Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Julian Englis

(2,309 posts)
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:43 AM Mar 2012

Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent

Source: Reuters

The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

"They're keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it," a U.S. administration official said.

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M0G020120323

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Botany

(77,316 posts)
4. The same people who brought us Iraq and the WMDs now are bringing us ....
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 10:50 AM
Mar 2012

..... Iran is building "the bomb."

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
10. No they won't. They will come up with some reason to bomb Iran before Iran gets the bomb now.
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:13 PM
Mar 2012

You're correct, they profit, either directly or indirectly from the wars they star.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,223 posts)
6. But they do have oil, and evidently, that's a reason to attack them :sarcasm:
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:12 AM
Mar 2012

The bought-and-paid-for idiots in our government could have taken all the money they spend on oil wars and built or upgraded a world-class public transit system for every major city in the country, a world-class high-speed rail system linking all the major cities in each region, and modifications of existing suburbs to make non-automotive transportation possible.

The militarists would have fewer places to use their war toys. They would complain.

But consider this: about 1/3 of greenhouse gases are automobile exhaust.

TBF

(36,665 posts)
17. Yep, pillaging resources and also
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:46 AM
Mar 2012

Goons just have to be goons - our military likes to be in charge. I blame PNAC and their "vision" for this and appreciate Obama has a hell of a problem dealing with these guys.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
8. Something is wrong. M. Bachman was on Morning Joe ja couple hours ago, said info JUST
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 11:39 AM
Mar 2012

came across the Atlantic wire that they ARE working on nuclear WEAPONS in the Pashtun(?) facility (SE, NW?) of the city.

Proving once again that when you need some intelligence, first ask M. Bachman. Then seek the truth.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
13. That would be kind of funny.
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:50 PM
Mar 2012

The Pashtun people are a sub-culture which extends across the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, not Iran. Normally I might doubt your guess, but considering the source, I won't be surprised to find that Bachmann confused the Pashtun people with a city in Iran (perhaps Bushehr?).

The actual interest of the Republicans is not in the nuclear facilities at Bushehr, but in one of the last untapped major oilfields which lies underneath it. Using the nuclear facility as a pretext, oil interests want to bag Bushehr province, cut the Iranians off from the Persian Gulf, steal their oil, and fight off four million redneck zealots who will pour over the mountains into the coastal plains to take it back.

Put Mitt Romney in office, and it will happen by this time next year.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
9. Exactly, yours truly
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:12 PM
Mar 2012

The God fearing who want to attack Iran, y'know, the Bushies and company, i.e., the GOP party.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
12. Oh, so we can expect prices at the pump to drop today.
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:29 PM
Mar 2012

Oh, wait. Increasing international tension results in instant price increases.

Lessening of tensions, however, does not lower prices overnight because every extra day that people get jacked at the pump is a day of pure profit for the industry (except of course for the station owners, who get virtually nothing).

Let's see how many weeks, months or years it takes for this good news to be reflected on the sign, eh?

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
14. This is all so transparently ridiculous.
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:51 PM
Mar 2012

Poor little ol' Israel with only a couple of hundred nukes is scared of mean ol' Iran.

And the Great Chicken, America, which has Iran surrounded with military bases and has thousands of nukes, is quaking in its boots at the Iranian threat.

It's like the whole world is Fox News.

Dawson Leery

(19,568 posts)
15. The same chickenhawk neo-cons who brought us the Iraq war
Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:22 PM
Mar 2012

are know propagating to start a war with Iran.

 

aaronbrett1971

(2 posts)
16. Military hostilities with Iran should start on September the 19th, 2012.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:36 AM
Mar 2012

Military hostilities with Iran should start on September the 19th, 2012.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Special Report: Intel sho...