Iran Halted Nuke Program Four Years Ago
Despite years of loudly proclaiming otherwise, the United States intelligence community now reports that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Mark Mazetti, NYT:
A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
[…]
“Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might — if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible — prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program,” the estimate states.
The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. The report led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the N.I.E.’s conclusions turned out to be wrong. The estimate does say that Iran’s ultimate goal is still to develop the capability to produce a nuclear weapon.
The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.” “The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.
That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose. Another way of looking at it is that the problem in question doesn’t exist.
Of course, that points to another problem: An intelligence system that so incentivizes bureaucratic backside covering that it overemphasizes threats and disregards contrary information.
Last month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the international Atomic Energy Agency, had reported that Iran was operating 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges, capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. But his report said that I.A.E.A. inspectors in Iran had been unable to determine whether the Iranian program sought only to generate electricity or also to build weapons.
The N.I.E. concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then. Instead, today’s report concludes it is more likely Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”
I’m no expert but I’d guess it’ll take even longer than that if Iran isn’t actually working on nuclear weapons.
You can read the unclassified report [PDF] at the The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
ABC News has more analysis. This is, as one might imagine, the top story at Memeorandum. Key reax:
- Dan Drezner: “One obvious implication: whatever slim chance there existed of a U.S. military intervention in Iran over the next 13 months just got way, way slimmer.”
- Steve Benen: “Phrases like ‘we were right’ probably aren’t prudent right now.”
- Sean-Paul Kelley: “Iran halted its ARMS program in 2003, not it’s nuclear energy program. The distinction is important. Cheney and his cronies have been trying to muddy the waters for a long time now in an attempt to conflate the two, but they are very, very different.”
- Jeffrey Lewis: “I can’t quite believe the IC agrees with something that Paul Kerr and I have been arguing was possible for years — that the bureaucratic consolidation undertaken in late 2003 may have choked off the clandestine program, at least for now. I mean, we were just making educated guesses.”
- Sharon Weinberger: “The key findings . . . don’t need much explaining.”
- Kevin Drum: “This isn’t just an NIE with a few dissenting footnotes, it’s an NIE whose primary conclusion is that Iran hasn’t been seriously working on a nuclear weapon for the past four years…”
Photo credit: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images.
Huh. I’d say Mr Hadley is a straight-up, bald-faced liar. This administration – specifically one Dick Cheney – has been doing everything in his power to _avoid_ a peaceful, diplomatic solution to this non-problem for at least a couple of years now.
I wonder if an early hint of this info had anything to do with Cheney’s heart palpitations last week… ‘Cause I’ll bet Joe Lieberman is having an embolism right about now.
Why do they need the centrifuges. I have trouble beleiving anything from anyone at this stage. The only people I recall being correct on this stuff are the Iranian resistance groups with people on the inside. You know, the groups, the IAE would not believe three years ago.
So let me get this straight:
Liberals and the liberal media start saying over and over that the Bush Admin wants to attack Iran. But the Bush Admin also get criticized for not negotiating or doing anything about Iran. And they continue to be accused of soon going to war with Iran. Then, when it is found out that Iran does not have a nuclear program going, the Bush admin is accused of making up lies about why they would go to war with Iran, even though they never said they would or gave any indication they would go to war with Iran in the first place!
I suppose this is all logical to liberals in their world of make-believe. I’m sure they have never heard of anything like secret negotiations, behind-the-scenes pressure etc. etc. God help us if they get more power during this so-far extremely successful war on terror.
Christopher, where the heck have you been the last 7 years? Your narration of history is pretty bizarre – even by right wing standards.
Wow. Wouldn’t have believed there really are those who can twist anything to sound like something Karl Rove would say, but I guess there are such people in the wild.
Well, assuming you’re not actually Karl Rove, of course.
From IranAffairs.com:
I can hear Dick Cheney now on MTP
“But Timmah, the intel was wrong about Iraq’s WMD programs, so how can we trust them now. If there’s a 10% chance they might have nukes we have to take them out. Remember 9-11 Timmah”
Hal,
If the Bush administration was as evil as you seem to believe, then they would have invaded Iran already.
But lets look at the facts on this. If true, then some event in 2003 caused Iran to stop working on an atomic bomb. Let’s put our thinking caps on and try to think of any events that happened in 2003 that might have dissuaded Iran. It’s a poser isn’t it.
Could it have been the world wide protest against the US invading Iraq? Do you think the Iranians wiped a tear from their eye and decided to join in the koombaya chorus?
Maybe it was the WHO issuing the SARS epidemic warnings. Or Arnold being elected governor.
Can you think of anything else that happened in that year that could possibly have persuaded Iran to stop work on the bomb?
Of course, I have to admit that the NIE saying Iran has stopped working on the bomb is probably the strongest evidence that they are very close to having the bomb.
There you have it!
Hal, I’m thinking about what event may have caused the Iranians to stop work on the bomb. Might, just might, it have been linked to some large “event” in Middle East where US actually showed it would actually “do something” rather than continue with status quo. Ya think? Maybe a credible threat (aka the willingness to use power) caused the Mullahs to pause. To ask oneself “do you feel lucky?”. Look to east and see a “new regime” and then look to west and surprise, “new regime”.
YAJ,
There is a huge difference between ‘evil’ and ‘competent’. Even though I’m a lefty, I still believe there are enough people in uniform who remember they swore an oath ‘to support and defend the Constitution’, and not ‘to make the Predsident happy’, to keep Bush & Cheney from invading Iran purely because they want to blow more shit up.
Yes, the invasion of Iraq very likely had an impact on Iran’s work towards nuke weapons. What exactly does that have to do with whether or not we should invade Iran now?
This is quite possibly the most stupidly infantile thing you’ve ever written. When the intelligence community works with experts, performs investigations, and sends teams out covertly & overtly to generate a solidly-defendable product that just happens to disagree with what you want to hear, you say they’re not credible. But when Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their water-brained cronies bribe know liars and criminals to tell them what they want to hear, disagreeing with intel professionals, _that’s_ credible to you. Brilliant.
What event in 2003? Hmmm…the IAEA inspections seem likely, since no-one was rattling sabres at Iran at the time.
Richard Armitage, Feb 15th 2003:
Regards, C
The logical thought process on display by the right here is pretty impressive.
If the Bush administration was as evil as you seem to believe, then they would have invaded Iran already.
Yes, and if the Iranians were as evil as they think, they would have bombed NY already.
I’m thinking about what event may have caused the Iranians to stop work on the bomb.
Wow, 2 commenters coming up with the same Clint Eastwood argument. Really, guys. Chuck Noris is the new Eastwood. Get with the program.
On the other hand, having pinned down the US forces, seeing them completely deadlocked in an insurgency turning into a civil war, watching us poor hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, seeing AQ leap at the opportunity to recruit far more terrorists than they ever dreamed, while simultaneously given them master’s education in urban warfare, all while our diplomatic punch is diminished to the approximate moral force of Uzbekistan…
Gee, maybe they just thought to themselves “who needs an atomic bomb? these jerks are just destroying themselves”. I mean, that’s the obvious conclusion here.
We couldn’t even handle Iraq. Iran, a far larger country, isn’t even plausible.
Yea, I’m sure they were quakin’ in their boots.
Another “intelligence” estimate brought to us by the same incompetents who missed the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, Iraq WMD’s, Indian nuclear test, Pakistan nuclear, and on and on..
Also, remember these are the same people who think Bush works for them and just to prove it, they have leaked one secret after another.
I don’t know if they are subversive or just inept.
lol, Sure it did.
graywolf, seems to me the common thread there is the Bush administration. Didn’t they remake “Team B” during this administration? Was Didn’t Rice get the PDB with the title “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”? Of course, no one could have predicted….
They say a fish rots from the head down, after all…
He has been here trying to smarten up the unsmartable, lol the the last 7 years, seems to me the reason we have the Iran problem, is because of your stupid liberal leaders, cowards and terrorist lovers, to stupid to see a threat beyond what slows down their personal pleasure and power.
Hal, where have you been the last 30+ years, oh ya I forgot off being the voice of Donkeyed up liberal space station the one that only plays shitty classical music, maybe thats how you missed whats relay been going on.
Liberal history narration: Once long ago there was group of peaceful ape men until one of them picked up a bone, used it to bash in another’s head became a conservative and brought evil into the world.
G.A.Phillips, I believe the saying goes, “Laugh while you can, monkey boy”.
Keep beating that security stick; just keep beating and beating and beating it over and over and over.
<heh> There’s a reason why they call it “wanking”.
I am not a monkeyworshiper I am a human being.
Strange. You’re certainly acting more like a monkey than a human.
Oh, and BTW, the quote is from Buckaroo Banzai which apparently is lost on you.
oh ya now I get it. and no I acting like liberal, opps I ment a jackass.
Hal,
It sounds like you are a fan of Harry Reid, who wanted to surrender the US military to AQ months ago. You libs are amazing! Wimps all of you!
The fact is, we won a long time ago in Iraq. Even though we still have soldiers getting killed as part of our security action there doesn’t change a thing. Iran gave up their nuclear ambitions as soon as they saw our huge fighting force near their border. They saw that we were WILLING to spend hundreds of billions.
WE KILL TERRORISTS EVERYDAY IN IRAQ! EVERYDAY! What we might accomplish in Iraq is global and could not only help our own security, but also millions who live there and the quality of their lives for the much better.
Your a pessimistic lib, Hal. I don’t expect you to believe it. You guys didn’t think Bush was very smart either. But you libs were the dumb ones. Sorry-ARE the dumb ones.
Statements like this surprise me.
Iran has probably the second or third largest reserves of natural gas in the world. Most of it they can’t do anything with because natural gas can’t be transported to most markets without being converted to LNG.
If Iran needed energy they could install gas turbines and be generating all of the electricity they need in a few years. At a much cheaper price then nuclear power.
The idea that their nuclear program is for “energy generation” does not make any sense
and no I acting like liberal, opps I ment a jackass.
This is what I love about these comment threads: the insight into the level of sophistication in the arguments of the right. In this case, you’ve responded in classic third grade playground style in which your response doesn’t even make sense in the world where you only need a small brain to play.
Your a pessimistic lib, Hal. I don’t expect you to believe it. You guys didn’t think Bush was very smart either. But you libs were the dumb ones. Sorry-ARE the dumb ones.
Yes, the war on pessimism has finally been won. Funny thing about popular opinion, though. No ones else seems to care about this particularly adolescent game you think we’re playing. Surge working? Great! Let’s bring the troops home.
Pretty much everyone other than the Malkin pep squad and Reynolds memorial auxiliary cyborg unit just wants this shit to be over with. You’re all slobbering for another war in the middle east – in the frickin’ gas station of the planet – which happens to be an even bigger country than the last 2 countries we did such a fantastic job of invading put together.
Seems to me, pretty much everyone is wondering what the hell you’re smoking rather than whooping and joining in dancing your victory dance.
Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but y’all have lost the whole mantle of the Security Dude. Now, while I understand you have this fetish about silver backed alpha males and this whole ritual cuddle butt thing that you love to do when you’re in the throws of a victory dance, but like I said previously, laugh while you can. If I’m not mistaken, the corporate types who really run your party are running pretty scared, realizing that your PARTAY! has run its course.
No permanent majority for you, I’m afraid.
The rest of us have to clean up your mess, clearly. But I’m sure you’ll still be running through the streets TP’ing peoples houses, short sheeting and putting cherry bombs down the toilet like good monkeys.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.
So to speak.
The idea that their nuclear program is for “energy generation” does not make any sense
Yes, because we all know that Iran will simply be able to prevent every other major power on the planet that’s starved for energy from simply taking it from them. I mean, they’re so strong and will clearly be able to prevent the rest of us from sucking them dry.
Hal,
Your or my political party is not a football team. Quit your girlie cheerleading.
Speaking of political parties, why haven’t the dems brought the troops home yet? Hmmmm…..? But after all they did vote for the war.
Hey, I’m not the one cheerleading and doing the end zone dance, am I? Quite bizarre, this thing that seems to pass for rational argument in your world.
In any event, I believe the answer to your question is quite obvious. It would be a) the republican Senators who’ve filibustered almost every attempt to do so and b) the republican President who vetoes anything that gets past the filibuster.
Oh, and I love the whole “girlie” thing. Sophisticated!
I’d kind of figured that Libya wussing out and A.Q. Khan being unavailable might have had something to do with it. That was late ’03 I think, but would likely figure into an NIE as 2003.
There’s usually multiple reasons for political decisions, and the confluence of a lack of material, the primary skull-sweat guy going to jail and angry troops right next door might have made this an easier call.
Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard has some interesting analysis on the newly released NIE.
While I recommend a full read of his comments, the questions he asks are listed below:
1. what intelligence is this assessment based upon?
2. what has changed since 2005?
3. how did the IC draw its line between a “civilian” nuclear program and a military one?
4. how does the IC know that Iran has stopped its clandestine activities with respect to developing nuclear weapons?
5. how does the IC know what motivated Iran’s alleged change in behavior?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/five_questions_concerning_the.asp
PS: Yesterday I read the definitionss of the confidence terms used in the NIE (I cannot find the link). The “high confidence” term used actually means they are not very confident at all.
PS:
I suppose the following is irrelevent to their bullet points.
“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.)”
The Great Game is afoot. Instead of the Brits playing it with the Russians the Intelligence community is playing it with the lawfull government of the USA.
Dude why, I’m smarter then you will ever be.
and I have never needed to go past a 3rd grade intellect to outsmart, out argue, our out stupid any of you liberals even if your to liberal to realize it.
oh ya I forgot that one gimp got me with the liberals giving liberals liberals thing but it was dumb luck!
I…ah, shit, nevermind.
I have never needed to go past a 3rd grade intellect
Yes, that has been made quite clear.
Hal,
Republican senators and the republican president? IS THAT THE BEST YOU GOT?!?
If that is true, why don’t we see more resolutions to stop the war? Why don’t we see more votes to bring the troops home? How is it we never see any proposals to stop funding for the troops except enough to bring them home? Even if they lose the votes, it is what America wants, isn’t it?????
The dems control the purse strings, but it is very obvious why they haven’t acted: many believe in and voted for the Iraq war. Despite your rhetoric. And while you can certainly believe what you want to believe, the fact is that most dems-your party-are playing politics when it comes to American lives and war. Despicable.
Republican senators and the republican president? IS THAT THE BEST YOU GOT?!?
I remember my first beer, too.
In any event, you do know that the current funding for the Iraq war is at logger heads because the democratic version of the bill wants to set a timetable to get the troops home, and Bush is threatening to veto it,right? Seems to me that the democrats are doing *precisely* what you claim that they’re not.
Must say that OTB has gotten more amusing since the Freeper-esque crowd started hanging around the comments. Now if we can just get y’all into an act with Mannning and others we could really make some money with this on the road.
I said
And Hal responded with.
LNG projects are very expensive, major projects that have long lead times. There is a shortage of construction capacity needed to build these projects.
Once again, the biggest part of Iranian natural gas has no value internationally because it can’t be transported out of Iran.
The idea of energy starved nations trying to steal energy that can’t be transported makes zero sense.
The Iranians have plenty of energy they don’t need nuclear for power. In fact the spending on nuclear is more then likely taking funding away from power projects that would provide more electricity much faster then nuclear will.
LNG projects are very expensive, major projects that have long lead times
Perhaps, but then so does a nuclear power program. And I think that if energy usage ramps up in the rest of the world close to anything approaching what the US consumes per capita, then the expense will be perfectly justified and I’m sure we’ll bend over backwards to get these projects finished ahead of schedule. And if we won’t or can’t, it’s not like there aren’t 6 billion other people on the planet with lower environmental standards and a streamlined dictatorship driven process which will.
The idea of energy starved nations trying to steal energy that can’t be transported makes zero sense.
You yourself have admitted it’s possible. Heck, we’re building LNG terminals here in the US. I’m pretty darn sure they’re scheduled elsewhere on the planet. There’s a lot of LNG pipelines all over the place and overland routes from Iran to places which will be starving for LNG are clearly available.
You’ve only pointed out that it’s expensive and a bit long term for the time being. That’s hardly proving it can’t be transported.
It’s just a matter of money, some time and how badly one wants it.
Iran does have a valid economic case for developing nuclear power – which is why the US encouraged and supported Iran’s nuclear program in the first place. Read up with the links at IranAffairs.com
Hass,
The fact that Iran has mismanaged their petroleum infrastructure and resources is not a good argument for them getting nuclear power.
It is a strong argument that they do not have the responsibility to handle a nuclear power system.
Especially since they have an abundance of natural gas that has no current value and could be used to generate power much faster and cheaper then nuclear will.
Hal,
LNG projects are currently being cancelled or undergoing significant cost increases because there is not enough engineering talent or materials to build the projects that are currently in the pipeline.
Without LNG conversion Iran’s natural gas has zero value on the international market.
However, Iran does not have to be convert their natural gas to LNG for them to use it inside Iran. They could have abundant power supply much faster by using natural gas not nuclear.
In other words it would generate value for them right now. And money right now is much more valuable then money sometime in the future.
Once again showing that the idea that Iran needs nuclear for power does not make any sense.
Especially since they have abundant alternatives to nuclear for power supply.
Well, regardless, the simple fact is that they are a sovereign nation and the hubris involved in paternalistically deciding what they can and cannot do is rather bizarre. I’m sure that, as a country which is the only country to use not one, but two nuclear bombs in an act of war, that rational people might decide that we’re hardly trustworthy or permitted to develop nuclear power. Certainly we’ve made no secret that we’re willing to use the weapons – without even provocation if necessary.
So, while interesting from an academic point of view, really means jack in a realistic, practical point of view.
What they are doing is permitted by treaty. Nothing we can do about it. The justification of it is pretty much immaterial.
Kind of like Israel’s 200+ nuclear weapons. Try justifying that little tidbit of information without turning into a pretzel.
Hal, you said
Hal if you had said up front that you were happy with Iran having a nuclear weapon it would have saved both of us a lot of time.
if you had said up front that you were happy with Iran having a nuclear weapon it would have saved both of us a lot of time
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
See, that’s funny because… well, it’s just silly. Obviously, a civilian nuclear program isn’t a weapons program. And anyone who thinks it’s just a hop and skip away from one obviously doesn’t know the first thing about nuclear weapons. The fact that you just take the very low road and twist what I said regarding a civilian program is pretty much evidence that you’re just arguing at the level of a third grader and you’re about a serious as one.
Prizes are given away at the door.