The intelligence community in the United States believe there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, the New York Times finally reported on Saturday.
The New York Times ran a front page article on Saturday reiterating the consensus view of the U.S. military and intelligence community regarding Iran’s nuclear program, splitting from usual mainstream media coverage which has hyped fear that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons.
The U.S. assessments that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated no intention of doing so has been reported here at Antiwar.com and many other alternative news sources, but only now, after successive pronouncements by high level officials going against the grain of the hawkish rhetoric on an impending Iranian bomb has the Times given the issue substantial space.
“Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier,” the report said. “The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.”
The report points to testimony from James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all in agreement that there is no military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program. This reportedly contradicts Israeli assessments and lately those of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which stirred up controversy over Iran’s program, claiming they are “unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran.”
But “intelligence officials and outside analysts,” the Times reports, believe “Iran could be seeking to enhance its influence in the region by creating what some analysts call ‘strategic ambiguity.’ Rather than building a bomb now, Iran may want to increase its power by sowing doubt among other nations about its nuclear ambitions.”
Iran is operating under constant threat from the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. has Iran militarily surrounded, has conducted covert attacks along with Israel, constantly threatens Iran with preemptive military strike, etc. In this environment, Iran has tried to abstain from developing nuclear weapons while having the know-how needed to get there; this essentially is an attempt to have a deterrent without actually having a deterrent.
As Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA, said in 2009 “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”
Despite this consensus view in the U.S., Washington has continued to isolate Iran, to heap crippling economic sanctions on Iran to support Israel – and refuse to criticize it – even while Tel Aviv has supported terrorist operations against Iranian nuclear scientists. Amid intense pressure from various Western foreign policy elites to wage war on Iran, perhaps to install an obedient regime, the intelligence has removed the one possible pretext: an Iranian nuclear weapon. And even the mainstream news media is now reporting it.
16 thoughts on “New York Times: US Intelligence Says Iran Not Developing Nukes”
"I believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon,….” — GUYS YOU HAVE MISQUOTED HIM BY MISTAKE HERE – SEE THE ORIGINAL BELOW
“I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.” NYT
This was my mistake. I have used that quote before, and when editing it for this piece I accidentally took out "don't".
You can see here one of my previous uses of that quote. http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/28/the-u-s-needs-t…
I apologize for the mistake. It has been fixed.
you do good work, i think one mistake can be allowed!
The imagined arguments put forward that: “Iran has a Nuke”, or even: “Iran intends to build a Nuke” simply do not exist. They’re not even seriously made the “War Party” itself if you listen to and read the serious people in the “War Party”…so what is the point of refuting an argument which simply is not being made in the first place? The argument being made now is that: “Iran is building ‘infrastructure’ so “if” at some point in the future (be it tomorrow or 2 years from now… maybe 10, 50, or even 2000 years from now) they "can" build a Nuke if they ‘decide’ to do so in the ‘future’”. This argument is completely sound if you accept the premise that “Iran” having Nukes would essentially be “the end of the world”…i.e. a choice between ”life or death”…
The imagined arguments put forward that: “Iran has a Nuke”, or even: “Iran intends to build a Nuke” simply do not exist. These non-arguements are not even seriously being made by the “War Party” itself–that is, if you listen to, and read, the serious people in the “War Party”…so what's the point of refuting arguments which simply are not being made in the first place? The argument being made now is that: “Iran is building ‘infrastructure’ so “if” at some point in the future (be it tomorrow, 2 years from now… maybe 10, 50, or even 2000 years from now) they "can" build a Nuke if they ‘decide’ to do so in the ‘future’”. This argument is completely sound if you accept the premise that: “Iran” having Nukes would essentially be “the end of the world”…i.e. a choice between ”life or death”…
Let’s put this into context: the wackiest regime on the face of the earth—North Korea—has Nukes, and has had them for some time. There have been no “issues”. So why would, all of a sudden, a Nuclear armed Iran change things? Should we have more to fear now? North Korea was Nuclear armed before the 2003 invasion of Iraq…if I recall, North Korea was even making bellicose statements that it intended to "sell Nukes" to "terrorists"…but the lame stream media seemed to 'glaze' over this, and it was a "non-issue" simply because it wasn't hyped… So what are we scared of exactly?
"We" are not "scared" of anything. Fear-mongering is not fear. "We" — by which I take it you mean the US hegemon and its Israeli master — want no competitors to their domination of the mideast. When Iraq, then the most advanced Arab country in the region, with Saddam as its leader, went "off the reservation", GHW Bush suckered him into invading Kuwait, and then bombed Iraq back into toothless irrelevance. Mission Accomplished.
Same with Libya. Mission Accomplished.
Now Syria is in play, though of markedly lesser importance.
But Iran is clearly the real prize. First, because a strong Iran is a challenge to the hegemon's dominance, but also because a "captured" Iran is a huge, steaming pile of oil money
Have nothing to do with nukes. More like the US wants to control the Iranian central bank and its oil and gas resources (stop Iran trading oil in any currency other than the dollar). Also it has been suggested from a couple of articles that Iran has put GPS targeting on their missiles which makes a conventional missile response scary to Israel as it is such a small country.
The difference is in one small, insignificant detail: North Korea is not- now or ever has been- a threat to Israel's 'existence'. Take Israeli arrogance and belligerence out of the equation and what are we left with in Iran? A modern Middle Eastern nation trying to better itself and improve the living conditions of its people. I imagine if Hugo Chavez were making huge anti-Israel proclamations and publicly announced work on nuclear weapons, Tel Aviv would find a reason to label Venezuela as an 'existential threat' as well.
if gas prices keep going up there will be no US or any other country to attack anyone…
opps except one israel..which gets 5 years of guaranteed oil and probably at cut rate prices..
does anyone know what the price of gas is in israel ,,,by the way…
When the New York Times makes such as front page statement, I immediately wonder if it is truthful. The role of the NYT in shaping public opinion in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq has never been fully dealt with. I will never trust the editorial staff of that paper since it is too sympathetic to the Zionist cause and just closes its eye to all the Israeli infractions of UN resolutions. So as an agent of a foreign power it does its job well but it certainly operates for purposes other than American.
Not to worry. By tomorrow, they'll be reversing all that and saying the complete opposite.
Top 10 Reasons to Attack Iran Now:
10) Interest rates are at all time low, best time to finance a new war.
9) The US military needs to keep our youth gainfully employed, since we outsourced our jobs to China.
8) Iran has blocked the sale of Persian rugs as a result Chinese counterfeits have flooded the markets.
7) The USA must find a safe place to dispose of 100,000 old DU shells since Iraq has stored all they could.
6) Japan has proved that nuclear energy is totally unsafe, so we cannot allow another Fukushima!
5) We must not postpone the inevitable since the road to hell is short.
4) The Iranians did 911 it wasn’t Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or 19 Saudis!
3) Israel is in dire need of Iranian missiles to help it clear the West Bank and Gaza for development.
2) The Almighty Yahweh ordained it He's tired of playing second fiddle to Allah.
1) If we wait till November and Ron Paul wins he won’t let us.
The headline of this article is pure fiction.
The whole world knows there is no such thing as U.S. Intelligence.
I do not care what US "Intelligence" has to say on anything. So "Intelligence" says Iran isn't building a nuke weapon today? That could change tomorrow and then what would all the "antiwar" people waving around this latest "intelligence assessment" do? Stutter and stammer and say they are lying?
Do not debate the "intelligence". Do not embrace it and flaunt it when it happens to agree with you. You are setting yourself up.
At this point – any "Antiwar" group that assigns any amount of "good faith" to the American "intelligence community" is simply naive.
"Intelligence" is fixed after the fact to justify policies and positions already in existence and they change it accordingly.
An attack on Iran would be wrong regardless of what "intelligence" says. Do not put any eggs in that basket- EVER.
Comments are closed.