White House brushes off CIA Iran nuclear weapon report

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Nov 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So even the CIA has no evidence - and I'm sure it's been trying bloody hard to find some - that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

    But Cheney et al know better, of course...
    :evil:

    The New Yorker article is quite an interesting read too...
     
  2. I don't think that's controversial: 'No conclusive evidence'.

    Frankly, after the last balls-up, their definition of 'conclusive evidence' will probably be nothing less than a signed statement from the Iranian Defense Minister.

    Article doesn't say that the CIA thinks that Iran's not trying, note.

    NTM
     
  3. the white house dont need anything from the CIA to know that the Iranians are trying to make a bomb.
    bush hears voices in his head from god telling him whats happening in the world and how to act, remember?
     
  4. More importantly, there is no suggestion that the CIA thinks the Iranians are trying.

    If it's not from their enormously financed intelligence service, where do Bush, Cheney et al get the idea that they are??? Is it their friends in MKO (the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation)? An organisation which most states regard and proscribe as a terrorist organisation - except the US who funds and supports it...
     
  5. Why do you feel the need to type in bold characters? It doesn't make your points any more or less valid.

    I'm just pointing out that since the crux of the article is that the CIA doesn't have any proof of anything, that if the report also believed that the Iranians had no intentions in that direction, the article in all likelihood would have mentioned that too. Why wouldn't it?

    NTM
     
  6. C_T,

    You are back to the same arguments that Shrub made to justify invading Iraq - trying to make folks prove a negative! How are the CIA to prove that Iran are not producing weapon technology FFS!
     
  7. Quite so. Don't know why I put this in bold. I normally use bold to highlight certain points and there is of course no reason to highlight everything in this post. Although I do remember that when I saw it was, I decided it wasn't worth the effort to go back and edit it. I meant nothing by it.

    Well there was two articles mentionned and linked in my post: the Reuters wired 'news' and the NewYorker 'oped'.

    I suspect the Reuters piece was making a statement that the Whitehouse and the CIA are not in agreement about the 'evidence' - rather than discussing whether there is cause to suspect that evidence does exist. Subtle point, but very relevent.

    The NewYorker text was a rather longwinded critique of the 'faltering' Bush Administration. This was but one of the points made in criticising its failure to listen to any advice from outside a very close-knit circle of like-minded thinkers. Again, the emphasis was on critique, not specifically on whether Iran is, or is not, developing nuclear weapons.

    And finally, how do you provide evidence that Iran is not pursuing a weapons programme. You can prove they are, if you have evidence, but how do you prove that something doesn't exist? In that sense, it is impossible for the CIA to categorically state that Iran is not doing what the Bush Administration says it is doing - the very best it can do is say, "well we can't find anything to support your assertion, sorry!"

    Hope you appreciate the extra effort in ensuring the bold problem didn't reoccur. :D
     
  8. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Just as a thought I'd imagine that they actually are developing Nuclear Power for civilian purposes. I think that even after having the whole system up and running they will not 'develop' nuclear weapons. Nothing like waiting. If I was Mr. Dinner Jacket, I'd have all the required parts separate and not part of one programme., i.e. not everyone with flour in their cupboard intends to make bread (of course some do). What might happen in the kitchen in the future...
     
  9. Oh, you can't prove the non-existance of a programme, I fully agree. I don't see how that can prohibit the CIA's report from making an estimate of intentions, however from whatever circumstantial evidence they've managed to clobber together.

    NTM
     
  10. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Ahh come on Crabtastic, Fox News says so, so it must be true...
     
  11. Just heard an "intelligence source" on BBC world, he reckons that the Israelis are passing on info to the US to the effect that the Iranians are right now in the process of testing the detonation of a warhead.

    This is a warhead without any nuclear material in it and is to test the firing sequence etc. According to this source once they get this bit right all they need to do is fill the thing with some enriched material from their "only for peacefull electricity generating nuclear facilities" and they would have a working bomb.

    These tests are supposed to be taking place in tunnels and facilities built next to but seperate from the ones the IAEA etal actually know about.
     

  12. Fox News controls the IAEA???? :omg:
     
  13. Read the IAEA report first. Then read the Foxnews story. Then decide if Fox has represented the report acurately.

    For someone who spends 99% of his ARRSE time criticising the UK media, you seem to give Fox a huge dollop of the benefit of doubt.