PDA

View Full Version : Reuters Reports Iran Has Not Decided to Build Nuclear Bomb, Probably Years Away



Conley
03-24-2012, 12:49 PM
The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

"They're keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it," a U.S. administration official said.

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.

That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M0G020120323

Like we discussed in the other thread, I look at a lot of different news sources. In the case of a story like this, it is really hard to tell who is closest to the truth. Perhaps when there are this many conflicting opinions the truth is no one knows, in which case my personal belief would be to err on the side of caution.

Mister D
03-24-2012, 12:51 PM
Interesting. I hope they're right.

Conley
03-24-2012, 12:59 PM
Part of the problem IMO is that our federal politicians distort the truth for their own political gains (and to divide us into following one of the two major parties).

Mister D
03-24-2012, 01:16 PM
Part of the problem IMO is that our federal politicians distort the truth for their own political gains (and to divide us into following one of the two major parties).

Either that or the truth per se is simply unknown but the politicians in question speak as if they possessed the truth on the matter.

MMC
03-24-2012, 07:25 PM
IMO the piece is bullshit.....some Pols playing games. We already have the AEIA stating amounts of enriched uranium was missing. We have Israeli Intel that stated they had enough 4 for bombs which was back in Nov or Dec. Also Iran test fired their ballistic missile system. Then to top it off we had the EYEOFHOLLA come directly out and state that they will not deviate from their course.

Also we had the Brits come out as to expressing concerns over the rhetoric that was taking place, with the strait of Hormuz, and the War games Iran was presenting.

RollingWave
03-25-2012, 11:46 AM
there is also the problem that you know, even the best spying in the world can not possiblly know for abosalute sure on such issues, intelligences is always far FAR from an exact science (unless they invent mind readers :grin:), espeically when we're talking about something like this. and not you know.. the precise location of targets.

MMC
03-25-2012, 12:45 PM
The Israelis sure didnt have a problem taking out specific scientists that were working for the Iranians. Which included what facility they were working at. Moreover they had no problem taking those scientists out inside Iran. I would say the Israeli Intel is one of the best. Their dispute came in as to whether it was enough for 4 or 6 bombs.

waltky
10-21-2012, 06:53 AM
US, Iran Agree to 1st Direct Nuclear Talks...
:huh:
U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks
October 20, 2012 - But negotiations are fraught with election-year politics


The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran. Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy. It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat. The White House denied that a final agreement had been reached. “It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said Saturday evening. He added, however, that the administration was open to such talks, and has “said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran. There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979. “We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

MORE (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp)

See also:

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with US
Sun Oct 21, 2012 - Iran denied on Sunday a report in a U.S. newspaper that it had plans for direct talks with the United States over its disputed nuclear program.


The New York Times reported, citing Obama administration officials, that the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to one-on-one negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, though the White House quickly denied the report.

"We don't have any discussions or negotiations with America," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a news conference on Sunday. "The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States."

Several rounds of talks this year between Iran and world powers, dubbed the P5+1, have failed to yield a breakthrough.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021

waltky
10-22-2012, 12:45 AM
Uncle Ferd says dey prob'ly got an agreement in place - dey just don't wanna say anythin' yet till dey got the harem girls worked out fer the Secret Service...
:wink:
White House Denies Agreement for Iran Talks
October 20, 2012 - The White House is denying a New York Times report that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks for the first time on Iran's nuclear program.


A White House spokesman said late Saturday that the United States will continue to work with its fellow members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany on a diplomatic solution. The spokesman said President Barack Obama has made it clear that he will do what he must to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

The newspaper, citing unnamed Obama administration officials, says the U.S. and Iran have been holding intense secret exchanges almost since Barack Obama became president in 2009.

The officials say Iran wants to wait until after the November U.S. presidential election to see with whom it would be negotiating, a second Obama administration or one under the Republican Mitt Romney, who has accused Obama of being too soft on Iran.

MORE (http://www.voanews.com/content/new-york-times-us-iran-agree-to-one-on-one-talks/1530401.html)

shaarona
10-25-2012, 08:43 AM
IMO the piece is bullshit.....some Pols playing games. We already have the AEIA stating amounts of enriched uranium was missing. We have Israeli Intel that stated they had enough 4 for bombs which was back in Nov or Dec. Also Iran test fired their ballistic missile system. Then to top it off we had the EYEOFHOLLA come directly out and state that they will not deviate from their course.

Also we had the Brits come out as to expressing concerns over the rhetoric that was taking place, with the strait of Hormuz, and the War games Iran was presenting.

Read Meir Dagan and Martin Van Creveld.. They agree that Iran is NOT a thret and oppose Bibi's irrtionl claims.

patrickt
10-25-2012, 09:00 AM
I try to read a variety of sources, too, but I do have a bias. I assume the NYT, MSNBC, and Reuters are lying and serving their political agenda ahead of any attempt to be journalists.

Deadwood
10-25-2012, 09:07 AM
Part of the problem IMO is that our federal politicians distort the truth for their own political gains (and to divide us into following one of the two major parties).

NO!'

Say it isn't so.


I think this has been a red herring for a long time. The majority of Iran is moderate. There are many influential Persians with dual citizenship around the world.

I think Achmedadinajad [sp] is a lot like Sadam Hussein - he likes to sabre rattle to compensate for a really, really tiny little dick

shaarona
10-25-2012, 09:10 AM
NO!'

Say it isn't so.


I think this has been a red herring for a long time. The majority of Iran is moderate. There are many influential Persians with dual citizenship around the world.

I think Achmedadinajad [sp] is a lot like Sadam Hussein - he likes to sabre rattle to compensate for a really, really tiny little dick

How on earth would you know the size of his dick?

Amadinnerjacket has no power.. and left to his own devices he would negotiate with the US and resolve the conflict.