In August 2007, Iran and the IAEA agreed to a work plan that included questions Iran was to answer by the end of the year. Once these final questions were answered, it was understood that Iran's nuclear file would be closed. The December 2007 NIE, however, raised new questions about Iran's nuclear program. Will the upcoming IAEA report address these new questions?
1. The NIE assessed with "high confidence" that Iran's weaponization program was halted in 2003. Who were the key scientists in Iran's nuclear weapons program? What are they doing today? What was done with the product of their program?
2. How far along was the program when it was halted? The NIE stated with moderate confidence that Iran would use covert facilities if it were to restart its program. What has the IAEA learned about Iran's covert program that would help the international community identify future covert efforts? Will Iran admit to having had a nuclear weapons program in the past?
3. The NIE assessed with "low confidence" that Iran had probably imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but not enough for a weapon. What exactly did Iran acquire from AQ Khan? How much fissile material did Iran get its hands on? Where could it be stored?
4. According to the NIE, there is evidence that Iran had been engaged in covert enrichment activities that were "probably" halted in 2003. How much confidence does the IAEA have that there are not significant covert enrichment activities currently underway? How many centrifuges might have been produced so far? How many might be operating somewhere we don't know about?
5. The NIE expressed "high confidence" in the finding that military entities had been working under governmental direction to develop nuclear weapons before the program was halted in 2003. The U.S. decided to share some of the intelligence linking Iran's military to its nuclear weapons program. What intelligence did Iran get access to? How did Iran respond to the evidence connecting its military with its ostensibly peaceful nuclear program? How has Iran addressed the U.S.'s concern over the so-called Green Salt Project, which involved uranium processing, high explosives, and a missile warhead design?
6. The NIE stated that Iran was continuing to conduct research and development projects that could be of use to a nuclear weapons program. What is the nature and extent of these projects?
More on Iran's nuclear program here
1. Why did the U.S. sign a treaty that states that it is OK for Iran to develop nuclear energy if it was not OK?
2. Why did Dick Chaney sell the tools to Iran to produce nuclear energy if it is not OK?
3. Why do we have to murder people for Israel or any other group of racists?
4. Why should we believe a couple of pathetic failures & liars like Bush and Chaney when we know full well they have repeatedly failed to lead the U.S. anywhere but an overflowing toilet? (see effluvia of lies).
2. Because when you sell a human a gun, you get insight into their character depending on how they use it.
3. Russia, China, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the US, Venezuela, Mexico... all these nations "murder" in the name of other groups. And frankly, if you turn an objective eye towards religion, you will find more people have died in the name of God than any other cause... ever.
4. Bush and Co. are a temporary administration. Wait it out. That is why the US elects new leaders every 4 years. and honestly, the world of Islam would stink just as bad w/o Bush.
1. Why did the U.S. sign a treaty that states that it is OK for Iran to develop nuclear energy if it was not OK?
2. Why did Dick Chaney sell the tools to Iran to produce nuclear energy if it is not OK?
3. Why do we have to murder people for Israel or any other group of racists?
4. Why should we believe a couple of pathetic failures & liars like Bush and Chaney when we know full well they have repeatedly failed to lead the U.S. anywhere but an overflowing toilet? (see effluvia of lies).
Obama/Edwards 08! See, sue pueda! Yes, you can!
Doesn't this kind of policy guarantee that we'll just keep moving from "crises" to "crises?" And how long can it be successful? The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, we live in a world of increasingly porous information sharing, and along with all the other reasons for hatred and paranoia, the U.S. has now embraced a policy of "preventative war" that is a great incentive for anti-American regimes to want some effective deterrence. (And if it's too tough in the short term to get nuclear weapons, there's always chemical and biological agents, with production and distribution out-sourced as needed to terrorist groups.)
I don't claim to know what the ideal solution would be, but really, is a capricious game of WMD whack-a-mole the best that anyone can come up with? Bellicose threats followed by blowing stuff up and killing a bunch of people may make certain groups feel virile and reassured, but all it produces is the illusion of security (while unleashing all kinds of unintended consequences as we've seen -- for the umpteenth time! -- in Iraq).
So, instead of obsessing on what one small country at one moment might be doing, maybe we should consider how we're going to deal with every country and every group that could raise the same kinds of concerns now and in the future. Personally, a sane plan would make me feel a lot more secure than another "shock and awe."
I"m not allowed to say that certain, um, Americans, loyal to a certain, um, Middle Eastern country [hint: they aren't Muslims] - are influencing our foreign policy in favor of their relatives in said Middle Eastern country.
note to censors... it's time for this talk.
Piled higher,
Piled deeper.
Again, the lack of appreciation of the complexity of modern nuclear threats is gross.
We don't know how many nuclear war heads Israel has because they refuse to permit IAEA to inspect. I've read that it is suspected that Israel has more than 300 nuclear warheads.
Israel refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty and it was reported last fall that there is documentation that Israel is covertly obtaining enrichment materials. By the size of their nuclear arsenal that is obviously true. Israel's aggressive stance was demonstrated when Syria was bombed without provocation last year. Where was the international community then?
Iran has been more truthful than Israel and has not invaded nor attacked any of its neighbors. The IAEA is doing its job - why the concern?
You assume that the United States has the right to attack Iran if it's not satisfied they aren't building the bomb, but we do not. Only the U.N. Security Council can authorize any such action without it being a war crime.
So... I'm guess that to you, the UN is like some religious dogma that you take on faith as the absolute solution to life and all problems? lol... think for yourself.
What are the real facts that Iran was developing nuclear bomb prior to 2003? To make a nuclear bomb, you would need highly enriched (90% or higher) uranium (U-235 to U-238). Iran did not have and still does not have such a nuclear source material. To make a plutonium bomb, you would need a reactor like Israeli French designed reactor, since plutonium naturally does not exist. Israel reactor was a perfect tool for creating source materials for creating nuclear bombs.
Should our government demand that Israel places her nuclear activities under the United Nations (IAEA) control? What should we do with Israeli nuclear bombs?
Why is the NIE's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2003 to be automatically believed?
Why should this NIE be any more believable that the previous NIE which claimed that Iran had an active and on-going nuclear weapons program in 2005? Or the other NIE report which said that Iraq had WMDs?
What about the 2005 conclusion by a bipartisan congressional inquiry which characterized the state of US intelligence on Iran's nuclear program to be "scandalous"?
If Iran had a nuclear weapons program -- ever -- why have 5 years of intensive IAEA inspections found no such evidence?
Why are some people so credulous as to believe that an intelligence agency will be truthful?
Iran, with no nukes and no delivery system is our number 1 threat.
Pakistan, with nukes and delivery systems and safe havens for Al Quaida should go back on the back burner as a trustworthy ally. Saudi Arabia, a police state which provides funding for extremists, was the source of 14 hijackers on 9/11, and the single largest source of foreign fighters attacking Americans in Iraq should also be ignored as a trusted ally.
BTW, just because something was stated as FACT in the NIE doesn't make it so. They've contradicted themselves and been wrong so often, everything must be taken with a mountain of salt.
No evidence for most of the assertions has ever been presented.
To hypothesize about unproven assertions in a manner designed to foster conflict is pure neocon propaganda.