Canucklehead says:

All the covert CIA agents are freaking. Which one is about to get outed by Robert Novak.

Joe says:

The most dangerous country is the US!

v says:

Don’t worry, Bush still have plenty of options. In a few days, the White House will release Intelligence reports indicating the Iranians have begun construction on a Death Star.

Marc says:

[Comment deleted -Ed.]

chuck says:

Look, we said Iraq had WMDs (even when the intelligence reports said they didn’t). And we invaded Iraq anyway and there were no WMDs.

So, if the intelligence reports say Iran doesn’t have a nuclear program, we have to invade anyway to prove there are no WMDs.

Makes perfect sense.

(Warning: No logic was used in the previous statements.)

Todd says:

Dont forget that it specifically stated that they were definately pursuing nuclear weapons technology until 2003. So Bush and the intelligence community were right about that. Also, it was the pressure put on by the US (under Bush) and the UN which stopped him. So, while this report minimizes the immediate threat posed by Iran, it also does show that Bush’s policies toward Iran are working.

Also, the report stated that according to the Washington Post “the report depicts Iran as cleverly preserving its options, by making steady strides toward a civilian nuclear energy capability that both coplies with international law and puts the country on a course that will allow it to easily develop nuclear arms if it so chooses.”

Just because they stopped in 2003, it doesnt mean that they wont use the peaceful nuclear capability they are currently developing to later develop weapons. In fact a California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman, Chairman of the Non-proliferation Subcommitte of the Foreign Affairs committee, said Iran’s uranium enrichment remains worrisome and is not dependent of US intelligence because Tehran has openly acknowledged it.” He continued, “It is an validation of the middle road,” he said, “between going to sleep … and the lets bomb them now approach.”

Also, buried in the continuance of the article on pg A-12 is the fact that they only had a “moderate confidence” that they have not begun developing weapons again already. They cited gaps in intelligence as the reason for the lack of confidence. So in other words, they went with moderate because they have no clue. They know they stopped in ’03, but cant prove that they aren’t building them now. That is usually what “intelligence gaps mean”. You dont know (i.e. there is a gap or missing peices of intelligence(or information)).

It should also be noted that before they call bush a liar on this issue; that he didnt know about the possible hault of the Iranian weapons plan until september and even then it hadn’t been confirmed. He didnt get confirmation about this report until last Tuesday. So before it starts…..he didnt lie. the intel he received on this issue in 05 was just missing the evidence that they had haulted the plan. We hadnt learned that yet.

Furthermore, the White house has had no plans to actually go to war with Iran. They have planned it in case it happens, but it is all just talk. We cant afford to fight a war with Iran right now. The only real military option on the table with Iran would be airstrikes and that wont happen until they get real close to having a weapon. Its too dangerous politically. Iran most likely cant beat us, but they can make life very difficult in Iraq and elsewhere. Most of the rhetoric about war with them has been to force them to negotiate with us on a settlement in Iraq that is more beneficial to the US. The UN sanctions, while definately about guaranteeing that Iran doesnt get WMD’s, are really an effort to create more pressure on Iran to do something about the radical shiites in Iraq and to stop providing a safe haven for terrorist on the run. However, this report blows that opportunity. Now the next round of sanctions will fail and the US will find itself in a disadvantaged situation to Iran with negotiations over Iraq. Its sad, because I have no doubt that once they get this capability, they will begin their search for the weaponized version again. That was also saddams plan with chem. weapons in Iraq. Play nice until sanctions are lifted and then go for it again.

Just to make the point, we are much more likely to be engaged in Africa (the new target of extremists) or Pakistan in the near future than we are to be engaged fighting Iran.

But hey other than that…Spin away democrats. Im sure you will find a way to say that bush lied and that he had no part to play in stopping Iran’s program in ’03. Yet, I thought your reasoning was that if it happens under his watch then it is his fault. Just try to remember that Iran haulted their program under his watch too. You cant just blame him, you have to give him credit when its due too. (for full disclosure – I am a moderate who disagree’s with Bush on many things; I just think in this particular case, Bush should get some credit).

Dennis says:

Haven’t these people learned? Anything more than 5 lines/sentences is ignored and bypassed.
If you want to write a dissertation, get your own BLOG and write it.

Sratfor says:

Mister Mustard,

Iran benefited from having the world believe it was building nuclear weapons. The United States is obsessed with nuclear weapons in the hands of states it regards as irrational. By appearing to be irrational and developing nuclear weapons, the Iranians created a valuable asset to use in negotiating with the Americans. Therefore, while they halted development on their weapons program, they were not eager to let the Americans relax. They swung back and forth between asserting their right to operate the program and denying they had one. Moreover, they pushed hard for a civilian power program, which theoretically worried the world less. It drove the Americans up a wall.

As I have argued, the central issue for Iran is not nuclear weapons. It is the future of Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 was the defining moment in modern Iranian history. It not only devastated Iran, but also weakened the revolution internally. Above all, Tehran never wants to face another Iraqi regime that has the means and motivation to wage war against Iran. That means the Iranians cannot tolerate a Sunni-dominated government that is heavily armed and backed by the United States. Nor, for that matter, does Tehran completely trust Iraq’s fractured Shiite bloc with Iran’s national security. Iran wants to play a critical role in defining the nature, policies and capabilities of the Iraqi regime.

The recent U.S. successes in Iraq, however limited and transitory they might be, may have caused the Iranians to rethink their view on dealing with the Americans on Iraq. The Americans, regardless of progress, cannot easily suppress all of the Shiite militias. The Iranians cannot impose a regime on Iraq, though they can destabilize the process. A successful outcome requires a degree of cooperation — and recent indications suggest that Iran is prepared to provide that cooperation.

That puts the United States in an incredibly difficult position. On the one hand, it needs Iran for the endgame in Iraq. On the other, negotiating with Iran while it is developing nuclear weapons runs counter to fundamental U.S. policies and the coalition it was trying to construct. As long as Iran was building nuclear weapons, working with Iran on Iraq was impossible.

The NIE solves a geopolitical problem for the United States. Washington cannot impose a unilateral settlement on Iraq, nor can it sustain forever the level of military commitment it has made to Iraq. There are other fires starting to burn around the world. At the same time, Washington cannot work with Tehran while it is building nuclear weapons. Hence, the NIE: While Iran does have a nuclear power program, it is not building nuclear weapons.

Bush isnt caught…..he let the report leak…he is trying to take a softer approach with Iran in order to quell fears inside the US about Iran because they have actually started working with us.

Todd says:

Mustard,

You have completely missed the point. Bush never wanted to invade Iran. He just made threats so Iran would start negotiation over Iraq. We cant do this alone and Iran could help use secure a more stable Iraq. The debate over weapons wasn’t only about weapons; it was mostly maneuvering over Iraq. The state department let this one slip on purpose because both the white house and Iran have reached a deal. Wait it out…I bet you see the US and Iran slowly come together more than they are now.

Mister Mustard says:

>>Bush never wanted to invade Iran.

You’ve got an uphill battle ahead of you to demonstrate that, Sisyphus.

If Dumbya was only bluffing, he’s dumber than I thought. What happens when a bully has his bluff called?

stratfor says:

Geopolitical Diary: Questions Raised by the NIE

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released on Monday — the little bombshell that says Iran has had its nuclear weapons program on hold since 2003 — raises two fundamental questions. First, if Iran really does not have a military weapons program, why has it resisted international inspections? Second, why is the United States allowing this news to break?

The Iranian motive for resisting inspections should first be considered.

For the past five years, Washington and Tehran have been engaged in on-again, off-again negotiations over Iraq’s future. In these talks the Iranians have been at a sizable disadvantage. The United States has more than 100,000 troops in the country, while Iran’s leverage is largely limited to its influence with many of the country’s Shiite militias. This influence is a useful tool for denying the United States the ability to impose its desires, though it is not a powerful enough one to allow the Iranians to turn their own preferences into reality.

Moreover, given that the majority of Iran’s population is either in or behind the Zagros Mountains, Iran might be difficult to invade, but it lacks military expeditionary capability. Its infantry-heavy army is designed for population control, not power projection. Therefore, for Iran to have a lever in manipulating events in its region, it must develop other playing cards.

Its nuclear program is one of those cards. Iran has had a vested interest in convincing the world — unofficially, of course — that it possesses a nuclear program. For Iran, the nuclear program is a trump card to be traded away, not a goal in and of itself.

As to the U.S. motive, it also wanted to play up the nuclear threat. Part of Washington’s negotiation strategy has been to isolate Iran from the rest of the international community. Charges that Iran desired nukes were an excellent way to marshal international action. Both sides had a vested interest in making Iran look the part of the wolf.

That no longer is the case. There are only two reasons the U.S. government would choose to issue a report that publicly undermines the past four years of its foreign policy: a deal has been struck, or one is close enough that an international diplomatic coalition is no longer perceived as critical. This level of coordination across all branches of U.S. intelligence could not happen without the knowledge and approval of the CIA director, the secretaries of defense and state, the national security adviser and the president himself. This is not a power play; this is the real deal.

The full details of any deal are unlikely to be made public any time soon because the U.S. and Iranian publics probably are not yet ready to consider each other as anything short of foes. But the deal is by design integrated into both states’ national security posture. It will allow for a permanent deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq to provide minimal national security for Iraq, but not in large enough numbers to be able to launch a sizable attack against Iran. It will allow for the training and equipping of the Iraqi military forces so that Iraq can defend itself, but not so much that it could boast a meaningful offensive force. It will integrate Iranian intelligence and military personnel into the U.S. effort so there are no surprises on either side.

But those are the details. Here is the main thrust: Ultimately, both sides have nursed deep-seated fears. The Iranians do not want the Americans to assist in the rise of another militaristic Sunni power in Baghdad — the last one inflicted 1 million Iranian casualties during 1980-1988 war. The United States does not want to see Iran dominate Iraq and use it as a springboard to control Arabia; that would put some 20 million barrels per day of oil output under a single power. The real purpose of the deal is to install enough bilateral checks in Iraq to ensure that neither nightmare scenario happens.

Should such an arrangement stick, the two biggest winners obviously are the Americans and Iranians. That is not just because the two no longer would be in direct conflict, and not just because both would have freed up resources for other tasks.

U.S. geopolitical strategy is to prevent the rising of a power on a continental scale that has the potential to threaten North America. It does this by favoring isolated powers that are resisting larger forces. As powerful as Iran is, it is the runt of the neighborhood when one looks past the political lines on maps and takes a more holistic view. Sunnis outnumber Shia many times over, and Arabs outnumber Persians. Indeed, Persians make up only roughly half of Iran’s population, making Tehran consistently vulnerable to outside influence. Simply put, the United States and Iran — because of the former’s strategy and the latter’s circumstances — are natural allies.

On the flip side, the biggest losers are those entities that worry about footloose and fancy-free Americans and Iranians. The three groups at the top of that list are the Iraqis, the Russians and the Arabs. Washington and Tehran will each sell out their proxies in Iraq in a heartbeat for the promise of an overarching deal. Now is the time for the Kurds, Sunni and Shia of Iraq to prove their worth to either side; those who resist will be smears on the inside of history’s dustbin.

Separately, a core goal of U.S. foreign policy is to ensure that the Russians never again threaten North America, and to a lesser degree, Europe. A United States that is not obsessed with Tehran is one that has the freedom to be obsessed with Moscow. And do not forget that the last state to occupy portions of Iran was not the United States, but Russia. Persia has a long memory and there are scores to settle in the Caucasus.

Back in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy has often supported the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, favoring the weak against the strong in line with the broad strategy discussed above. A United States that does not need to contain Iran is a United States that can leverage an Iran that very much wishes to be leveraged. That potentially puts the Arabs on the defensive on topics ranging from investment to defense. The Arabs tend to get worried whenever the Americans or the Iranians look directly at them; that is nothing compared to the emotions that will swirl the first time that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and U.S. President George W. Bush shake hands.

We expect the days and weeks ahead to be marked by a blizzard of activity as various players in Washington and Tehran attempt both to engage directly and to prepare the ground (still) for a final deal. Much will be dramatic, much will be contradictory, much will make no sense whatsoever. This is, after all, still the Middle East. But keep this in mind: With the nuclear issue out of the way, the heavy lifting has already been done and some level of understanding on Iraq’s future already is in place. All that remains is working out the “details.”

Todd says:

Think about it…diplomacy only works with an enemy when they think that you are willing to try something more severe if it fails. We were unwilling to work with Iran for anything less than a full hault to their weapons program. Iran wasnt ready to admit it had halted its program until they got the one thing they wanted…a US guarantee that Iraq would not become a Sunni dominated nation with Aggressive military capability.

Phillep says:

#20 – “What happens when a bully gets his bluff called”?

Well, Saddam danced the hemp fandango.

Anyone trying to discredit Bush would do better to prove that Saddam sent a secret message to Bush saying that he had actually gotten rid of the WMDs and he was concerned that Iran would invade if they knew about it. Otherwise, Bush had no way of knowing that the WMDs were actually gone.

Saddam had most of the world half convinced that he still had the WMDs, and one of the arguments against going in was that he would be using them against the US troops.

I’m going to have to put my documentation on a memory stick so it’s handy. These filters are a pain for researching this stuff.

Peter iNova says:

Here’s the predictive blog entry from yesterday. How well did it line up with today’s press conference? Just asking.

“The president will lie about the war in Iraq, he’ll try to snow people with Israeli lies about peace in Palestine, he’ll continue to lie about diplomatic relations with Iran, he’ll make-up dreams about the state of the U.S. economy and, finally, he’ll lie about his plans to veto any useful legislation to come from Congress – presuming the Democrats sprouted a backbone over the weekend.

“The reporters allowed to attend will not ask any dangerous questions.”

eyeofthetiger says:

I was going to watch … COD4 was had less gimps.