compent
leadership type government and enjoy all that
stuff that you are deprived of here in the USA.
Hmmmm?

[Vashner]

There is no way they are 10 years away..

They pulled out the camera's a couple months ago...

All they need is a few lbs of refined. The basic ingredients are well known NOT to mention that Pakistan guy gave them more plans.

They are only days away.. not years.

[smeagol]

They are only days away.. not years.
:rolleyes

Link please