Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent

Comments (53)
wildbiker wrote:

The article is a tacit justification for US policy regading Iran. But there should be questions. What has changed in US Intelligence that makes it more crdible than it was leading up to the Iraq war? The presentation of facts regarding weaponization and development of delivery systems implies that’s a sequential process. It is not. So, the timeframe for a deliverable weapon could be as little as 50% of what’s said here. Finally, if the Iranians worked with the North Koreans (and others)work on device miniaturization in addition to delivery an weaponization, they multiply their delivery possibilities. And that can be done independently of the other efforts. So, this is complex and there is no good reason to consider US policy a success (or failure, for that matter).

Mar 23, 2012 8:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
bubosanac wrote:

So wait a minute. We believe that they are NOT making the bomb, yet we are still putting “punishing” sanctions on them? What are we punishing them for? It sure seems like no matter what they do they still get punished, like some sort of conspiracy.

Sanctions are an act of war, and they lead to armed wars. Imagine if Iran decided to block us from using the world’s banking system, to block all our imports and exports, and to enforce those sanctions in the Gulf of Mexico. The sanctions are crippling their economy and putting their people into poverty and into dependence on their tyrant leaders, and will actually push those leaders to build a bomb as they start to feel threatened.

It seems like the end game is to put on sanctions no matter what. The talk about military attacks, only serves to put Obama in the position of looking reasonable for putting on these unjustified, horrible sanctions that will push Iran to start building the bomb and will lead to armed confrontations down the line. It is a good cop bad cop routine to get consent from the American people and from other nations.

Mar 23, 2012 9:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Thucydides wrote:

It is amazing to what lengths the media and others will go in an attempt to excuse the Iranian nuclear program…and avoid taking the responsibility of enuring that nuclear non-proliferation is a reality, not just an empty pledge. Moving the goal posts over the past couple of years from Iran having the breakout capability to produce a weapon, to a standard of intent or building one, is the most obvious attempt to avoid any real action. It’s also a fool’s game. By the way, there wasn’t an intelligence service in the world, that didn’t think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. The real lesson isn’t about any administration looking or not looking for war, but the total failure and inaccuracy at most times of “intelligence” capabilities. So, it’s a bit ironic that this article is largely premised on intelligence confidence. This article is simply another pathetic attempt to manipulate the discussion, and in an intellectually dishonest manner.

Mar 23, 2012 9:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
KyleDexter wrote:

So now the CIA is saying “this time its different”…….

They sold us a BS intelligence assessment on Iraq. So where are the 5000 pounds of anthrax? Where is the nuclear weapons program Saddam was working on? Where are all of those missiles??

What we do know about Iran are only those matters which they have stated or shown publicly. We do know they have the largest missile stockpile in the Middle East. And they have a Nuclear program. Thats about all that we know about their capabilities. As for what US/EU/Isreali intelligence says, they have zero credibility.
Isreal bombed a building in Syria and showed some satelite footage. All it shows is a building. That could have been a convential weapons storage facility for all we know.

This article, as all the major news outlets are used by the US government, is basically indirectly saying that we will not be attacking Iran. The US is just too embarrased to say it explicitly!!!

Mar 23, 2012 9:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NukerDoggie wrote:

There’s no concrete intel that shows Pakistan has the bomb yet. It will take years for it to develop a deliverable warhead.

Oops!

Mar 23, 2012 9:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

This sounds so much like Iraq. The GOP and conservatives want to attack and start a war even though there’s no real evidence of weapons threat. The shoot now and verify later mentality is greeat for the private industries that make obcene profits, but awful for the taxpayers that get soaked in paying for it for decades and the reputation of the U.S. as an agressor nation that will attack any nation for purely political purposes.

Our Department of Defense should remain true to its mission of Defense and not become a Department of Offense relying on the excuse of pre-empting threats that don’t even yet exist.

With global markets, laws, and real interdependancies on each other, we need to maintain the respect and support of the rest of the world and not go out of our way to piss them off every chance we get.

Mar 23, 2012 9:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

So why go through all that trouble putting the big hurt on Iran with the heavy handed sanctions?

I suppose all those centrifuges are just making cotton candy?

Mar 23, 2012 9:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
artycohn wrote:

With the ‘Intelligence’ organizations records of failure, this article gives them much to much credit for knowledge of Iran’s secret programs. Everybody, except this article, agrees that the CIA 2007 report was a mistake. The most impoetant point, not emphasised in the article, is that Iran is building deep underground facilities to which it intend to, shortly, move key items of its nuclear weapons programs.s After this move, even if it has not as yet accomplished finishing its nuclear weapons developements, it will be very difficult, if possible at all, to stop the further dEvelopement. It will be too late!

Mar 23, 2012 9:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@artycohn: who exactly is ‘everybody’ that agrees the 2007 report is a ‘mistake’? You and your pals?

Do you know something the 17 US intelligence agencies, the Mossad, and the IAEA don’t? None of these agencies can prove militarization, but YOU know better right?

@Thucydides: sit tight, it’s only a matter of time before you’ll get another dirty war to quench that thirst of yours. It will bankrupt you, it will be illegal, it will have no evidence to support it, it will last for over a decade, and once again more than 1 million people will die.

Your country hasn’t forgotten you! They just have to find someone that can’t defend themselves first…

Mar 23, 2012 10:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

No much comment From me on this manufactured issue. Let zionistes who love wars and bombs comment. But they are also cawords begging oncle to fight for them. When they attacked Irak’s nuclear installations or Syria’s they didn’t bark mad like they are doing in the case of Iran. This nuclear issue is fake. Israeli love money and gold(yellow or black). They are acting crazy because they want control of ME oil. With all the weapons their genitors have been giving them, if they can defeat a militia in Lebannon, let’s see how they survive a war with Iran.

Mar 23, 2012 10:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse

This is really all about oil and regime change in Iran. We want to get rid of the Mullahs (Who we helped into power) because they are not the puppets we expected. The same thing happened when the Shah was in power and he tried to be bullish on oil, and to Mosedeq the first democratically elected ruler in the middle east when he did the same. Iranians will never bow to anyone and will only become more resolute when challenged. They are proud and nationalistic just like us even if they have a bad government. America needs peace and oil, not war and threats. The way to solve this problem is to allow Iran to have its nuclear rights but not a bomb which we can easily do. The next step is to solve the Israel problem by creating a fair two state solution and not allowing the Israelis to rape, murder, and steal at will. Even with the two state solution they will have stolen plenty of land, let them keep it. After that we can agree to protect them with our military and stop giving any of them Israel or Eygpt weapons and aid. After a time if we act as fair brokers (like we claim to be) you will see the worst governments of the middle east crumble. Its our unfair treatment of Palestinians etc. that gives those rulers power.

Mar 23, 2012 10:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Remember those 19 guys with box cutters…if feel safer now

Mar 23, 2012 10:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

First of all the final intelligence report given to Bush the day before he addressed Congress was completely the opposite of what Bush stated in his speech. Our intelligence people were stunned.

But the big picture here primarily has to do with Israel. Israel has been illegally expanding it’s territory, settlements, despite strong world disapproval from the USA, EU, UN, China & Russia.
This has in effect built a strong case for most Arab nations to legitimately support the Palestinians and force a ‘Two State Solution’ going back to the 1968 borders, which the Israelis (Zionists) will not accept.
I say ‘Zionists’ because there is a considerable number of Jewish citizens who are against Israel’s present policy & Zionism.

The pro-Israel lobby is the most powerful in Washington and for any politician to vote against Israel’s interests is considered to be a ‘Political Suicide’.

The 9/11 attack gave the Israelis & Bush a lot of collateral to make their strong case to the American tax payers against terrorism, which they so conveniently placed its roots in the Middle East. Without a doubt there is much suspicion in the design & execution of 9/11.

The only legitimate reason for the USA in supporting Israel is that it is the only Middle East country that we can count on for securing our oil imports from this area, and this does not have to be this way.

Our foreign policy makers have failed in establishing a peaceful relationship with the Arab states because that is not in Israel’s interest.

There is no reason whatsoever for us no to have a good relationship with Iran, as China, Russia & India have, thereby eliminating any nuclear threat, and most of all we could use some of their oil.

If we had a good relationship with the Arabs we wouldn’t need Israel’s troubles and $billions of our tax dollars going them.

Simply put, we are ‘handcuffed’ by the pro-Israel lobby.

Mar 23, 2012 11:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
klondiker1 wrote:

I am thinking that the we have just seen another blunder by ours and other countries spy agencies. We have been pounded for many months now on how dangerous the Iranians are,just look how it has made all the new wana be presidents vow to war with Iran and tell us how dangerous they are. now the tune has changed and so the United States say “oops”the are not building a bomb. Are these the same intelligent people who took us to war with all the other places in the world. So let me see Mitt Romney, vows to end any nuclear work done by the Iranians without even having a real idea what is going on except for the same claims we here on the news media.

Mar 23, 2012 11:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mb56 wrote:

“By the way, there wasn’t an intelligence service in the world, that didn’t think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.”
======
It is unreal that the war hawks are apparently now going to use their own deaf ears regrading Iraq’s intelligence to discredit the intelligence agencies efforts once again in a push for another conflict.

The 2002 Downing Street Memo made quite clear that as far as British Intelligence was concerned (after being privy to US Intelligence), that “the case was thin” and “intelligence and facts were being fixed around US policy”. Furthermore, our own Oct,2001 National Intelligence Estimate was FILLED with caveats and disclaimers about the QUALITY of the intelligence.

As this article states, intelligence quality can differ depending upon the case… the intelligence community ACCURATELY expressed the quality of the intelligence regarding Iraq… Bush & Co. just had deaf ears. In this case the intelligence community is expressing the high quality of the intelligence.

It is unreal that the war hawks are apparently now going to use their own deaf ears regrading Iraq’s intelligence to discredit the intelligence agencies efforts once again in a push for another conflict.

Mar 23, 2012 11:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
truth2000 wrote:

So even though we know that they are not planning a bomb we’re going to destroy their economy and ruin their lives and later bomb them. There is something really wrong here.

Mar 23, 2012 11:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
truth2000 wrote:

So even though we know that they are not planning a bomb we’re going to destroy their economy and ruin their lives and later bomb them. There is something really wrong here.

Mar 23, 2012 11:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ragbon wrote:

Israel is only diverty action from the Palestinian issue

Mar 23, 2012 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

For the real Iran issue, the other part of the big picture is our ‘Private’ Oil Industry, the most powerful in the world. I quote ‘Private’ because it shouldn’t be, oil is our most strategic commodity and it shouldn’t be left in private or Wall Street hands, for obvious reasons, if you read the news.

Every economy depends on an affordable supply of oil.

Pricing of oil in a open & free market rests on supply-and-demand, and the higher the price the higher the profit. A short supply demands a higher price. Wall Street, Commodities futures & trading, is another way for manipulating oil prices to one’s advantage.

It is in the oil companies interest for governments (tax payers), who they sell to, to have an unreliable & unstable supply of oil. That is why oil prices behave like a yo-yo. In addition to the oil companies own price controls & manipulations we now also have the world’s largest financial institutions hoarding huge oil reserves and other strategic commodities, and also they are purchasing & controlling the refineries that process this oil.

Control of our oil supply & pricing is in the hands of the Financiers & the oil companies, not in our government (us, the tax payers).
Do we really trust them ? Just look around you.

Now you might wonder where do these pro-Israel Super PAC’s get these astronomical sums of money to buy our government with ? You’ve got it.

We must nationalize our oil industry if we are to compete with emerging economies, like CHINA, and survive. This would also put an end to many special interests, lobbyists & Super PAC’s.
We might even get our government back.

This is the reason why China’s oil companies are Government Owned & Controlled. A healthy economy depends on affordable oil.
Despite China’s many shortcomings, when it comes to their economy they have done an amazing job. We owe them about $2.4 trillion in debt.

Mar 23, 2012 12:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Logical123 wrote:

Facts are irrelevant to the neo-cons and warmongers in Washington, DC. Please don’t confuse them with facts. Saying “Iran has not decided to build [nukes]” is based on a nonsensical assumption. It implies that you can read their minds. It is like saying you have not decided to hit me on the head when I am talking to you. Another example is to say that they have not decided to go to the moon. So, what?

All the ballyhoo about Iran has nothing to do with Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. It is about preserving the hegemony of the US and Israel in the Middle East and the control of its oil resources. Iran is the only country in the region that stands up to these two bullies. Therefore, it must be downsized. If Iran stopped all its nuclear activities tomorrow, the US would find another excuse to try to strangle it.

Mar 23, 2012 1:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

Just as a sidenote: i’m sure not a single American here actually understands what the UN did to Iran in the 80′s.

From 1980 to 1982 the UN Security Council all but IGNORED the Iran-Iraq war, and not once condemned Iraq for its illegal use of force, and invasion of another sovereign UN member state. The UN did not protect Iran against an aggressor, and has never in any way made up for this gross neglect of its duties. In 1982, once it looked like Iran was going to win the war, the UNSC stepped in condemning both sides. BOTH sides…

The UN Security Council also failed to condemn the use of chemical weapons by Saddam on the Kurds and Iranians, even after 100’000 Iranians deaths, and over 50’000 Kurdish deaths directly attributed to mustard gas and other nerve agent attacks by UN investigators.

Iran knows that the UN can not and will not protect it. It did not protect it in the 80′s, it did not protect Iraq in 2003, and it will not protect anybody that is in the US’s line of fire.

With a belligerent US bombing everybody left and right, who in their right mind would not seek a breakout capability to defend itself. Here’s a list of the countries bombed by the US since WWII, just as a refresher of what type of threat the entire planet is dealing with:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-
Libya 2011

Add to that the 65 UN resolutions Israel is violating (without sanctions), and we start to get a pretty decent picture of who’s who in this world.

Mar 23, 2012 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

Pakistan has a nulear weapon. Iran wh shares a border with never complains. Idian samesituation. If any contry on this planet can claim that it’s under threats, it’s Iran. Moreover Iran’s never attacked anybody and has always maintened a defensive posture. No one shouldtake Israel’s claims seriously. How can a country jst created 60 years agocan claim it’s being threatened by Iran while Iran has been living peacefully with other countries in that region for 5000 years. Israel is simply a war tool not a real country. Israel claiming to be under threat is like a cancer claiming to be thretened by the body.

Mar 23, 2012 2:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

@bubosanac raises a good question. Why wage a sanctions war, when the target is uncertain? Sanctions can force change … consider the impact on South Africa. But, crippling sanctions ultimately forced Imperial Japan to attack the US in 1941; granted, those sanctions had been mounted to pressure Japanese withdrawal from conquests of the 1930′s.

The current sanctions are being waged, because … Israel wants something done. Short of an all out attack, Obama is being pressured by GOP partisans to act, now.

Mar 23, 2012 2:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EagleDriver wrote:

I do not beleive any government supplied information while Obama is in the WH. He is a corrupt power broker that manipulates the news and strong arms those who do not follow his lead. He will fill the aqriwaves with false information to suite his agenda. I’m sure the more astute among us are already aware of this.

Mar 23, 2012 2:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
quickquill wrote:

How hypocritical of nations with more bombs then all countries put together to punish a smaller, weaker country for possibly making a single nuclear bomb.

Mar 23, 2012 3:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

@EagleDriver;
Don’t be so sure of Obama’s intentions. No matter who is President, he will have to kiss ass to the pro-Israel Super PAC’s or his political career is finished. I believe he is honestly trying to figure a way out of his predicament. Going after Wall Street is one way, but he may end up like Bobby Kennedy.

If you recall in a recently widely published report the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel was caught by a reporter whispering to Obama ear…

” I can’t stand him, (Binyamin Netanyahu) every word out of his mouth is a lie” and Obama replied “You think you got a problem with him ? I’ve got to deal with him every day” (and the pro-Israel lobby).

That might indicate where Obama stands on the Israel-Palestine issue which also will resolve our oil ‘crisis’.

Mar 23, 2012 3:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

We hear often enough from Ayatollah Khamenei that Iran will not make nuclear weapons, at least at this time. Perhaps never. The Ayatollah, a religious/political leader declares such weapons of mass destruction to be evil. Certainly not a different conclusion than most Christian religious leaders.

My hope is that Iran will simply develop the appearance of sufficient technical knowledge to construct nuclear weapon, and this will be enough to deter Israel and the US. No actual weapon will be necessary. That is, assuming Israel and the US/Israel/Neocons are sufficiently rational. Of that, I am less certain. They did give us the Iraq war (along with other US big money) based as we know, on fantasies.

At this point in US history, the greatest, most critical political issue is to recover the US government from AIPAC and the rest of the nutty Zionists. Given this, we could also recover our government from the rest of big money funded lobbyists/extortionists.
Obviously, a war with Iran could easily be a disaster for Israel, the US, and the rest of the world. The very real possibility exists that it would trigger an economic dislocation which could lead to a substantial die-off of the world human population. Iran has the combined population of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, and an area greater than these nations together. Clearly Iran is much better organized and much more technically advanced that these three countries, particularly after our continuous efforts to make Iran ever-more self-reliant. From the recent Iranian elections, we have created an even greater cohesiveness in the country. We have already failed in our decade long wars on just Iraq and Afghanistan. And Russia and China have already weighed on how wrong they think a war on Iran would be.

Israel is not going to be able to simply pick off a nuclear reactor such as Osiris in Syria, and get away with it. Iran has warned Israel of consequences such as raining down missiles on them, and shutting down shipping into the Persian Gulf, causing a world economic disaster. It would be clear to the world by then, that support of Israel in their Iran war quest would not be a viable option. Moreover, US support of an Israeli war on Iran would not likely be tolerated by the US population. It is highly probably that Zionism would be recognized as the evil movement that it is. Ten dollar gas should do the trick. That being the case, the American population would seek out and remove all Zionist forces in the US from power. Israel, and the religio-ethnic Zionist state, would be done for. The UN Security Council would finally realize what a colossal mistake they made in 1948.

If Israel, in its paranoid state, actually were to use its nuclear weapons (as it threated under Golda Meir against Cairo), the world situation would only get much worse than above. Clearly, Russia, China, and probably India, could not tolerate this.
The main issue now is to get through the next election with President Obama remaining in place. The Republican presidential candidates, outside of Ron Paul, have declared themselves on Iran to be disasters in waiting. It is important that the US people understand the issues. I’m afraid Obama is the only reasonable way forward, whatever else one might believe.

Mar 23, 2012 3:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

@xcanada2;
Very good post.
But I don’t think Israel is just paranoid, they have partnered with the Oil Giants who fund the pro-Israel & pro-Oil Super PAC’s.
Actually they are not that stupid either. They have realized that the Two State Solution is inevitable, and they are just buying as much time as they can so as to grab as much land as possible before it happens.

Mar 23, 2012 5:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oneofthecrowd wrote:

Gee, is Obama going to apologize to Ahmadinajad for signing the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 which shut down anyone doing OIL business with Iran in or out, pipelines, equipment? Sorry we caused rampant inflation and fund groups to remake your government in your country, Iran, I guess Obama got a big head after that Nobel Peace Prize, thinks he’s entitled to rule the world.

Mar 23, 2012 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
economicgps wrote:

@wildbiker: The difference between the intelligence justifying the Iraq war and current intelligence on Iranian nuclear aspirations are the contexts of the different White House management team. The Bush II regime created intelligence supporting the neo-conservative pre-meditated plan for “war” as a business opportunity for Wall Street, Blue Chip Oligarchs and Government no-bid contractors. (Book: Clark, Richard, Against All Enemies or Anyone in the Pentagon during the Bush II regime not putting Holy Crosses on Tanks)

@bubosanac: excellent point. We are only hurting civilians.

@Thucydides: the current administration has no business agenda for America as a war profiteer. Many experts to include on the ground UN inspectors stated repeatedly that Iraq did not have WMDs prior to invasion. US academics and European nation states said a military intervention would likely unleash a bee hive of cultural infighting between ethnic groups who harbor deep seated centuries old mistrust. Bush II also said the Iraqi war would be over in 2-3 years max (Actual 9 years), would require limited boots on the ground (resulting in surge, surge, surge) and American expenditures would be recouped with Iraqi oil monies. Cicero just called and said, “Three Noble Lies and the neo-cons are out”. Auf wiedersehen! @thadncs economicgps.com

Our assumptions about management and performance have been missing the mark for thirty years. http://goo.gl/ZrFOT

Mar 23, 2012 5:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Logical123 wrote:

GMavros: In fact, the two-state solution is now impossible. The only viable solution is a one-state solution with equality for all. The expanded settlements make a two-state solution an impractical goal.

Mar 23, 2012 6:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

@GMavos:

It certainly would be interesting to know the money flow to AIPAC, and related entities. What fraction of the $3 Billion send to Israel each year finds its way back into Congress’s campaign pockets, how much is available to fight non-Israeli-supporters. A big deal was made out of a few 10′s of thousands of Chinese-related dollars making its way into Al Gore’s campaign. Obviously, millions in Israeli money makes it to Congress, and probably the unwitting American taxpayer even funds a good fraction of it. But, few people in Congress have the nerve to address such questions.

You are suggesting another big money flow, the biggest flow perhaps, is to AIPAC from Big Oil. There is an interesting three volume set by Alan Hart, Zionism: the Real Enemy of the Jews. Digging deeper, Zionism floats on Big Oil? Big Oil is the Real Enemy of the Jews?

That would be a very interesting twist.

Mar 23, 2012 7:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

@xcanada2;

Honestly, this has been my personal reasoning, by studying today’s developments & past history, and then just ‘following the money’.

I know very little about the Zionists, enough to figure things out.
Since you brought up ” Zionism floats on Big Oil ?’ I just googled ‘zionist oil’ and these are the top sites, I am not alone.
I am going through them now.

http://www.texemarrs.com/042011/zionist_oil_speculators.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/campbell/11720.htm

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Mar 24, 2012 2:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse

N. Korea built and tested a nuclear weapon. They repeatedly threaten to destroy the United States with it. They are testing a long range missile to deliver it. And to punish them? The U.S. wants to send them a quarter million-tons of food.

Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years. They are a member of the NPT. The U.S. and Israel both determined Iran decided not to build a nuclear weapon years ago. And to reward them? Israel is murdering their scientists and the U.S. has imposed vicious sanctions on the entire population.

Oki Doki.

Mar 24, 2012 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DDavid wrote:

Why would the media be on Iran’s side? That’s not only pure conjecture but extreme bull. Also get your facts straight. There are 14 some US Intelligence agencies — of which 13 said Iraq did NOT have WMD’s — only 1 agency believed Iraq could have and was likely, but wasn’t 100% sure. Bush took the 1 agencies word and ignored the balance, because he wanted to go to war. The entire war rhetoric was fabricated.
I’m so glad your not qualified to be in the US intelligence agency or we’d have another “God Told Me To Go To War” impeccable ignorant character.

Mar 24, 2012 1:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DDavid wrote:

Why would the media be on Iran’s side? That’s not only pure conjecture but extreme bull. Also get your facts straight. There are 14 some US Intelligence agencies — of which 13 said Iraq did NOT have WMD’s — only 1 agency believed Iraq could have and was likely, but wasn’t 100% sure. Bush took the 1 agencies word and ignored the balance, because he wanted to go to war. The entire war rhetoric was fabricated.
I’m so glad your not qualified to be in the US intelligence agency or we’d have another “God Told Me To Go To War” impeccable ignorant character.
There is a lot more behind the story of Iran than the average bear sees, called Long Term Planning which covers everything from Middle East relations to regime change. Just as your “Todays” Standard of Living was planned back in 1980′s.

Mar 24, 2012 2:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BigMitch wrote:

“They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.” At that point, it might be too late to stop it. That is why the campaign is against Iran becoming “nuclear capable.” Also, long before Iran gets the technology to make a nuclear missile, it will acquire the means to deliver a dirty bomb. As to not knowing Iran’s intent, I take the ayatollahs at their word. Their intention is to wipe Israel off the map.

Mar 25, 2012 2:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Republican War mongers have the faith they can attack Iran, they don’t need facts.

Mar 25, 2012 2:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Darcha wrote:

It would be nice if Reuters provided news instead of fairy stories. The article mentions enrichment facilities ‘which were acknowledged only when unmasked’. This is simply not true. On 21 September Iran, in line with its IAEA obligations, informed the IAEA that it would be bringing a second facility online. There was nothing secret about it. There was no ‘unmasking’. There WAS, however, a loud propaganda chorus of boogie-man ‘secret facilities’.

Mar 25, 2012 3:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rag2end wrote:

Is this the same intelligence which led to war on Iraq?, I think logic is absent from this article, if my country is being scrutinized for a claim which says that I have a nuclear weapon program; then my logical reactions would be :

a)I have nuclear weapon program, and I will keep nuclear monitoring agencies away from my facilities, and I will try to stall time, and the economic sanctions is a reasonable price I have to pay
b)I don’t have nuclear weapon program, then let me prove it by allowing nuclear monitoring agencies to check whatever and get rid of the unfair and bad for my country economic sanctions

Mar 25, 2012 3:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PiereH wrote:

It’s the technology they are afraid of!!! it BELONGS to us and our friend’s only. no third word Muslim country should have IT.

Mar 25, 2012 3:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocSong wrote:

Nothing in this article or report, discusses the possiblity that Iran could acquire a warhead, but it does say:

While Iran does not yet have a nuclear warhead that can fit on a missile, it does have the missiles.

Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and many of those projectiles could be repurposed to deliver a nuclear device, intelligence director Clapper said in congressional testimony.

Western experts also point to Iran’s test firing of a rocket that can launch satellites into space as an example of a growing capability that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons.

Mar 25, 2012 4:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
31morgan wrote:

Mavros and xcanada sound like comrades planning a cabal. You two are so blinded by your faulty thinking about Israel you’ll let the hatred distract you from seeing reality. Israel is the last best hope of mankind. It deserves our support.

Mar 25, 2012 5:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
77777771 wrote:

I remember the time that Viet Nam was a threat to the USA, then it was Grenada, then Panama, then Iraq, then Somalia, then Haiti, then the Balkans, then Afghanistan, then Iraq again when we were told the “smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud”. All of these wars took a huge toll on human life, caused suffering, drained the struggling US economy. Now were told that Iran is a threat to the USA a week ago during the AIPAC meeting, and now this week it’s not.

Mar 25, 2012 6:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse

QUESTION: When we invaded Iraq, how many coalition troops did Israel send in to support our troops?
ANSWER: Zero!

Mar 25, 2012 7:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse

xcanada2, I like the way you think:
“Ten dollar gas should do the trick.”
I would gladly pay $10/gal. if we could finally rid ourselves of the zionist parasite.

Mar 25, 2012 7:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mme_LaMorte wrote:

As long as there is money to be made by war– we will have war. If you think having a R or D after a politician’s name makes that more or less true– you have an amazing ability to deny reality and history. We need to support political leaders who truly believe the United States should not be the bully of the world. We have that chance right now– unfortunately it is not the President.

Mar 25, 2012 8:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jonjojon wrote:

I have just one question; Are these the same sources that handed the USA the decision saying “Iraq has and is developing WMD”. If so, think twice before believing.

Mar 25, 2012 8:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DCBrabbit wrote:

it’s always been about Iran becoming a viable energy source in the middle east.

Mar 25, 2012 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
KINGISKING wrote:

Having gone through the entire synopsis on the article I find below quoted paragraphs of the article very important for preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in any future time without letting the world community of nations to know any information before israel’s surreptitious action on Iran to the international medias.

In this regard by Israel in it meet in USA from March 4th for a week after having imposed on a foreign sovereign country as usual its inclusive of Iran’s subject to help Israel planned foreign policy of US to be implement on oath over and and above supervised by AIPAC and strangulate any deviation by the USA congress. See below the quotations:

***Another question is exactly how much progress Iran made in designing a warhead before mothballing its program. The allies disagree on how fast Iran is progressing toward bomb-building ability: the U.S. thinks progress is relatively slow; the Europeans and Israelis believe it’s faster

***Israel, which regards a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, has a different calculation. It studies the same intelligence and timetable, but sees a closing window of opportunity to take unilateral military action and set back Iran’s ambitions. Israel worries that Iran will soon have moved enough of its nuclear program underground — or spread it far enough around the country — as to make it virtually impervious to a unilateral Israeli attack, creating what Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently referred to as a “zone of immunity.”

***The United States and Israel are on the same page in judging how long it would take Iran to have a nuclear weapon that could strike a target: about a year to produce a bomb and then another one to two years to put it on a missile.

Analytical result of the above Paragraph simply states that Israel can and will strike Iran any moment at any time alone or US in support as per defense and recent foreign policy before or after election with more probability before election with ulterior motive against the present incumbent in power of US.

Mar 25, 2012 12:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:

Wait a minute.

Why is the continued existence of the current Israeli government following current Israeli government policies so important to the American people? Is it more important than the continued existence of any State of the USA? Is it more important than free elections in the USA? Is it more important than meeting US Government promises of medical care and old age pensions to 150,000,000 US citizens who have already paid for those benefits? Why? In how many wars have Israeli soldiers spilled their blood shoulder to shoulder with ours? How much money has Israel loaned the USA?

We want independence from Israel. We deserve a Government more concerned with the well being of Cleveland than Tel Aviv.

Mar 25, 2012 1:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GMavros wrote:

@31morgan;
REGARDLESS THE REASONS, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE ISRAELI STATE THERE HAS ONLY BEEN WAR & VIOLENCE, WITH MUCH MORE TO COME.

Mar 25, 2012 12:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Austell wrote:

Yes this report is pretty ‘special’ allright!!

And EXTREMELY misleading…

There IS no new intel, so no – ‘intel’ does NOT show that Iran is no nuclear threat.. it’s the LACK OF INTEL that shows this!!

There is no new intel whatsoever to say that Iran is not trying to build a bomb, because there never was any in the first place…

The only thing new is the west’s new strategy of half admission of the facts.

THERE NEVER WAS ANY INTEL!!!!!!

Mar 26, 2012 3:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.