The NIE Report on Iran states that the Iranian Nazi scum halted their nuclear weapons program in mid-2003. Perhaps the Iranians realized that all the program would do was to draw attention to their goals which could not be realized until after Iran was able to produce HEU. Don't put the cart before the horse. As soon as the Iranians have enriched uranium in sufficent quantities to manufacture a bomb the program will resume. And when they have this material it can always be used to manufacture a dirty bomb or RDD. Read the report BY CLICKING HERE rather than having the media interpret it for you. Here are some excerpts:
We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)… We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material [from North Korea], but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon… We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons.
The significant part of this report is not that Iran temporarily halted in WMD program but that there is hard evidence that one existed. Iran has consistently denied the existence of a nuclear weapons program. Now we know why it is intent on enriching uranium.
NIE: An Abrupt About-Face As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?
Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):
Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:
Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
Caroline Glick THE Dec. 6, 2007 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847275020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull The US National Intelligence
Estimate (NIE) on The NIE begins with the
sensationalist opening line: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program." But the rest of the report
contradicts the lead sentence. For instance, the second line says, "We
also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Teheran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." Indeed, contrary to that
earth-shattering opening, the NIE acknowledges that the Iranians have an active
nuclear program and that they are between two and five years away from nuclear
capabilities. The NIE's final sentence: "We
assess with high confidence that But the content of the NIE is
irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the opening line - as the report's
authors no doubt knew full well when they wrote it. With that opening line, the NIE
effectively takes the option of American use of force to prevent There are two possible explanations
for why President George W. Bush permitted this strange report to be published.
Either he doesn't wish to attack Arguing the former in Time magazine,
former CIA agent Robert Baer explained, "While the 16 agencies that make
up the 'intelligence community' contribute to each National Intelligence
Estimate, you can bet that an explosive 180-degree turn on The alternative view - that Bush was
forced to accept the report against his will - is also possible. The report's
primary authors, Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill are all State
Department officials on loan to the office of the Director of National
Intelligence. According to the Wall Street Journal, all three are reputed to be
deeply partisan and hostile to Bush's foreign policy goals. Furthermore, for
the past four years the three have reportedly worked studiously to downplay the
danger of Thursday The New York Times ran a
story detailing the process in which the NIE was collated that lends credence
to the view that Bush was compelled to accept it. According to the Times, in
the months preceding the NIE's publication, Mike McConnell, the Director of
National Intelligence, purposely prevented the White House from seeing any of
the raw intelligence data on which the NIE's radical conclusion on But it really doesn't make a
difference one way or another. Whether the president agrees or disagrees with
the NIE, he is boxed in just the same. The NIE denies him the option of
taking military action against And the NIE's political
repercussions extend well beyond the current administration. Today, no
Democratic presidential candidate will dare to question the opening line of the
report. The Democratic Congressional leaders are demanding that the
administration immediately open bilateral talks with The situation among Republicans is
not much more encouraging. Although Republicans have greeted the NIE with
grumbling rather than glee, it is hard to imagine any of the Republican
presidential candidates taking issue with its opening line. Doing so entails
the risk of being accused of alarmism and warmongering. Although Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice continue to speak of imposing further sanctions on The NIE makes light of For instance, Agence France-Presse
reported that in 2005 As the on-line intelligence
newsletter NightWatch noted this week, "Curious minds want to know why
would Beyond that, the NIE makes a strange
distinction between nuclear program which has not
stopped for a moment and its "military" program which supposedly ended in
2003. Since both programs are controlled and run by the Revolutionary Guards,
it is obvious that no such distinction exists for the Iranians. And as former program that posed the main risk of
nuclear 'breakout.'" Finally the As for that, the Israeli strike
showed clearly that there is no reason to assume that The Israeli strike in Given the NIE's assertion that So not only does the NIE make it
impossible for the The The Israeli response so far to the
NIE creates the impression that By mindlessly agreeing that Iran did
in fact halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Defense Minister Ehud Barak
accepted the most ridiculous aspect of the report - namely that there is a
distinction between Iran's "civilian" and "military" nuclear
programs. In so doing, Barak effectively prevented As for Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni,
well, she doesn't seem to understand that anything has happened. In a message
to Israeli ambassadors, Livni urged And this is the final aspect of the
NIE that bears mention. Both in its content and in the timing of its release
the week after the Many commentators applauded the What this means is that not only has
the For their part, the Iranians are
celebrating the NIE's publication as a major victory. And they are right to do
so. With the stroke of a pen the The NIE's message to