[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What is happening behind the scenes? (Iran and USA)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ashavan



Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:55 am    Post subject: What is happening behind the scenes? (Iran and USA) Reply with quote

After reading these articles, I was just shocked. USA admits that Iran has halted the nuclear bomb since 4 years and Iran was no danger to the world?

What the hell was USA telling the whole world in the past four years? Were these all have been a show? How could you change by 180 degree over night?

If you ask me, I think it is all about these Middle East Peace talks. Iran has finally given in and let Palestine go and as quid pro quo, USA leaves Iran's atomic energy alone. This must have been a deal!

I am so disappointed. As usual we are always alone. USA would never help us. If they wanted to help us, they would have not betrayed Shah in first place. We have to find a way ourselves to freedom.

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?ex=1354424400&en=a36daf745084fa33&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Iran's reaction (BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7126422.stm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:29 pm    Post subject: National Intelligence Estimate Reply with quote

"Click here for a copy of National Intelligence Estimate"

The NIE Report: Solving a Geopolitical Problem with Iran

December 03, 2007
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
George Friedman

http://www.stratfor.com/

The United States released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Dec. 3. It said, "We judge with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." It went on to say, "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." It further said, "Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." Click here for a copy of National Intelligence Estimate, "
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and capabilities"

With this announcement, the dynamics of the Middle Eastern region, Iraq and U.S.-Iranian relations shift dramatically. For one thing, the probability of a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear targets is gone. Since there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program, there is no rationale for a strike. Moreover, if Iran is not engaged in weapons production, then a broader air campaign designed to destabilize the Iranian regime has no foundation either.

The NIE release represents a transformation of U.S. policy toward Iran. The Bush administration made Iran's nuclear weapons program the main reason for its attempt to create an international coalition against Iran, on the premise that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable. If there is no Iranian nuclear program, then what is the rationale for the coalition? Moreover, what is the logic of resisting Iran's efforts in Iraq, rather than cooperating?

In looking at the report, a number of obvious questions come up. First, how did the intelligence community reach the wrong conclusion in the spring of 2005, when it last released an NIE on Iran, and what changed by 2007? Also, why did the United States reach the wrong conclusions on Iran three years after its program was halted? There are two possible answers. One is intelligence failure and the other is political redefinition. Both must be explored.

Let's begin with intelligence failure. Intelligence is not an easy task. Knowing what is going on inside of a building is harder than it might seem. Regardless of all the technical capabilities -- from imagery in all spectra to sensing radiation leakage at a distance -- huge uncertainties always remain. Failing to get a positive reading does not mean the facility is not up and running. It might just have been obscured, or the technical means to discover it are insufficient. The default setting in technical intelligence is that, while things can be ruled in, they cannot simply be ruled out by lack of evidence.

You need to go into the building. Indeed, you need to go into many buildings, look around, see what is happening and report back. Getting into highly secure buildings may be easy in the movies. It is not easy in real life. Getting someone into the building who knows what he is seeing is even harder. Getting him out alive to report back, and then repeating the process in other buildings, is even harder. It can be done -- though not easily or repeatedly.

Recruiting someone who works in the building is an option, but at the end of the day you have to rely on his word as to what he saw. That too, is a risk. He might well be a double agent who is inventing information to make money, or he could just be wrong. There is an endless number of ways that recruiting on-site sources can lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Source-based intelligence would appear to be the only way to go. Obviously, it is better to glean information from someone who knows what is going on, rather than to guess. But the problem with source-based intelligence is that, when all is said and done, you can still be just as confused -- or more confused -- than you were at the beginning. You could wind up with a mass of intelligence that can be read either way. It is altogether possible to have so many sources, human and technical, that you have no idea what the truth is. That is when an intelligence organization is most subject to political pressure. When the intelligence could go either way, politics can tilt the system. We do not know what caused the NIE to change its analysis. It could be the result of new, definitive intelligence, or existing intelligence could have been reread from a new political standpoint.

Consider the politics. The assumption was that Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons -- though its motivations for wanting to do so were never clear to us. First, the Iranians had to assume that, well before they had an operational system, the United States or Israel would destroy it. In other words, it would be a huge effort for little profit. Second, assume that it developed one or two weapons and attacked Israel, for example. Israel might well have been destroyed, but Iran would probably be devastated by an Israeli or U.S. counterstrike. What would be the point?

For Iran to be developing nuclear weapons, it would have to have been prepared to take extraordinary risks. A madman theory, centered around the behavior of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was essential. But as the NIE points out, Iran was "guided by a cost-benefit approach." In simple terms, the Iranians weren't nuts. That is why they didn't build a nuclear program.

That is not to say Iran did not benefit from having the world believe it was building nuclear weapons. The United States is obsessed with nuclear weapons in the hands of states it regards as irrational. By appearing to be irrational and developing nuclear weapons, the Iranians created a valuable asset to use in negotiating with the Americans. The notion of a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands appeared so threatening that the United States might well negotiate away other things -- particularly in Iraq -- in exchange for a halt of the program. Or so the Iranians hoped. Therefore, while they halted development on their weapons program, they were not eager to let the Americans relax. They swung back and forth between asserting their right to operate the program and denying they had one. Moreover, they pushed hard for a civilian power program, which theoretically worried the world less. It drove the Americans up a wall -- precisely where the Iranians wanted them.

As we have argued, the central issue for Iran is not nuclear weapons. It is the future of Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 was the defining moment in modern Iranian history. It not only devastated Iran, but also weakened the revolution internally. Above all, Tehran never wants to face another Iraqi regime that has the means and motivation to wage war against Iran. That means the Iranians cannot tolerate a Sunni-dominated government that is heavily armed and backed by the United States. Nor, for that matter, does Tehran completely trust Iraq's fractured Shiite bloc with Iran's national security. Iran wants to play a critical role in defining the nature, policies and capabilities of the Iraqi regime.

The recent U.S. successes in Iraq, however limited and transitory they might be, may have caused the Iranians to rethink their view on dealing with the Americans on Iraq. The Americans, regardless of progress, cannot easily suppress all of the Shiite militias. The Iranians cannot impose a regime on Iraq, though they can destabilize the process. A successful outcome requires a degree of cooperation -- and recent indications suggest that Iran is prepared to provide that cooperation.

That puts the United States in an incredibly difficult position. On the one hand, it needs Iran for the endgame in Iraq. On the other, negotiating with Iran while it is developing nuclear weapons runs counter to fundamental U.S. policies and the coalition it was trying to construct. As long as Iran was building nuclear weapons, working with Iran on Iraq was impossible.

The NIE solves a geopolitical problem for the United States. Washington cannot impose a unilateral settlement on Iraq, nor can it sustain forever the level of military commitment it has made to Iraq. There are other fires starting to burn around the world. At the same time, Washington cannot work with Tehran while it is building nuclear weapons. Hence, the NIE: While Iran does have a nuclear power program, it is not building nuclear weapons.

Perhaps there was a spectacular and definitive intelligence breakthrough that demonstrated categorically that the prior assessments were wrong. Proving a negative is tough, and getting a definitive piece of intelligence is hard. Certainly, no matter how definitive the latest intelligence might have been, a lot of people want Iran to be building a nuclear weapon, so the debate over the meaning of this intelligence would have roared throughout the intelligence community and the White House. Keeping such debate this quiet and orderly is not Washington's style.

Perhaps the Iranians are ready to deal, and so decided to open up their facility for the Americans to see. Still, regardless of what the Iranians opened up, some would have argued that the United States was given a tour only of what the Iranians wanted them to see. There is a mention in the report that any Iranian program would be covert rather than overt, and that might reflect such concerns. However, all serious nuclear programs are always covert until they succeed. Nothing is more vulnerable than an incomplete nuclear program.

We are struck by the suddenness of the NIE report. Explosive new intelligence would have been more hotly contested. We suspect two things. First, the intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program consisted of a great number of pieces, many of which were inherently ambiguous and could be interpreted in multiple ways. Second, the weight of evidence for there being an Iranian nuclear program was shaded by the political proclivities of the administration, which saw the threat of a U.S. strike as intimidating Iran, and the weapons program discussion as justifying it. Third, the change in political requirements on both sides made a new assessment useful. This last has certainly been the case in all things Middle Eastern these past few days on issues ranging from the Palestinians to Syria to U.S. forces in Iraq -- so why should this issue be any different?

If this thesis is correct, then we should start seeing some movement on Iraq between the United States and Iran. Certainly the major blocker from the U.S. side has been removed and the success of U.S. policies of late should motivate the Iranians. In any case, the entire framework for U.S.-Iranian relations would appear to have shifted, and with it the structure of geopolitical relations throughout the region.

Intelligence is rarely as important as when it is proven wrong.


Last edited by cyrus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject: Bush keeps up pressure on Iran Reply with quote

Ashavan wrote:
After reading these articles, I was just shocked. USA admits that Iran has halted the nuclear bomb since 4 years and Iran was no danger to the world?

What the hell was USA telling the whole world in the past four years? Were these all have been a show? How could you change by 180 degree over night?

If you ask me, I think it is all about these Middle East Peace talks. Iran has finally given in and let Palestine go and as quid pro quo, USA leaves Iran's atomic energy alone. This must have been a deal!

I am so disappointed. As usual we are always alone. USA would never help us. If they wanted to help us, they would have not betrayed Shah in first place. We have to find a way ourselves to freedom.

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?ex=1354424400&en=a36daf745084fa33&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Iran's reaction (BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7126422.stm


Dear Ashavan,
Yes, you are right the Iranian people should find their own way to become free and they can not rely on the unpredictable American Government policy.

With over 75% of American people who are unsatisfy with both Congress and President Bush we should rely on freedom-loving American people not US government flip flop policy as it has been stated clearly in the following video:

Must Watch the CNN debate Video Entry 988 of 4927


Quote:

Bush keeps up pressure on Iran

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-04-bush-tuesday_N.htm?csp=34



WASHINGTON A defiant President Bush defended his tough policies and rhetoric on Iran Tuesday in the wake of new U.S. intelligence that shows Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
Addressing a standing room-only press conference at the White House, Bush said the new intelligence report proves that Iran had a secret program once and could restart it at any time. He urged the international community to keep working together to pressure Iran into a diplomatic solution.


AUDIO: Bush on Iran's nuclear program
"This report is not an 'everybody needs to relax and quit' report," Bush said. "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."


Probably President Bush should have said:


Islam was dangerous, Islam is dangerous, and Islam will be dangerous if my Administration continue with the path to help expansion of Islam in the Middle East because of my past 7 years failed policy not focusing on real enemy and real danger (Islam) for hidden agenda to please Saudi Arabia/EU3, Major Oil Companies and no commitments for helping Iranian people for regime change, promote Secular Democracy, Free Society and Human Rights.....


Must Watch Brave Dr. Wafa Sultan at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, Palm Beach, Florida 2007

To Increase Public Awareness Our Message To American People:
Bidari.org Declared : No Iranian Is Muslim and No Muslim Is Iranian
http://www.bidari.org/slogansmain.htm


bidari.org wrote:

دراصل اسلام برای نابودی ایران بوجود امد
و اوج این دشمنی
به شکل جمهوری اسلامی خود را نشان داد
گفتیم هیچ ایرانی مسلمان نیست و هیچ مسلمانی ایرانی نیست
ایرانی فهمیده که مسلمان نمیشود
ایرانی فقط ایرانی باقی میماند
فرهنگ اعجاب اور انسانی ایران برای رستگاری برترین دین است
انچه راستی است. انچه درستی است. انچه نیکی و نیکوکاری است
انچه مروت و مهر و عشق است و هر انچه دستور پسندیده مربوط
به انسانیت است همه و همه در فرهنگ ایران بیشتر از مجموعه
ادیان خرافی و موهوم وجود دارد
مماشات و بی تفاوتی با اسلام
همکاری کردن با دشمن سوگند خورده قدیمی است
از افشاگری و بی ابرو کردن این دین که ایران را بسوی بدبختی های
بیشتر پیش میبرد حتی در برابر پدران و مادران خود
لحظه یی کوتاهی نکنید
ایا از خود تا کنون پرسیده اید
انچه را که راجع به صفات خداوند و صفات پیامبران
شنیده اید همه از زبان اخوندها بوده است و بر درستی انها
حتما باید شک نمود
هیچ اخوندی از هر دینی که باشد راجع به حقیقت خدا و دین
یک کلمه هم راست نگفته است
فرهنگ اخلاق بجای فرهنگ دین
در فرهنگ اخلاق بین هیچکدام از مردم سراسر جهان اختلاف و جنگی نخواهد بود.
در فرهنگ ادیان از روز نخست بین سراسر مردم جهان اختلاف و جنگ بوده و هر روز هم بد تر میشود.
اگر هزینه های سرسام آوری که صرف تبلیغ و پرورش فرهنگ ادیان میشود، صرف پرورش علم و اخلاق میشد، ما زندگی بهتری میداشتیم.
بجای دین، اخلاق و انسانیت ورا به بچه ها بیاموزید. مذهبی بالاتر از مذهب انسانیت وجود ندارد.

Regards,
Cyrus


Last edited by cyrus on Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:58 pm    Post subject: Bush Disappointed in Saudi Arabia Over Rape Case Decision Reply with quote

VOA News wrote:
Bush Disappointed in Saudi Arabia Over Rape Case Decision
By VOA News
04 December 2007

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-04-voa60.cfm
President Bush answers reporters' questions during press conference at White House, 04 Dec 2007
President Bush has expressed disappointment with Saudi Arabia for a court's decision to sentence a victim of a gang rape to 200 lashes and six months in prison.

Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House Tuesday, that he would have been very emotional if his own daughter had endured such treatment. He said he would also have been angry at those who committed the crime and at a state that did not support the victim.

Mr. Bush said he has not discussed the issue with Saudi King Abdullah. But he said the king knows the U.S. position on the case.

A Saudi court sentenced the 19-year-old Shi'ite woman last week for being in public with a man not related to her. The Saudi Justice Ministry says the woman and her companion were noticed by several men who kidnapped and raped both of them.

The court said it increased the woman's original sentence of 90 lashes because she had spoken to the media.

Saudi Arabia's Justice Ministry said Saturday the unidentified, married woman had confessed to having an extramarital affair last year.

Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.

The seven men convicted of raping the woman and her male companion have been given sentences ranging from two to nine years in prison.

The Saudi government has accused the international media of reporting false information about the case.


President Bush statement is correct when Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House Tuesday, that he would have been very emotional if his own daughter had endured such treatment. He said he would also have been angry at those who committed the crime and at a state that did not support the victim. and
that is why President Bush should consider to declare: Islam was dangerous, Islam is dangerous, Islam will be dangerous and should become illegal system of government any place ....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group