CIA report: no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

[Sauron]

Color me surprised. Iraq all over again.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A classifed draft
CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.

Cheney, however, is ready to break the law to use a military option on Iran:

A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, of course.

We all know now how reliable the CIA is...I mean, after all. George Tennant had to step down for a reason, now, didn't he? Wasn't that reason the faulty intelligence the CIA consistently provides?

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Color me shocked. It's scary that people are still blind to BushCo.

[Dingfod]

I'm telling you, it will take Impeachment and Conviction to get these guy's attention. If they respond to anything less, I will be surprised.

[California Tanker]

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the other hand it's also impossible to prove the non-existance of something. Ah, the joys of espionage.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet,"

As the article says, they're looking for a smoking gun. I doubt the Iranians will be kind enough to provide. Until then, what's the best estimate? You'll note that the article doesn't say that "The CIA estimates that the Iranians have no weapons ambitions." I would wager that if that was the estimate in the report, it would have been mentioned in the article. The impression I'm getting is that the CIA opinion right now is "We believe they're up to no good, but we can't prove it."

NTM

[erimir]

And what difference does that make?

Unless you're suggesting that in spite of them not having good evidence, the administration would still be justified in invading Iran.

Cuz otherwise I don't see the point of your defense which counters an argument that nobody was making (nobody said that this proves that Iran has no nuclear ambitions).

[The Lone Ranger]

I remember, years ago, listening to Dubya go on and on about how there were no plans to invade Iraq, and that the U.S. would do so only as a "last resort" if Hussein didn't give up his WMDs.

I distinctly recall the time I realized that Dubya was lying through his teeth when he claimed that we would invade Iraq only as a last resort, and that there were no invasion plans "on the board." It was when Dubya claimed that, to avoid a U.S. invasion, Saddam would have to prove that there were no weapons of mass destruction anywhere in Iraq. Since, that was an impossible requirement, as Dubya must surely have known, this revealed quite clearly that his claims that he didn't want a war with Iraq were outright lies.

After hearing Bush say that in a speech, I told a friend of mine, "Well, that's settled, we will be going to war with Iraq, and soon. All that talk about not wanting to go to war with Iraq is just so much smoke and mirrors."

Cheers,

Michael

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by erimir

And what difference does that make?

Unless you're suggesting that in spite of them not having good evidence, the administration would still be justified in invading Iran.

Cuz otherwise I don't see the point of your defense which counters an argument that nobody was making (nobody said that this proves that Iran has no nuclear ambitions).

If the intel agencies had conclusive proof, it might swing some of the more fence-sitting countries on the issue of sanctions against Iran.

NTM

[erimir]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

If the intel agencies had conclusive proof, it might swing some of the more fence-sitting countries on the issue of sanctions against Iran.

Well obviously. But isn't the discussion about the fact that the CIA doesn't have such proof?

[California Tanker]

I'm not sure there is any discussion. We all accept that the CIA has no proof. Where's the discussion?

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the other hand it's also impossible to prove the non-existance of something. Ah, the joys of espionage.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet,"

As the article says, they're looking for a smoking gun.

Except the article doesn't say that. It says the opposite, in fact:

"They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official was quoted as saying, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.

"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."

I doubt the Iranians will be kind enough to provide. Until then, what's the best estimate?

The newest NIE on the topic says that they are at least 10 years away - a figure that agrees with international and Israeli estimates - and assuming that the Iranians go down that path. There is the little problem of enrichment: Iran would require a facility for doing that at any large scale. It hasn't done so yet.

You'll note that the article doesn't say that "The CIA estimates that the Iranians have no weapons ambitions."

The CIA isn't tasked with evaluating "ambitions". Since ambitions change over time, it would be rather difficult. Capabilities are all that matter - since without capabilities, ambition is castrated.

I would wager that if that was the estimate in the report, it would have been mentioned in the article. The impression I'm getting is that the CIA opinion right now is "We believe they're up to no good, but we can't prove it."

My bet is that the CIA is trying to get waaaay out in front on this one and make sure that everyone understands there is no confirming evidence for the Bush administration's claims. Having been used as the fall guy on Iraq, the CIA is doubly determined not to let that happen again.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

If the intel agencies had conclusive proof, it might swing some of the more fence-sitting countries on the issue of sanctions against Iran.
NTM

A little circularity there, hmm?

The only reason to support sanctions would be if such proof existed in the first place.

[California Tanker]

I don't see the circularity. They may well be fence-sitting because there is no proof. If something pretty blatant did exist (and I wouldn't be surprised if to avoid a repeat of Iraq, the CIA will only say "We have proof" if they have a written statement from the Iranian Defense Minister or better), perhaps they would be less ambivalent on the issue of sanctions.

NTM