Everyone hung their hat on the December 3 NIE about the Iranian nuclear program ,that they had stopped development programs in 2003 . The assumption was then that the threat about the Mullahs getting a bomb and the Mahdi Hatter making Jerusalem glow was being overstated .

But yesterday National Director of Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell sang a different tune to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ,testifying that "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things." ......., "I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, had halted."

He said that the part of the program that had been suspended was a specific Iranian program to design warheads.Yesterday he admitted that "Declared uranium enrichment efforts, which will enable the production of fissile material, continue. This is the most difficult challenge in nuclear production. Iran's efforts to perfect ballistic missiles that can reach North Africa and Europe also continue."

"We remain concerned about Iran's intentions and assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

He warned in his annual threat assessment that Iran "would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon" by the end of 2009.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20080205_testimony.pdf
(relevent testiomny starts page 11)

The Mossad says they could have nukes within 3 years .

AFP: Iran will have nuclear weapon in three years: Mossad (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQXlC9PbA5rxEyOvCoZTd7Xv-4xg)

Meanwhile the Russians have raised new doubts about Iran's program due to a missile test they conducted .Perhaps that will convince them of the folly of providing Iran with enriched uranium and upgraded anti-aircraft missile systems .

The release of the December NIE threw a big monkey wrench into efforts to get tighter UN sanctions against Iran . Russian alarm over Iranian missile test | Russia | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2253322,00.html)

Hopefully Russia will see the wisdom of keeping the pressure on Iran.

This parallels the situation with Saddam and Iraq, in that there is no reason for Iran not to allow complete inspections of whatever is going on. The failure to allow inspections is an attempt to conceal, and is evidence of culpability in my view. The UN should say, Either let us in, or we are coming in. If the UN refuses or defaults, it is up to the regional neighbors to force complete inspections.

This parallels the situation with Saddam and Iraq, in that there is no reason for Iran not to allow complete inspections of whatever is going on. If the UN refuses or defaults, it is up to the regional neighbors to force complete inspections.Hello George:

Not really.

For one, Saddam didn't have WMD's and wasn't trying to get 'em. The Iranians ARE trying to get 'em. That's why they don't let the inspectors in.

For two, Iran has a REAL army - Saddam did not. Oh, it looked real, but it wasn't. Iran's is REAL.

For three, the Iranian people are pro western, and there's LOTs of 'em. Lots more than there are Iraqi's.

For four, for once the dufus in chief is right. WW lll is looming around Iran...

Iran AIN'T Iraq.

excon

excon writes: "Saddam didn't have WMD's and wasn't tryin to get 'em." You didn't know this and neither did anyone else. In fact, it was universally believed that Saddam either possessed or was attempting to possess WMD. We cannot afford to cherry-pick our facts. Everyone has a responsibility and duty to disclose, in my humble opinion.

In fact, it was universally believed that Saddam either possessed or was attempting to possess WMD. We cannot afford to cherry-pick our facts. Hello again, George:

I don't disagree that it was universally believed (after the intel was maybe massaged a little)... I'm only saying it was universally WRONG. Besides it was BUSH who invaded, not whomever "universal" is.

Who's cherry picken? It was ALL wrong. There wasn't a cherry to pick. I'm giving them a second chance, though. I think they're right about Iran.

excon

Just consider the situation with the local police and an informant or two; a neighbor is suspected of some criminal activity and the police have sworn statements saying the activity is ongoing and the suspected activity is against the law. In that event, the constitution provides for a reasonable search. Do you have a problem with that?

Do you have a problem with that?Hello again, George:

Here's the deal. I don't think we're on different sides here. The only thing I question is the unintended consequences of the Bush foreign policy.

I DO think the Iranians are the REAL bad guys in the region. It's my belief that one of the MAJOR unintended consequences of the dufus in chief is the overall STRENGTHENING of terrorist regimes throughout the region - MOST of which are surrogates of Iran. I'm talking about Hezbollah in Lebanon. They just whipped out allie Israel, and we loved it. I'm talking about Hamas. Bush says they should have a state all the while they're shooting missiles at Israel. I'm talking about Syria who came damn close to having a bomb before the Israeli's stepped in. I'm talking about the Pakistani's who we just re-armed, and who WON'T go after Ben Laden. You tell me why.

And, I'm especially talking about those stinkin Saudi's who are the real enemy of our country. Bush just sold 'em $$ billions worth of JDAM precision bombs.

So, you ask me whether I think inspecting Iran nuke's is cool? Dude, it's way too late for that. Bush has been fiddling around in a useless war in Iraq while Rome burns...

excon

After all that, excon, you seem to be advocating a more heavy-handed policy in the region than what you complain about.

Cherry-pick: Definition: to choose the best items from a selection for oneself, often in an unfair manner. I think it is fine to argue and debate; that is what politics and freedom are all about. Congress and the UN had that debate, and you probably participated in the debate as well. But to complain about unintended consequences makes you sound like a Demorcrat, left wing, dupe, and not worthy of the libertarian mantle.

After all that, excon, you seem to be advocating a more heavy-handed policy in the region than what you complain about. Hello again, George:

Let's be clear. It's not the dufus in chiefs' heavy hand I'm complaing about. It's that he used his heavy hand against the wrong country - and then it really wasn't very heavy at all, was it?

You are right. In that part of the world, you stay OUT, or you use a very heavy hand. I don't know why Bush didn't learn that from the hundreds of marines who were blown up in their sleep by Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Oh yeah. I know why. He doesn't read history.

We should have used our heavy hand in the good war. We didn't. If we we're going into Iraq, which was a mistake in my view, we should have used our heavy hand there. We didn't. If we are going to let OUR surrogate, the Israeli's fight Hezbollah, we should have let them use a heavy hand. We didn't. If we called the Saudi's the SOB's they are, and used a heavy hand there, it ALL might be over by now.

But the dufus in chief fiddled for 5 years, and let 4,000 of our men and women, and countless Iraqi's needlessly die, while the rest of the region is waiting to feast on our remains.

So, I guess you could say I advocate a heavy hand.

excon

excon writes: "So, I guess you could say I advocate a heavy hand." Then easy on the cherries cause they aren't as good when mashed.

This is all well and good ;and discussions of what and who did what in Iraq are not irrelevant or trivial ;however it doesn't really deal with how Iran should be dealth with now and by the future POTUS .

The only relevance that Iraq has at this point to the discussion about Iran is what would the effect of a precipitus withdrawal have on the balance of power in the Gulf ?

It is also folly to suggest that nothing should be done because "we (supposedly )got it wrong in Iraq" . This of course hasn't been argued here yet but the logical conclusion to the proposition that we got Iraq wrong is to say do nothing about Iran lest we get it wrong again. I find that a dangerous position to take. Further : I find it disturbing that the whole foreign policy debate (what little of it there has been at all)in this campaign has been Iraq-centric .

It is also folly to suggest that nothing should be done because "we (supposedly )got it wrong in Iraq" . This of course hasn't been argued here yet but the logical conclusion to the proposition that we got Iraq wrong is to say do nothing about Iran lest we get it wrong again.Hello again, tom:

Since Elliot has left, you are the last remaining American who thinks we got it right in Iraq. However, since the rest of the world knows we got it wrong, it should give us pause to reflect...

It should do more than that, however. You see, it's like a spouse who cheated on you. You can't ever really believe them again, can you? It's a shame that we expect perfection from our intelligence services. But we do.

What we should have done is clean house to make sure it never happens again. We should have held people accountable. We didn't. Bush gave 'em a medal instead.

So, YOU can trust what they tell us if you choose. I don't.

What do we do about a country who we think are doing bad things but we really don't KNOW?? I don't know. We got troubles, don't we? Like I said, Bush fiddled while Rome burned.

excon

The Dems won't talk about their foreign policy because there is none, other than rehashed McGovernism, which is a sure road to electoral defeat. To the extent the election in 2008 is about foreign policy, the GOP will win.

What we should have done is clean house to make sure it never happens again. We should have held people accountable. We didn't.

Yeah I know what you mean . Valerie Plame's cronies are still cherry picking intel to fit their agenda . It is a good thing that the Admiral set the record straight yesterday.

Iranian diplomat says Tehran building second atomic power plant (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3504400,00.html)


Iran has started building a second atomic power plant in an oil-rich region near the border with Iraq, Iran's ambassador to Russia was quoted as saying on Friday by Itar-Tass news agency.

Gholamreza Ansari said construction had started at Darkhovin in south-western Khuzestan province. Iran has said it would construct a 360 megawatt plant at the site.

"Now we need to think about the fuel for it," Tass quoted him as saying at a news briefing in Moscow. A spokesman for the Iranian embassy confirmed the comment.

Iran has been building its first nuclear power plant near the southern city of Bushehr, where Tehran says test operations could start later this year. Final deliveries of nuclear fuel by Russia arrived at the plant last month.

Western countries suspect Iran's nuclear activities are aimed at weapon-building. Iran, the world's fourth largest crude oil producer, says it wants only to generate electricity so that it can export more oil and gas.

Iran wants to build other power plants by 2020 as part of a planned network with a capacity of 20,000 megawatt to satisfy soaring domestic electricity demand.

Iran kept design data from IAEA in response to sanctions

The International Atomic Energy Agency has mentioned the Darkhovin project in previous reports on Iran .

But Iran curbed access by the watchdog's inspectors to planned nuclear sites last year, and stopped providing design data on them, in retaliation for UN sanctions imposed on it.

A senior IAEA source declined to say whether those restrictions remained with respect to Darkhovin or other sites. The matter will be addressed in the next agency report on Iran due around Feb. 20.

The ambassador to Moscow said Iran had been trying to ease Russian concerns about its space program after the test launch of a rocket this month.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Ministry Alexander Losyukov said this week the launch raised suspicions about the real nature of Iran's atomic program.

"We are explaining to our friends that we are not pursuing any military goals as far as our space research is concerned," the ambassador was quoted as saying.

What space research, the space between Iran and Israel?

This week they launched a Shahab-3 MRBM missile and called it a Explorer 1 space rocket .The Mahdi Hatter then announced the opening of Iran's 1st space center and said they would achieve launching a satellite some time this year. Of course a rocket large enough to place a satellite in orbit could also lob a nuke into Europe.

Russia's deputy foreign minister Alexandyr Losyukov, said that Iran's actions “raised suspicions over Tehran's claim of peaceful nuclear intentions"
Duh... ya think? Maybe that should tell him why Poland wants the US missile umbrella .

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Iran is reportedly using a new high-speed version of machinery to produce nuclear fuel, stirring more debate over Tehran's nuclear program.

The equipment involves centrifuges known as IR-2s, described as a better component than the Pakistan-designed model Iran had been using in enriching nuclear fuel.

Debate in Washington is said to likely center on whether a recent National Intelligence Estimate accurately portrayed Tehran's progress toward the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told Congress that he regretted how the National Intelligence Estimate had been written, which some said left the impression that Iran was no longer seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, he said, meant it still posed a potential nuclear threat.

Iranian officials say the program is for peaceful purposes.

Iran test sure to spark nuclear debate - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/08/iran_test_sure_to_spark_nuclear_debate/4530/)

I`ve been in Iraq for a while, and sure Iraq is so closer to Iran, so what I`hve heard there is true..

They say when Iraq Owned Iran in the 1st gulf war, Iran`s government has decide to take advantage and control her neighbors like Iraq-Kuwait- and Arabic gulf countries-Syria-Lebanon…etc.
So now after they finish establishing their nuclear weapon.. they will control everything in the Arabic gulf countries.. all the resources.. specially the Oil just to make U.S stop talking about the nuclear weapon !
Iran started controlling with Lebanon by HIZBALLAH-Iraq by al-Qaida and AlMahdi Army and the government-Syria also … and they will not stop until finish the plan..

So... Do IRAN have Created a nuclear Weapon ?
Yes, Yes, soon.. and it`s against Muslims and Arabs ( ONLY )

Nickname .

What you say about Iran's hegemic ambitions is true .Do you think the world can afford for them to control the region ? That would be intolerable and the world would be compelled to act... right ?

Re :Lebanon The Druids and Christians in Lebanon are spitting nails they are so angry at the West's betrayal of them .It isn't going to get any better. All 3 US Presidential candidates have plans to engage with Syria . Perhaps they think that they can get Syria to peel away from Iran's influence ;but that is delusional thinking . Syria has been a major player in the proxy war against the US in Iraq and they have not been held accountable for it. This outreach will be seen as weakness . At very least ;Syria will be handed Lebanon in exchange .

We need more than Russia to save the day. They have no interest whtsoever in the success or security of the US. Russia's evaluations of Iran may be designed to lead us to the wrong conclusion.
We can't negotiate with Iran, they would prob keep our reps for 444 days or so.
You are very correct, Iran is definitely not Iraq. But if Iran is essentially killing American military personnel in Iraq, what will they do to the new Iraq once US leaves, espec if they develop nukes?
Iran is literally the line in the sand regarding that region. Oil, Israel and terrorism make it impossible for us to stay out of it. It is just a matter of what tactics we use to neutralize Iran. Embargo is not an option. We need to act before nuclear is our only option. If it has to happen, it might be best that it happen before election day, so we can see who is the best candidate (with the best plan) to deal with the ramifications.
We can ridicule our leaders and candidates all we want, but this is very serious business.

Hello smear:

Well, I'm going to ridicule you for suggesting that Bush bomb Iran and leave THAT mess to the next guy (or chick). If Iraq was dumb, and it was, this would be 100 times dumber.

I don't put it past the dufus in chief to do it, though.

excon

Leaving a mess for the next president is of no concern when it comes to the defense of the country. We have to stop trying to manage the greatest country in the world by planning in 4 year increments.

I think that any action against Iran should occur when the chances of military success are best. The day after they nuke one of the middleast countries would not be the best timing. I can't envision the middleast with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Hello again, smear:

Committing the country to a disastrous war (even more disastrous than the one he DID commit us to) and then going back home to clear brush would be the most stupid, short sighted and craziest thing he could do.

But, he's not alone, is he?

excon

Well, Obama wants to smoke the peace pipe, or something, with the puppet/dictator; he believes he can charm his way through Tehran, similar to Roosevelt's notion with Uncle Joe. He views the ruling mullahs like the editorial board of a northeastern newspaper.

Hello again,

I don't know when diplomacy became a dirty word to you folks. I also didn't know that diplomacy meant lying down. Do you really think we ought to bomb them, and talk later??

You do, don't you?

Well, fortunately for us, your way of thinking is on the outs.

excon

smearcase yes the remarks about Russia were partly tongue in cheek. Despite the fact that the Ruskies know that eventually the Frankenstein they create will turn on them; it is in their interests to have us engaged in a struggle against Iran .They have in fact helped them upgrade surface to air capability.

I personally think the decision could be out of our control . The Iranians have been testing our fleet by deploying speed boats in an attempt I guess to recreate a Gulf of Tonkin moment or at least test our defenses . Given the history with things like the USS Cole attack ,the fleet will respond before they let a repeat sneak attack occure.

The world and the region may publicly make phony outcries if Iran and us came to blows but the choice of a nuclear armed Iran is intolerable and they know it . I also think it would not serve the Iranians best interest. Either proliferation would spread to the wealthy Gulf States ;or they would come under the American nuclear umbrella. Iran would indeed guarantee a permanent US presence in the region.

As for your speculation ;I think that President Bush may indeed decide that he has to make a move before the end of his term. The problem we have had with Iran post revolution is that we have too often settled for talk. We have talked weakly and we have talked tough. But besides the Tanker War ,we have not backed it up. The case can easily be made for action . US troops continue to take casualties from Iranian trained proxies and Iranian made weapons.

Iran is looking at the real possibility of having a weaker President to deal with in the future. They also believe that in the election year ;and with our other commitments they have a carte-blanche to act with impunity this year.That is why the Hezbollah take over of Lebanon occurred this month. Don't be mistaken by their pullback . That came in the wake of heavy concessions by the pro-government forces .They are negotiating the terms of their dhiminitude now.

OK the terms of the Lebanon surrender to Hezbollah are in :
The surrender agreement gives Hezbollah the following:

1) 11 seats in the Cabinet and a veto power over final decisions

2) It keeps Hezbollah's weapons intact despite a UNSCR 1559 that called for disarming the militia

3) It will give Hezbollah significant influence over foreign policy
It will give Syria :
1) A capacity of using its allies in the new Lebanese Government to delay the process of the Hariri Tribunal.

2) A growing ally inside Lebanon

According to the agreement, a new President is to be elected next Sunday, General Michel Sleiman.The pro-US Lebanese Government of Seniora will be disbanded next week .The Cedar Revolution is dead because we did not give them the support they deserve.

Expect Israel to be attacked via Lebanon again this summer. That may be the time that President Bush moves against Iran.

My belief is thae Israel will launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran's nuclear assets. Since they (Israel) know that the first application of Iranian nuclear weapons will be against them, they have no choice.