View Full Forums : Here we go again with the crappy intelligence...


Panamah
09-14-2006, 12:11 PM
IAEA complains of 'outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report to House Intelligence Committee (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/14/europe/EU_GEN_Nuclear_Iran_US.php)
A recent U.S. House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the Vienna-based agency and the U.S. administration over whether Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

Tudamorf
09-14-2006, 02:05 PM
...IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei...He <i>does</I> come from a relatively moderate country, but still. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Thicket Tundrabog
09-14-2006, 02:40 PM
I do get concerned about exagerrations and misrepresentations about Iran and their nuclear program. Just picture another invasion, where the conclusion is that there was no nuclear weapons program in Iran. I don't trust Iran, but I trust Western media (especially American) a whole lot less. Misleading or false media reports are orchestrated to convince a naive public that a government's course of action is correct. If you combine the media lies (even if they are unintentional falsehoods) with a nationalistic cloak, it can become dangerous and tragic -- like Iraq.

Remember the crap media story about Iranian Jews, Christians and Zoroastarians being forced to wear visible identification? Lots of people believed that. Some probably still do.

Menilya
09-14-2006, 06:09 PM
A good solution would be for Iran to allow unfettered inspection with the UN inspectors being accompanied by media from both the East (Arab countries) and the West (US and its allies) and allow the media to show live broadcasts of these inspections.

Anka
09-14-2006, 06:36 PM
A good solution would be for Iran to allow unfettered inspection with the UN inspectors being accompanied by media from both the East (Arab countries) and the West (US and its allies) and allow the media to show live broadcasts of these inspections.

No country would allow that. It's a security risk (read that as terrorist risk if you like).

vestix
09-14-2006, 09:43 PM
I presume the report being attacked is this one:

Report of August 23, 2006 (http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf#search=%22house%20intellige nce%20committee%20report%20on%20iran%20nuclear%20e nrichment%22)

Let's look at some quotes (emphasis added):

page 4:

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte provided his assessment in his 2006 Annual
Threat Report that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.5 America's intelligence agencies have also
assessed the following about the Iranian threat:
• Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in
violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and
despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The U.S. Intelligence
Community believes that Tehran probably has not yet produced or acquired the fissile
material (weapons-grade nuclear fuel) needed to produce a nuclear weapon; Director of
National Intelligence John Negroponte has stated that Iran will not be “in a position to have
a nuclear weapon” until “sometime between the beginning of the next decade and the middle
of the next decade”.

page 6:
Iran's efforts since December 2005 to resume enrichment of uranium, in defiance of the
international community, Tehran's willingness to endure international condemnation, isolation, and
economic disruptions in order to carry out nuclear activities covertly indicates Iran is developing
nuclear weapons. It is worth noting, however, that some outside experts hold another view and
believe that senior Iranian leaders are divided on whether to proceed with a nuclear weapons
program, and contend that some Iranian officials argue that Iran should pursue nuclear research
within the guidelines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) so Iran can maintain
international trade links.10 These outside experts hold that until the leadership’s intentions and
decisions are known, it is difficult to assert with confidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear
weapons.

I could go on, but won't.

So, where's the beef? The report does say that Iran is producing weapons-grade HEU - in the caption of a photo. This isn't "flawed intelligence," it's a lapse of technical editing.

I haven't finished reading the report, but from what I have read (about the first half), this seems to be a fairly reliable and balanced report, and the IAEA is grandstanding.

This just reinforces my opinion that the IAEA in general, and Elbaradei in particular, is not to be trusted.

As a side note, I find it appalling that of the half dozen or so on-line articles that I read on this, not one included a link to the actual report or gave any indication that the reporter had bothered to perform even a cursory fact-check of the IAEA allegations.

Panamah
09-14-2006, 09:59 PM
Well, since the article says the letter was dated August 12, it seems unliked.
Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

Aidon
09-14-2006, 11:28 PM
Does it really matter?

If you can enrich uranium enough for energy purposes...you can further enrich it to weapons grade uranium.

Only an absolute moron would believe that Iran, once it can mass enrich uranium, will not seek out weapons grade yields.

****ing peacenik, Chamberlains.

vestix
09-15-2006, 01:25 AM
Well, since the article says the letter was dated August 12, it seems unliked.
They likely had an advance copy. Either that, or there's a second report issued in the recent weeks on the same topic that I'm unable to locate.
Does it really matter?

If you can enrich uranium enough for energy purposes...you can further enrich it to weapons grade uranium.

Only an absolute moron would believe that Iran, once it can mass enrich uranium, will not seek out weapons grade yields.
Given enough equipment, yes. I think Iran has publicly stated its intent to procure the necessary number of centrifuges, although it hasn't yet done so. (Sorry, jet lag prevents me from finding the reference immediately).

Minadin
09-15-2006, 02:20 AM
Despite the fact that he's an arab muslim, El Baradei did win the Nobel Peace prize . . . so I dunno if he's so sinister, and I think it's wrong (for me) to think that based on his ethnicity and religion, he's not objective. At least until I know more about him. I try to stay away from those kinds of associations. On the other hand, didn't Arafat also win the Nobel Peace Prize one year?

I think it would be really nice to believe, and even better if it were true, that Iran is enriching uranium for peaceful energy generation purposes in order to help the people of that country, that region, and the world (the less petrol they use the more is available for others that don't use other sources, it's at least beneficial in the short run). However, given some of the rhetoric of their president, I'll require a little more proof before I believe that's what's happening here.

If they do develop nuclear weapons capabilities, I wonder who would strike them first. They are one country, with their ties to Hizbullah and other agencies of terror, that wouldn't require any sort of long-range delivery system for a nuclear warhead. In any event, it would seem to be better for all parties to prevent that from happening in the first place.

MadroneDorf
09-15-2006, 03:28 AM
Yea Nobel Peace prize was awarded to Arafat (and Sharone IIRC)

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 05:16 AM
El Baradei did win the Nobel Peace prize

So?

Tookie Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.


It does not mean anything at all.

Thicket Tundrabog
09-15-2006, 08:07 AM
Only an absolute moron would believe that Iran, once it can mass enrich uranium, will not seek out weapons grade yields.

... and only an absolute moron would believe that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, especially since they used them in the early 1990's... oh wait... you mean they actually DIDN'T have WMD?? Well doh... who's the moron now?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 08:43 AM
... and only an absolute moron would believe that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, especially since they used them in the early 1990's... oh wait... you mean they actually DIDN'T have WMD?? Well doh... who's the moron now?

I suppose it is less moronic to wait until they have them.

In Bizzaro World.

B_Delacroix
09-15-2006, 09:17 AM
In my cynical opinion, American leadership is still engaging in the politics of fear. It is the platform the current extreme republican political candidates are running on. However, I think the public is getting wise to this and that is a good thing so the situation may change in the coming years.

That still leaves the present.

Iran isn't stupid. If they wanted to build nuclear weapons, I'm sure they are pretty confident they could get away with it. They pretty much own the world's energy supply. Only Europe and the US can oppose them. China already trades with them. Nobody likes the US so that leaves Iran in a very good position to dictate terms.

Iran is shrewd, though. Somebody there knows that public opinion is fickle. So they go slowly. It doesn't change the fact that at any time they can and have said, "we can do anything we want and you will still buy our oil" and they are right.

My naive solution is that we, the US, fund ways to get away from dependency on oil from Iran and all those other unstable countries. I don't care what form it comes in. We can clean up the environment at the same time by going to something less than oil or just bite the bullet and drill our own.

At that point, I'd let Iran do whatever they wanted but watch them. I'd give them the rope to hang themselves with. IF it turned out that they have no interest in a nuclear weapon, then all is great. If they do, then we'd know about it and more than likely have support from the rest of the world. At any rate, they'd have no hold over this country.

I also think that they are rich enough and friendly enough with other nuclear holding countries that if they really wanted a nuclear bomb, they'd be able to get one without having to show off to the world what they are doing.

Aidon
09-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Yea Nobel Peace prize was awarded to Arafat (and Sharone IIRC)

Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Aidon
09-15-2006, 10:17 AM
... and only an absolute moron would believe that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, especially since they used them in the early 1990's... oh wait... you mean they actually DIDN'T have WMD?? Well doh... who's the moron now?

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Crappy old ones, but they had them. They are now in Syria.

Their WMD's weren't a viable threat though, if they were even functional.

You're the moron, though, if you think Iran isn't trying to obtain nuclear weapons and that it isn't a big deal if they do.

Iran has made it clear it wishes to destroy a sovereign nation. It has made itself clear that it wishes genocide. It has made it clear that it supports terrorism the world over and that it wishes to be the vanguard of a Pan-Islamic empire.

Do you think they will hesitate to wander a small nuke into Toronto if they think it will help their cause? Or perhaps into Berlin if Merkel keeps selling Israel submarines?

Do you really want to risk waiting until something starts glowing? Hell, you don't even have to do anything. Just don't the US crap when we go in, that's all we ask. Stay the **** out of our way and shut yer appeasement oriented yaps

Aidon
09-15-2006, 10:23 AM
In my cynical opinion, American leadership is still engaging in the politics of fear. It is the platform the current extreme republican political candidates are running on. However, I think the public is getting wise to this and that is a good thing so the situation may change in the coming years.

That still leaves the present.

Iran isn't stupid. If they wanted to build nuclear weapons, I'm sure they are pretty confident they could get away with it. They pretty much own the world's energy supply. Only Europe and the US can oppose them. China already trades with them. Nobody likes the US so that leaves Iran in a very good position to dictate terms.

Iran is shrewd, though. Somebody there knows that public opinion is fickle. So they go slowly. It doesn't change the fact that at any time they can and have said, "we can do anything we want and you will still buy our oil" and they are right.

My naive solution is that we, the US, fund ways to get away from dependency on oil from Iran and all those other unstable countries. I don't care what form it comes in. We can clean up the environment at the same time by going to something less than oil or just bite the bullet and drill our own.

Was it Tudamorf who posted, in another thread, that only 11% of US oil comes from the Middle East?

We don't need their oil. We really don't.

At that point, I'd let Iran do whatever they wanted but watch them. I'd give them the rope to hang themselves with. IF it turned out that they have no interest in a nuclear weapon, then all is great. If they do, then we'd know about it and more than likely have support from the rest of the world. At any rate, they'd have no hold over this country.

We cannot wait for them to develop the weapon before we do anything about it. Israel can't anyways...

I also think that they are rich enough and friendly enough with other nuclear holding countries that if they really wanted a nuclear bomb, they'd be able to get one without having to show off to the world what they are doing.

No, they couldn't.

The nuclear bearing nations are all very careful with their weapons now..and all keep tabs on each other. We know exactly how many nukes Russia has who knows how many we have who knows how many China has. etc. etc.

Neither Pakistan nor India wants a nuclear armed Iran...its too close.

I suppose France might sell them weapons, those assholes.

Thicket Tundrabog
09-15-2006, 10:25 AM
In my cynical opinion, American leadership is still engaging in the politics of fear.

Agree.

However, I think the public is getting wise to this and that is a good thing so the situation may change in the coming years.

I sure hope so. However, never underestimate the power of nationalism that's been pounded in from early childhood.

If they (Iran) wanted to build nuclear weapons, I'm sure they are pretty confident they could get away with it.

Agree. Frankly, I think at least a third of the world's nations could build nuclear weapons if they wanted to. Probably more than a third.

Iran is shrewd, though. Somebody there knows that public opinion is fickle. So they go slowly. It doesn't change the fact that at any time they can and have said, "we can do anything we want and you will still buy our oil" and they are right.

Shrewd? Maybe. They're clearly smart enough to not try to hide their intentions and actions. The West doesn't like it, but there are only certain options. I definitely agree that public opinion is fickle. If it's not on the news, people forget quickly. How many times have you seen North Korea in the news in the past month? That's yesterday's topic. It may become tomorrow's topic, but right now, it's a lame horse.

My naive solution is that we, the US, fund ways to get away from dependency on oil from Iran and all those other unstable countries. I don't care what form it comes in. We can clean up the environment at the same time by going to something less than oil or just bite the bullet and drill our own.

It may be naive, but it's also what the U.S. needs to do. You need another JFK/moon race situation. Build up the passion, spend the money and become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I also think that they are rich enough and friendly enough with other nuclear holding countries that if they really wanted a nuclear bomb, they'd be able to get one without having to show off to the world what they are doing.

Agree

Thicket Tundrabog
09-15-2006, 10:34 AM
Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Crappy old ones, but they had them. They are now in Syria.

Their WMD's weren't a viable threat though, if they were even functional.

You're the moron, though, if you think Iran isn't trying to obtain nuclear weapons and that it isn't a big deal if they do.

Iran has made it clear it wishes to destroy a sovereign nation. It has made itself clear that it wishes genocide. It has made it clear that it supports terrorism the world over and that it wishes to be the vanguard of a Pan-Islamic empire.

Do you think they will hesitate to wander a small nuke into Toronto if they think it will help their cause? Or perhaps into Berlin if Merkel keeps selling Israel submarines?

Do you really want to risk waiting until something starts glowing? Hell, you don't even have to do anything. Just don't the US crap when we go in, that's all we ask. Stay the **** out of our way and shut yer appeasement oriented yaps

From Wikipedia

Paranoia is an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive, perhaps to the point of being a psychosis. This typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a likely threat, or a belief in a conspiracy theory.
--------
Your turn to post the Wikipedia definition of Naive... Lol.

Aidon
09-15-2006, 11:50 AM
I don't think it qualifies as Paranoia when the 2nd most powerful man in a nation insists on obtaining nuclear power with one breath and then with the second breath advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation.

Tudamorf
09-15-2006, 02:16 PM
Iran isn't stupid. If they wanted to build nuclear weapons, I'm sure they are pretty confident they could get away with it. They pretty much own the world's energy supply.Wrong. They produce 15% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html) of the Persian Gulf's oil (Saudi Arabia is the largest producer by far, at 50%). And only 11% (http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/rpc/rpc_052306.pdf) of U.S. oil comes from the entire Persian Gulf, of which Iran is an insignificant amount. Only the Asians are heavily dependent on Persian Gulf oil, and even there, Iran is not the biggest player. Iran does not "own the world's energy supply," not by a longshot.

Iran's biggest weapon in this ordeal is not their oil, but public opinion. They know they have most muslim countries, Europe, and Russia on their side in any conflict against the United States or Israel, and <i>that</i> is the power they keep milking.Iran is shrewd, though. Somebody there knows that public opinion is fickle. So they go slowly.What evidence do you have that they're "going slowly"? To me, it looks as though they're moving full speed ahead towards nuclear power.My naive solution is that we, the US, fund ways to get away from dependency on oil from Iran and all those other unstable countries. At any rate, they'd have no hold over this country.Since we have zero dependence on Iran's oil, your plan would make absolutely no difference. The key here is public opinion, or, as Fyyr once put it, what we think about what others think about us. Once we sever <i>that</i> dependence on foreign opinion, we'll be free to act.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
09-15-2006, 07:56 PM
I don't think it qualifies as Paranoia when the 2nd most powerful man in a nation insists on obtaining nuclear power with one breath and then with the second breath advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation.

Of course it is NOT paranoia.

Paranoia is irrational. Iranians are irrational. Any Westerner who trusts what Iran is going to do with Uranium is irrational.

Rational concern of a despotic regime whose intent is malevolent to unknown is prudence, not paranoia.

To Thicket, I was a teenager when these asshats kidnapped a bunch of Americans and held them hostage. I am sure you are about my age, and should remember that crap. Remember when they tore Komenis body from limb from limb at his funeral. Those people are not rational. Dude, what are you talking about, this is Iran.

MadroneDorf
09-15-2006, 09:44 PM
SOURCES: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html and associated pages

The Top 3 places the US gets oil is Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and we get somewhere somewhere between 12 and 22% of our oil from the Middle East (12% of our demand 22% of our total import) {As the US also produces a lot of oil)

With Saudia Arabia (71) Iraq (19) and Kuwait (9) (or a total of 99% from those three countries of that 12/20%.

A total of aproximatly 2.5 million barrels a day from those three countries to the US

Western Europe (who are OECD) gets about the same total from the Middle East/day (2.6 million bbls a day)

The US has held a steady 10-12% of their total oil demand from the middle east, while increasing our total imports from 16 to 22%.

Europe has decreased their total oil from Persian gulf from 29% to 17%, while a total amount of importing from 45% to 30%.

With Japan going from ~60% to 75% for both import and total demand.

The largest share of Persian Gulf oil exports to Western Europe came from Saudi Arabia (52%), with significant amounts also coming from Iran (33%), Iraq (7%), and Kuwait (6%).

Sorta interesting... Japan gets most of its oil from the middle east

Japan averaged 4.2 million bbl/d of net oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2003. Japan's dependence on the Persian Gulf for its oil supplies increased sharply since the low point of 57% in 1988 to a high of 78% in 2003. About 30% of Japan's Persian Gulf imports in 2003 came from Saudi Arabia, 29% from the United Arab Emirates, 17% from Iran, 12% from Kuwait, 11% from Qatar, and around 1% from Bahrain and Iraq combined. Japan's oil imports from the Persian Gulf as a percentage of demand continued to rise to new highs, reaching 78% in 200

Iran supplise a Total of about 2.5 million barrels a day to worldwide markets (Zero {0} to the US)

specifically for Iran

Per day exports

570k - Japan
284k - China
195k - South Korea
193k - Italy
142k - France
139k - Netherlands
138k - Turkey
134k - South Africa
125k - Taiwan
105k - Greece

SOURCES: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html and associated pages

MadroneDorf
09-15-2006, 09:55 PM
In terms of getting oil from Countries that don't like US and we have problems with, its Venezuela

Aidon
09-17-2006, 12:31 AM
If Venezuela keeps nationalizing wells owned by Brazilian oil companies...they're going to get themselves spanked hard.

Panamah
09-17-2006, 02:01 PM
Brazil invading Venezuela? That should be interesting.