Convincing evidence of Iran's nuclear program

[danzig]

Yes a bit of a mockery of another thread but a serious topic:
http://nytimes.com/2005/11/13/intern...gewanted=print

This explains why France, Germany and Brits all appear to be on the same page as the US with regards to Iran and a reason why they seem rather unbending on the issue. It also shows one of the major failings of Iraq we are going to have to live with for quite some time in mistrust of information that comes from American sources...notice one European diplomat seems 'unsure' of the laptop information despite the fact it appears France, Germany and Brits are all convinced it is legit. The one thing that strikes me as positive in this is that US says it didnt come from resistences groups, a big sore point on Iraq intelligence which means US is aquiring intel in a manner that (hopefully) less prone to groups with an agenda altering. Of course alway going to be people who go you were wrong about Iraq why should we believe you this time but from comments in the article the data the 'stolen' computer files seem incredibly detailed that it would be very tough for it to be fabricated. As always Im posting this stuff because it seems unless its US screwing up it doesnt get much attention. Of course the fact the Iranians are lying (if this is accurate) has little bearing on whether we can or should do anything to stop them but the more important point (atleast to me) is maybe a sign US intelligence has learned a lesson in aquiring information and presenting it in a less dramatic way for allies to view....basically letting the information speak for itself rather then trying to say what the information shows as done with Iraq.

[Francisco Montana]

Yep. It's nice we can agree with the Europeans on something. Just think if Iran had nukes and the overwhelmingly Muslims rioters in France ask for help from the homeland. Remember, alot of these immigrants in France don't consider themselves French at all.

I know it's a stretch. But when you are charged with protecting your people, it's a stretch you have to consider nonetheless.

[Rapax]

Yep. It's nice we can agree with the Europeans on something. Just think if Iran had nukes and the overwhelmingly Muslims rioters in France ask for help from the homeland. Remember, alot of these immigrants in France don't consider themselves French at all.

I know it's a stretch. But when you are charged with protecting your people, it's a stretch you have to consider nonetheless.

You're not serious are you? How can an educated person make such ridiculous assumptions?

[Ummon]

You're not serious are you? How can an educated person make such ridiculous assumptions?

I saw a footage of rioters screaming "Jihad Jihad", some days ago. It must have been a hallucination. Now far from me suggesting here that this may be the rule, but perhaps some of them do not feel French...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I saw a footage of rioters screaming "Jihad Jihad", some days ago. It must have been a hallucination.

I saw a news report about these supposed 'Jihadist' rioters trying to torch a mosque in Lyon on the weekend. Perhaps I was hallucinating too.

Or perhaps certain people are determined to interpret current events through the distorting lens of bigotry.

... perhaps some of them do not feel French...

That seems to be the root problem for most of them, including the ones who come from African and Portugese Christian backgrounds, regardless of what slogans some of them are shouting.

[Erik]

Nonetheless, doubts about the intelligence persist among some foreign analysts. In part, that is because American officials, citing the need to protect their source, have largely refused to provide details of the origins of the laptop computer beyond saying that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a longtime contact in Iran. Moreover, this chapter in the confrontation with Iran is infused with the memory of the faulty intelligence on Iraq's unconventional arms. In this atmosphere, though few countries are willing to believe Iran's denials about nuclear arms, few are willing to accept the United States' weapons intelligence without question.

At least this shows people did learn.

Officials said scientists at the American weapons labs, as well as foreign analysts, had examined the documents for signs of fraud. It was a particular concern given the fake documents that emerged several years ago purporting to show that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Officials said they found the warhead documents, written in Persian, convincing because of their consistency and technical accuracy and because they showed a progression of developmental work from 2001 to early 2004.

I also wonder how many scientists were skeptic, but "choose" to remain silent out of.. ahum.. "personal" reasons.
(relying on my "people did learn" theory again).

Tehran test-fired an upgraded version of the Shahab - shooting star in Persian - in a flight that featured the first appearance of an advanced nose cone made up of three distinct shapes. Missile experts noted that such triconic nose cones have great range, accuracy and stability in flight, but less payload space. Therefore, experts say, they have typically been used to carry nuclear arms.

Or maybe they wanted accurate missiles becasue they wanted to have some chance of hitting something other than a sand dune?
And maybe it needs to have a long range because they don't look forward to being a sitting duck while the enemy shoots at them with the long range weapons THEY have.

And here is a nice comparison:
My country is (finally IMO) condidering to buy tomahawk cruise missiles.
What? tomahawks?
But aren't they long range, very accurate and often equiped with a nuclear warheads???
I think an investigation is in order.

Iran insists it is pursuing only peaceful energy, and notes that nations like Japan, South Korea and Brazil have advanced civilian nuclear programs and sophisticated missiles, but have been aided by the West in building their programs rather than being accused of trying to make atomic warheads.

"Second-class countries are allowed to produce only tomato paste," said Mr. Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator. "The problem is that Iran has come out of its shell and is trying to have advanced technology."

I fully agree with this guy.
I hate the double standards.

Before the Iraq war, Dr. ElBaradei had attracted the wrath of the Bush administration by declaring that his agency had found no evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program. And the administration had tried to oust Dr. ElBaradei, an Egyptian, from his post, partly because they found him insufficiently tough on Iran.

Yes, let's attack Dr. ElBaradei.
The bastard told the truth about Iraq.
Now he is going to tell the truth about Iran too?
Damn him, how can anybody start a nice oil war with guys like him countering well-spinned intelligenge?

The United States rarely shares raw intelligence outside a small circle of close allies. But it decided to disseminate a shortened version of the secret warhead briefing. Mr. Joseph and his colleagues presented it to the president of Ghana and to officials from Argentina, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Nigeria, among other nations.

"Shortened" like the intelligence on Iraq was "shortened" to include only one sided evidence?
And those are it's closest allies now?
Good thing Ghana isn't at all corrupt or anything (I grew up there, btw).

But the administration felt uncomfortable sharing any classified intelligence with another ring of countries. For them, it developed the equivalent of the white paper on Iraq that Britain and the United States published before the Iraq war.

Oh, that's good we get to see a "white paper".
This wil surely be reliable.

The 43-page unclassified briefing includes no reference to the warhead documents, but uses commercial satellite photos and economic analysis to argue that Iran has no need for nuclear power and has long hidden its true ambitions.

Sattelite pictures showing Iran doesn't have a electricity shortage?
What did they do, count TV's?

Many economists say Iran DOES have an electricity shortage, but of course you can always find some who say they don't.
This is no evidence at all, it just shows how the US cuts and selects data to show a one-sided picture.

The briefing asserted that Iran did not have enough proven uranium reserves to fuel its nuclear power program beyond 2010. But it does have enough uranium, the report added, "to give Iran a significant number of nuclear weapons."

Gosh, maybe that's why Iran tries to make uranium deals with Russia?

The Bush administration is confident in its evidence. "There is not a single country we deal with that does not believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon," said Mr. Burns, the under secretary of state.

There is not a single country that wouldn't want nuclear weapons if the country with the world biggest (edit: make that strongest) army is planning to invade and steal it's oil, DUH.

The real question is:
Does Iran realy want to exchange nuclear weapons for nuclear power?
But since the US denies them this option I guess it wil be nuclear weapons anyways.

edit: :original: <- smilyface just to show I am not bitter.

[Zelech]

Firstly, you're a very bitter person Erik.

Secondly, biggest != strongest army. We have a small army.

Thirdly, I'm not a master on the subject, but--and please correct or embellish if I'm wrong/leaving things out/mistaking things--I thought I heard the US had made a deal with Iran for making nuclear power stations.

[danzig]

Ah well was hoping someone wouldnt fall into standard rhetoric mode but I guess you killed that hope Erik. The topic as I mentioned was it appears US is going about intelligence in a more credibile way rather then counting on other parties as they did with Iraq. A stolen laptop would indicate more direct approach to intelligence (a return to actual 'operatives' maybe?) gathering rather then just monitoring communications and counting on groups with a dubious agenda of their own. As far as a double standard yep bet there is and thank god too because there is a huge difference in Japan, South Korea and Brazil having a nuclear program and Iran having.

[Erik]

Firstly, you're a very bitter person Erik.

Secondly, biggest != strongest army. We have a small army.

I corrected my post.

Thirdly, I'm not a master on the subject, but--and please correct or embellish if I'm wrong/leaving things out/mistaking things--I thought I heard the US had made a deal with Iran for making nuclear power stations.

I think you are confusing the US with Russia, who did try to make deals with Iran to build nuclear power stations.
AFAIK the US has always been against Iran getting involved with any nuclear activity but if they did it must be before 1979 (when the Shah was still in power).

Ah well was hoping someone wouldnt fall into standard rhetoric mode but I guess you killed that hope Erik.

Like you realy expected anything else from me, I know you'r not that naive.

The topic as I mentioned was it appears US is going about intelligence in a more credibile way rather then counting on other parties as they did with Iraq. A stolen laptop would indicate more direct approach to intelligence (a return to actual 'operatives' maybe?) gathering rather then just monitoring communications and counting on groups with a dubious agenda of their own.

And here is where I fully disagree with you.
Like I pointed out im my first post I think the US handles intelligence about Iran exactly like they did with Iraq, including denying their "allies" access to the hard data and only sharing one-sided evidence.

If you look at the failure of intelligence surrounding Iraq it wasn't that the agencies had faulty info, th epoliticians just drew the wrong conclusion because they(*) only distilled the parts that supported the WMD theory, while ignoring all the evidence that contadicted it.

(*) Who "they" are here I don't know, could be politicians OR agencies.

[danzig]

I
And here is where I fully disagree with you.
Like I pointed out im my first post I think the US handles intelligence about Iran exactly like they did with Iraq, including denying their "allies" access to the hard data and only sharing one-sided evidence.

If you look at the failure of intelligence surrounding Iraq it wasn't that the agencies had faulty info, th epoliticians just drew the wrong conclusion because they(*) only distilled the parts that supported the WMD theory, while ignoring all the evidence that contadicted it.

(*) Who "they" are here I don't know, could be politicians OR agencies.

Its the intelligence business, all cards arent going to be laid out whether its the US, Brits, France or whoever no intelligence agency is going to give away the details of how information is obtained. Its not a fool proof job after all, the difference is that this time around the US isnt presenting the intel thru the way they see it, the information being provided with Iran is 'hard data' right off their computers how much more direct can you get with intel...it is up for other countries to decide whether its credible given the information itself they either believe it based on what is in front of them or not, as most have said it is rather detailed information that would take an incredible effort to fake. Obviously all 3 of the 'big' EU nations seem to agree it is indeed credible...that is alot different from Iraq where you had intelligence of 'fishy' behavior followed by the conclusion of the US as to what it means...that doesnt appear to be the case here. Who 'they' are is never going to be public knowledge

[Erik]

Its not a fool proof job after all, the difference is that this time around the US isnt presenting the intel thru the way they see it, the information being provided with Iran is 'hard data' right off their computers how much more direct can you get with intel...it is up for other countries to decide whether its credible given the information itself (...)

What are you talking about, have you not read:

But the administration felt uncomfortable sharing any classified intelligence with another ring of countries. For them, it developed the equivalent of the white paper on Iraq that Britain and the United States published before the Iraq war.

Only a few countries wil get hard data, and even they wil get just some fragments. Ghana, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Nigeria are amongst those lucky few.

Others (I assume those include the EU countries) wil only get a "white paper" like the one on Iraq.

Obviously all 3 of the 'big' EU nations seem to agree it is indeed credible.

No, those EU3 just donlt want to grant Iran nuclear power, just like the US.
They prefer Iran to stay poor and undeveloped.
Contrary to what FOX-news might say, Iran is no EU friend.

..that is alot different from Iraq where you had intelligence of 'fishy' behavior followed by the conclusion of the US as to what it means...that doesnt appear to be the case here. Who 'they' are is never going to be public knowledge

The problem is that the US only wants to share it's final conclusions, it dowesn't what to tell what information they based their conclusion on.

Like with Iraq they wil write a "wite paper" saying "Iran has nukes, we know because we have some intel you don't have".
But what they should do is share the actual intel with it's "allies", in stead of just their conculsions.

[Zelech]

While you're still bitter, that made my day.
And now I'll leave the topic to the big boys.

[Tiwaz]

Just one thing... I doubt it would be problematic for USA to fabricate such evidence. It's easy for USA to provide suitable material. Just take some of US own nuclear plans and translate them to farsi.

Poof, it is perfectly consistent since it is real nuke design plan but little modified to look iranian.

Not an impossibility.

[danzig]

Just one thing... I doubt it would be problematic for USA to fabricate such evidence. It's easy for USA to provide suitable material. Just take some of US own nuclear plans and translate them to farsi.

Poof, it is perfectly consistent since it is real nuke design plan but little modified to look iranian.

Not an impossibility.

I would think it would be a bit more complicated then simply translating plans since you have to assume Iranian engineers/scientist arent as adept at this (yet) so there would no doubt be gaps, mistakes etc. As the article said it wouldnt be impossible (one unnamed european diplomat seems to think the same as you) but it would be very unlikely given the information on hand as it seems the big 3 EU nations dont seem to doubt the information. As I expect though belief in this for some will fall soley on their opinion of the US ie there are going to be those who think its fake regardless.

[Kanaric]

I find it funny that some countrys are allowed to have nukes but others aren't simply because they are "badguys". If iran even had nukes i doubt they would use them. Afterall Isreal has nukes of their own as well.

[Marshal Qin]

I trust Iran not to use its nukes just like I trusted the USSR/USA no to use theirs - unless attacked. I think its as Erik said (in part), that the west just does not want to see the middle east develop into a powerful economic or militay region. As long as they don't have nukes, the west can do what it wills with no fear of a response.
Oil is a powerful economic tool which is probably why the west accepts OPEC, it can be corrupted and turned away from being used to develop nations. Think about how much money has gone into places like Saudi Arabia while many still live in third world conditions. When looking at Saddam, corrupt and skimming off vast amounts of cash as he was, prior to the sanctions his country was doing just fine with what was left over from his excesses - then it, and he, got squashed..... Imgaine a middle eastern nation that actually used the revenue from oil to build a modern infrastructure and military.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but it all links up in a way - OPEC, Saudi Arabia (a corrupt and totalitarian state supported by the US), Iraq destroyed and now stopping Iran from gaining any sort of edge. The west doesn't want the east to become a rival imo, everything else is just propaganda designed to legitimise our actions to our people.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it all links up in a way - OPEC, Saudi Arabia (a corrupt and totalitarian state supported by the US), Iraq destroyed and now stopping Iran from gaining any sort of edge. The west doesn't want the east to become a rival imo, everything else is just propaganda designed to legitimise our actions to our people.

That's no conspiracy theory. Anyone with half a brain and the vaguest grasp of the last 50 years of history can see that is precisely what's going on. The squarking noises about how the kind, gentle USA is nobly exporting 'freedom' and democracy to the Middle East is pathetically naive. When it suited the US Government's purposes, it happily helped prop up Saddam and conveniently turned a blind eye to his atrocities. As soon as it was no longer useful to do this, they turned on him. Now he's gone, they're pursuing their PNAC wet dream of US bases in the heart of the region's most oil rich areas, with a compliant local government and a privatised oil infrastructure.

When pushed hard enough all but the most dizzy Bush fans will drop the high-minded rhetoric and admit that, in fact, this is all true. Then they'll say that it's simply realpolitik, that 'all great powers do this kind of thing' (which, apparently, makes their rhetoric and hypocrisy all okay) and that they'll do it anyway. Why? 'Because we can.'

Might makes right, so screw the rest of the world.

Then they blink in surprise and ask 'Why do they hate us?'

[Marshal Qin]

Then they blink in surprise and ask 'Why do they hate us?'

Narcissism has been known to cause blindness and short term memory loss...

[Scar Face]

I don't belive the site I learned along time ago not to trust site's with spelling or gramttical errors. Almost the 3 lined is a sentence that start's with And.. hmm I learned in grade 1 not to do that..so...Propaganda