Inventing facts

Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program?


Inventing facts
by Daniel M Pourkesali

Many have been quick to characterize Monday’s National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear program as a long overdue “Honest Intel” that will suck the air out of warmongers’ sails because it clearly states “with high confidence that in fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”.

Forgive this writer for being a spoiler, but haven’t report after report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the many years since repeatedly confirmed non-existence of such nuclear weapons program in Iran?

For those who have not read this latest 9-page NIE report, it begins with five pages of processes, notes, and disclaimers including the following statement printed in bold on page 4:

“This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.”

Followed by an explanation of the "Estimative Language" used in the report on page 5:

"We use phrases such as judge, assess, and estimate – and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely—to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge."

So there you have it – An analytical assessment not based on any facts, proof, or knowledge which for the time being allays fears of an imminent threat from Iran, but cleverly transforms what was once pure hearsay into an established fact that Iran did at one point have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Serious implications and underlying dangers from such a supposition can not be understated since the report confirms Iran has already mastered what Mr. Bush warned the world to stop her from acquiring --“ the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon”.

Add to that the assertions on page 7 paragraph D that “Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to produce nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so” and that leaves the door wide open for administration hawks like Mr. Cheney to abruptly accuse Iran of resurrecting its “nuclear weapons program” much as he did back in 2002, claiming that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."

This report will no doubt create an avalanche of commentaries and analysis with different spins from both sides but the following concluding “key judgment” provides a hint to the timing of its release:

"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. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

"International scrutiny and pressure" are of course synonyms for more UN sanctions just as the five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany meet to convince Russia and China to go along with imposing tougher sanctions in order to enforce the status quo of nuclear apartheid by denying Iran its right under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful use.


Recently by Daniel M PourkesaliCommentsDate
Neither wrong nor illegal
Dec 06, 2010
National Interest
Jun 17, 2009
True intentions
May 13, 2009
more from Daniel M Pourkesali


by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

And you do not have the capability to understand. Do you think this is a bank rubbery for one person to have a freaking plan?!
What an idiot!


Re: I answered. You didn't understand.

by Anonym77 (not verified) on

You don't have a tangible alternative. You don't have a plan, at best you irresponsible. As the proverb says: first dig a hole then steal the minaret.


I answered. You didn't understand.

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

I did answer your first question, if you have the intelligence to understand it.
Your second question is different. "My" desired alternative is a liberal secular capitalist democracy. When this bastards collapse, would it be this system?
No of course not. It will have the same problems as all the societies in our region. There will be corruption.. . But it will be on a healthy track that will eventually lead to that state. THEN is the time of reform of what replaces this Islamo-fascist murderous plague.

I still say shame on you. Any one who even considers the possibility of sustaining IRI and not replacing it must be ashamed of his petty self.


Re: Wrong premise (to Esfandiari)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Bahramjan, not only you didn't answer my questions you told me "Sham eon you". That is not fair my friend!
What is your alternative to IRI?


Wrong premise

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

This is wrong, and deliberately wrong, use of logic. IRI will not collapse tomorrow. It will collapse only when enough pressure from inside and outside continuously acts on it for enough time. The process that begins, sustains and enforces such pressure in all that time will eventually determine the alternative.
Your sophistry filled efforts to sell us the IRI-has-no-alternative-right-now-so-accept-it-and-its-bloody-rule-over-you-and-shut-up just shows where you come from and what interests you are trying to protect. Sham eon you.


Re: Lies ( to esfandiari)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Bahram, let's assume that IRI collapses tomorrow, who/what is your alternative? No slogans please, specially Bush style mAsto_khiAri slogans.


Lies (again)

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

This is the 3rd time my comments are being deleted, although it contained no curse words or improper context. I'm sure this is going on for others who agree with me as well, which shows that the moderator of this site is biased towards those who are crypto-lobbyists of the regime, despite the motto of freedom.
Anyway, what I had written and was shamelessly deleted, was basically this:
The claim that change and democracy must come from within, raised usually when the lobbyists and pro IRI forces are criticized here and there, is a sophistry. Those who are fighting to bring about this change from within are crushed and in dungeons, praying that the international community would finally put enough pressure on the mulla murderous regime to break its back and help bring the change and freedom. The pro IRI jerks outside Iran who sing this nice tune, why don't you go back WITHIN and fight to bring this change, instead of roaming, whining and feeding in the free world?
How is this change from within, this miracle,is supposed to happen when you oppose any pressure being put on the regime, any sanctions, any effort to curb the mullahs nuclear ambitions. To do anything that would weaken the regime's grip on our people? Have you no shame?!
Another sophistry prevalent in these situations is the "tolerance" and hearing the other opinion. Are you kidding me? THe "other" opinion is in charge of Iran at the moment, has the TV, Radio, and all the news prepare and propaganda power this regime can offer! And websites like these where the pro IRI fractions attack on mass to promote their fascistic ant-american anti-semitic anti-liberal crap.
Free people of Iran! Beware those who speak such lies. THEY ARE YOUR ENEMIES!


Anonymous m, and other guys,

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Anonymous m, and other guys, this site is a leftist site, and more and more Iranians are realizing that they are an ally of the IRI. Isn’t it amazing that they bash Israel, out of all countries, for blaming it on what this barbaric regime has done to us? They are saying we have the right to smash and bash and threat a country that did absolutely nothing to us, on 24/7 basis, but that country has no right to defend itself, guard itself or even speak back. To them everything that represented and contributed to their dark and backward ideology’s defeat (majority of Iranian people who are not leftists, U.S, Israel, Capitalism…) need to be bashed. Especially Soraya, I have never ever seen anyone defend and justify IRIs actions like she does. She is a clear example of an Iranian traitor to her own people. Soraya, can you tell me whether we killed each other, were divided and exploited long before these so called “foreign powers” ever existed to even be able to interfere in our business? Are you saying we never had civil wars, divide and massacres before that? Actually, If you look at the history, we have to a lesser extent engaged in killing and massacring each other (with the exception of the 1979 revolution) after the “foreign powers” became “foreign powers” (post 16th century). I don’t even think it has anything to do with “foreign powers”. I believe we have and still do to a large extent, although we are working on solving it without you leftists help or contribution, to tackle them, major socio-cultural-political problems rooted in our history because of the tyrannical socio-political structure of our country. In other words, we never “trained” for democracy. We are a liberal culture, just not a democratic one. What the hell does U.S have to do with this? When they talk about Iran’s issues, they go as far as talking about Americans’ eating and sexual habits to somehow even relate some aspects of American lifestyle to our 3000 years old problems!!!! I mean that’s a U.S love-hate mental disorder. These people are so lost, it’s sad. She talks about Iraq’s kids dying because of sanctions as if Saddam had nothing to do with his country going under U.N sanction, and as if he was not responsible for the murder of more than 1 million Iraqis in war, as and chemical weapons attacks. It’s just simply amazing. Furthermore, why is she mentioning Iraq? Aren’t we supposed to care about own affairs in this discussion? This clearly shows that these people couldn’t care less about what happens to Iranians under this brutal and medieval fascist regime. All its important to them is to bash U.S and Israel and advance their ideology. Just like Hamas states in its charter, Palestinian issue is secondary in importance to the Islamic cause, for these leftists, Iran is secondary or even the bottom of the list in importance in the project of creating a “world without capitalism and a worker’s paradise (Whatever those mean). One good way to find out how Iranians really think is to go and click on “Payam Mardomi” section. Although, offcourse, the people are far and far away from even getting close to be able to freely express themselves, but even by reading the posting and what they “can” express, you can tell how different the majority of Iranians think than these leftists and how these people are out of touch with realities, and how they are so ill-intentioned and evil minded and cold hearted.


Thank you

by ParsaNejad (not verified) on

Thank you Dr. Maleknasri. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. U.S. is only beginning to reap what they’ve sown in the last sixty years. Days of colonialism and pursuit of imperial objectives with the aid of sanctions and military power are long over much to disappointment of many dreamers in this column.



by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

lets talk turky with all these NUCLEARS. Please acknowlöedge the following:
US and the nuclear empire
Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:27:47
By Joseph Gerson
Over the past six decades, the United States has used its nuclear arsenal in five often inter-related ways. The first was, obviously, battlefield use, with the “battlefield” writ large to include the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The long-held consensus among scholars has been that these first atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war against Japan, and that they were designed to serve a second function of the US nuclear arsenal: dictating the parameters of the global (dis)order by implicitly terrorizing US enemies and allies (”vassal states” in the words of former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

The third function, first practiced by Harry Truman during the 1946 crisis over Azerbaijan in northern Iran and relied on repeatedly in US wars in Asia and the Middle East, as well as during crises over Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis, has been to threaten opponents with first strike nuclear attacks in order to terrorize them into negotiating on terms acceptable to the United States or, as in the Bush wars against Iraq, to ensure that desperate governments do not defend themselves with chemical or biological weapons.

Once the Soviet Union joined the nuclear club, the US arsenal began to play a fourth role, making US conventional forces, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, “meaningful instruments of military and political power.”

As Noam Chomsky explains, Brown was saying that implicit and explicit US nuclear threats were repeatedly used to intimidate those who might consider intervening militarily to assist those we are determined to attack.

The final role of the US nuclear arsenal is deterrence, which came into play only when the Soviet Union began to achieve parity with the United States in the last years of the Vietnam War. This is popularly understood to mean preventing a surprise first strike attack against the United States by guaranteeing “mutual assured destruction.” In other words, any nation foolish enough to attack the United States with nuclear weapons will be annihilated.

However, Pentagon leaders have testified that deterrence has never been US policy, and they have defined deterrence as preventing other nations from taking “courses of action” that are inimical to US interests. This could include decisions related to allocation of scarce resources like oil and water, defending access to markets, or preventing non-nuclear attacks against US allies and clients, i.e. role #2, using genocidal nuclear weapons to define and enforce the parameters and rules of the US dominated global (dis)order.

My argument is not that US use and threatened use of nuclear weapons have always succeeded. Instead, successive US presidents, their most senior advisers, and many in the Pentagon have believed that US use of nuclear weapons has achieved US goals in the past. Furthermore, these presidents have repeatedly replicated this ostensibly successful model. In fact, even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved only one of their two purposes. These first bombs of the Cold War did communicate a terrorizing message to Stalin and the Soviet elite about the capabilities of these new weapons and about the US will to use them.

But, within weeks of the A-bombings, Washington was sharing influence in Korea with Moscow. Four years later northern China and Manchuria, which US leaders thought they had won with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, fell into what was seen as the Soviet sphere. In 1954, France declined the offer of two US A-bombs to break the Vietnamese siege at Dienbienphu, and in 1969 North Vietnam refused to be intimidated by Nixon's “November ultimatum.”

The US commitment to nuclear dominance and its practice of threatening nuclear attacks have, in fact, been counterproductive, increasing the dangers of nuclear war in yet another way: spurring nuclear weapons proliferation. No nation will long tolerate what it experiences as an unjust imbalance of power. It was primarily for this reason that the Soviet Union (now Russia) and China, and North Korea opted for nuclear weapons.

The Romance of Ruthlessness

The Bush administration has again put nuclear weapons - and their various uses - at the center of US military and foreign policy. The message of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in December 2001 was unmistakable. As The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists editorialized, “Not since the resurgence of the Cold War in Ronald Reagan's first term has US defense strategy placed such an emphasis on nuclear weapons.” The NPR reiterated the US commitment to first-strike nuclear war fighting. For the first time, seven nations were specifically named as primary nuclear targets: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. Consistent with calls by senior administration figures who spoke of their “bias in favor of things that might be usable,” the NPR urged funding for development of new and more usable nuclear weapons. This included a new “bunker buster.” Seventy times more powerful than the Hiroshima A-bomb, the bunker buster was designed to destroy enemy command bunkers and WMD (weapons of mass destruction) installations buried hundreds of feet beneath the surface.

To ensure that the “bunker buster” and other new nuclear weapons could inflict their holocausts, the NPR called for accelerating preparations for the resumption of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. It also pressed for the nuclear weapons laboratories to continue modernizing the nuclear arsenal and to train a new generation of nuclear weapons scientists. Among their first projects would be the design of a “Reliable Replacement Warhead” to serve as the military's primary strategic weapon for the first half of the 21st century. With a massive infusion of new funds to consolidate and revitalize nuclear research, development and production facilities, National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator Tom D'Agostino testified it would “restore us to a level of capability comparable to what we had during the Cold War.”

Later, the Rumsfeld Pentagon published and then ostensibly “rescinded” a non-classified version of its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. The Doctrine was revealing and profoundly disturbing. In the tradition of the Clinton administration's Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence, the Doctrine communicated that the United States could all too easily “become irrational and vindictive.”

Most striking was the Doctrine's extended discussion of deterrence. Rather than define deterrence as the prevention of nuclear attacks by other nuclear powers, the Doctrine stated that “The focus of US deterrence efforts is… to influence potential adversaries to withhold actions intended to harm US' national interests…based on the adversary's perception of the…likelihood and magnitude of the costs or consequences corresponding to these courses of actions.” Diplomatically, the Doctrine continued, “the central focus of deterrence is for one nation to exert such influence over a potential adversary's decision process that the potential adversary makes a deliberate choice to refrain from a COA [course of action.]” In addition to putting Chinese diplomatic efforts to marginalize US power in Asia on notice or deterring unlikely Russian or French nuclear attacks, the central role of the US nuclear arsenal was global dominance. China, Russia, France and Germany were reminded of their proper places, and Iran and Venezuela received ample warning not to adopt oil and energy policies that might constitute- courses of action that would “harm US national interests.”

Placing the world on further notice, the Doctrine threatened that “The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons.” Maintaining ambiguity about when the United States would use nuclear weapons helped to “create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries.” The Doctrine also refused to rule out nuclear attacks against non-nuclear weapons states.

The Doctrine also baldly instructed the US military that “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict,” thus subordinating international law to US military strategy. It also argued that nuclear wars could be won. The Doctrine gave increased authority to field commanders to propose targets for nuclear attacks and described the circumstances when field commanders could request approval to launch first-strike nuclear attacks. “Training,” it further stated, “can help prepare friendly forces to survive the effects of nuclear weapons and improve the effectiveness of surviving forces.” The Doctrine went on to reconfirm the bankruptcy of the nuclear reduction negotiations between the United States and Russia. The Doctrine was clear that US nuclear forces would not actually be reduced because “US strategic nuclear weapons remain in storage and serve as an augmentation capability should US strategic nuclear force requirements rise above the levels of the Moscow Treaty.”

Toward Abolition

Since the end of the Cold War, the media and national political discourse in the United States have focused on the dangers of “horizontal proliferation.” These dangers include “rogue” states with nuclear weapons, the possibility of nations with nuclear power plants becoming nuclear weapons states, and leakage from nuclear stockpiles finding its way to “rogue” states or to non-state terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. One nightmare scenario has envisioned the overthrow of the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the extremists.

It doesn't take a genius to understand the importance of under-funded initiatives like the congressional Nunn-Lugar Nuclear Threat Initiative, which was designed to secure the world's nuclear weapons, fissile materials, and nuclear wastes. However, these efforts can be no more than stop-gap measures as long as the United States threatens other nations with nuclear attacks and insists on maintaining the terrorizing imbalance of power.

Since the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference, popular, elite, and governmental demands have been growing for the United States and other nuclear powers to fulfill their Article VI treaty commitment to negotiate the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In 1996, in the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the use and threatened use of nuclear weapons ruled that both are violations of international law, and the Court directed the nuclear powers to implement their Article VI commitments.

While NGOs and popular movements from across the world came together to form Abolition 2000, at the elite level former head of the US Strategic Command Gen. Lee Butler - supported by many of the world's generals and admirals - called for abolition. And, in January 2007, former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz joined former secretary of defense William Perry and former senator Sam Nunn in saying that US double standards were driving nuclear weapons proliferation, and that the time had come for the United States to meet its NPT obligations.

Since then, pressed by voters and community based activists, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson have each stated that if elected, they will be the president who negotiates the complete elimination of the world's nuclear weapons. They need to be held to these commitments, and other presidential and congressional candidates need to be pressed to join their commitment. (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have made similar commitments.)

The political and technical steps needed to eliminate nuclear weapons have long been known.

First, the United States must renounce its “first strike” nuclear wear fighting doctrines.

Next it must refuse to fund the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons.

The other essential steps include verified and irreversible dismantling of nuclear weapons and their installations; halting production of weapons-grade fissile material and securely containing existing stockpiles; verification, including societal verification, and intrusive inspection systems; and investing power in a supranational authority, probably the UN Security Council, to isolate, contain, or remove threats to the nuclear-free order.

Like cannibalism and slavery, nuclear weapons can be abolished.

The question is whether we humans have the will and courage to choose life.
Are there any more any other questions? Greeting


Opposing Sanctions=Lobbying for IRI

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

No other reason. Stop the bullshit. If it was not enough in certain parts does not mean that it was a necessary element in their final demise. Your "logic" is defective. Good for your little mulla loving traitorous brains perhaps.
It is necessary. Not enough, but a necessary tool. Got it idiots?
What about the places where it finally broke the backs of the murderers?
And what condition do you think people are under now?
We want freedom. It does not come free. The hardship is the MINIMUM the people have to bear to get free. It will actually be more.
Not my fault, but those like this Pourkesali jerk who brought this mulla plague upon us. This is the way out and it is hard. But it is NOTHING compared to what the continuation of this system, as you jerks are supporting and benefiting from, will do to Iran and our people. Oh, and I didn't know "Iranian people" was one asshole who leaves stupid comments worth only for his turbaned and moustached masters. When are you shit gonna grow up?
Make as much profit as you can from the blood of our people while you can, jerks. It won't last forever.


Shahollahis: You are siding with Bush

by True Patriot (not verified) on

Mr. Pourkesali is a true compatriot who is defending Iran's sovereignty and integrity. Those who oppose him are the type of people who sold Iran to the Brits and US in 1953 against democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the puppet Shah to fulfill their own selfish interests. Today, there isn't much difference of what we saw during that era; similar traitors are amongst us to repeat history. Iranian people are well aware of such tactics and shall not be fooled again. True democracy will reign by the Iranian people without any outside interventions. Take my words. No foreign powers will ever enter Iran for their own selfish interests anymore for the next 1000 years. Those days are gone forever. take my words.


Bahram Esfandiari's Spin

by Mojgan (not verified) on

You are joking , right ?!!
Since when Sanction has made the Dictator give up power ? How long the NK regime been under sanction ? good 50 years , right ? Have you seen Fidle give up power yet ? Did Saddam give up power ?

Sanctions only starve the population and destroy the infrastructure of an any give country. Not that warmonger cowards like you will ever attack any country that can defend itself, first you have to starve their people and destroy their ability to defend themselves your humanitarian sanctions, then go on massacring the same people that you shed crocodile tears for. Who do you think you are kidding ?!

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Blood Money

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich on

Mr. Bahram Esfandiari (not actual name it seems): More than 500,000 children under the age of 5 died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. I suggest you ask their parents if they wanted Saddam gone, not those living comforably in the West and Washington like Chalabi who had the support of Perle. I hope you read enough to know who taht is. I can explain if you don't. Here is an interesting link for you: // At a House hearing on June 7, 2001 Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations." You are asking for the blood of other human beings, Iranians at that, so that you can get rid of a regime you hate? At which time, after all the deaths, you can then decide whether you will take your murderous self back to Iran - for after having lived here for I assume a number of years, you presumably have roots and it is not easy to get up and go. Given that some among us are this selfish, does it come as a surprise that foreign powers can exploit us, divide us, steal our assets and have us kill each other? What a shameful lot we are and we boast of being heirs of Cyrus. We are rotten to the core.


Blood money

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

Is that right, Mr. Genius?
You see, the "argument" , that is the excuse, that the gang of Mr. Pourkesali here gave was all about how evil "war" is and how it will give the bastards in power the excuse to close up the society and crush dissent.
But sanctions do the opposite, they pressure the dictators and force them to eventually give up power. That is why decent people under yoke of totalitarian fascistic systems around the world always begged the world community to put sanctions and pressures on their jailers and dictators. That is what they did in South Africa, in Czechoslovakia, Serbia ....
SO, those who oppose this are lobbyists of the worst killers of Iranian people. That is what Lobby groups do! Just admit it.
Just today a young man was executed for a something he had allegedly done while being 13 years old. The blood of that boy satins the hands of Mr. Poukesali here as well, and the rest of his gang.
You know what, I sincerely wish, from teh bottom of my hear, the same fate turns out for his children, his family and his loved ones. He is feeding them with blood money, with blood they will get to repay their debts. He and jerks like him in that gang.
This is what it has come down to. This is the level we are brought down to. They WILL pay for that more than anything else.
See and watch.


Fred and his ilk

by Anonymous-tomorow (not verified) on

This is to Mr. pollutor and people like him. The writer here, whatever you think of him, has used logic, has quoted from the NIE report and attemtped to advance his argument on a rational basis. Instead of just hurling garabge, try for once to use logic to discredit him. Here is a dare, see if you have the testicles to heed it.


What is the proportion

by Anonymous m (not verified) on

If the site is not pro IRI, why are so many pro IRI articles on it. Are them proportional to the real number of CASMII /NIPAC / Modertate Muslims in the Iranian cummunities in You can do it ananymously, because of Islamist thugs and tzhe above pro-IRI groups of the site.


WASHINGTON -- Last spring,

by Anonymous½ (not verified) on

WASHINGTON -- Last spring, as U.S. intelligence agencies worked to complete an assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons program, they were firmly on track to reach the same conclusion as previous reports: Tehran was bent on building the bomb.

But within weeks, there was an abrupt change of course. The earlier drafts were scrapped. Analysts began to assemble a new report built around the single, startling conclusion that Iran's nuclear weapons program had actually been shut down for four years.
What happened?

As U.S. intelligence officials sought Tuesday to explain the remarkable reversal, they pointed to two factors: the emergence of crucial information over the summer, and a determination to avoid repeating the mistakes that preceded the Iraq war.

According to current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the matter, the information that surfaced this summer included intercepted conversations of Iranian officials discussing the country's nuclear weapons program, as well as a journal from an Iranian source that documented decisions to shut it down.

"When we first got some of this stuff, the fact that we got it was exciting," said a senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the subject. He said the information was obtained as part of a stepped-up effort targeting Iran that President Bush had ordered in 2005, but the problem with it "was digesting it to know what we had."



Bahram, dadash, I'm no genius,

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

but I looked up CASMII's website, do you know what the "S" in CASMII stands for?


CASMII was supposed to be againt armed conflict

by Bahram_Esfandiari (not verified) on

So Daniel,
if you are telling the truth and the point of all this is to avoid war, you should be satisfied by this. Lifting sanctions, international pressure, none of this should be in your agenda anymore. If it is, that can only mean that you and CASMII are a lobby group for the islamic republic. Just admit it, will you?
Dom-e khorooset rafteh too cheshmemoom baba jan, bekesh biroon!


Pissing Off Our Pro-Israel Readers Again?

by Anonymous123 (not verified) on

Why do you have to write the truth? Can't you see it is hurting the "democratic" government of Israel? Don't you feel sorry for this bunch? Have mercy!


Dismantle this apartheid and barbaric Islamic regime

by (:-)) (not verified) on

The international community must put pressure on Islamic Republic of Iran to dismantle this apartheid and barbaric Islamic regime. The international community must now and forever support all democratic forces in Iran to become free from chains of Islamic and religious repression and establish democracy and rules of law and respecting human rights.


CASMII propaganda

by Fred (not verified) on

The IAEA has never as claimed by the Islamist Republic and its lobby CASMII “confirmed non-existence of such nuclear weapons program in Iran “this is yet another boldface lie.