Iranian technocrats, disillusioned with government, offer wealth of intelligence to U.S.

[Elmore Furth]

Source: Washington Post



By Joby Warrick and Greg Miller
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 25, 2010

Iran's political turmoil has prompted a growing number of the country's officials to defect or leak information to the West, creating a new flow of intelligence about its secretive nuclear program, U.S. officials said.

The gains have complicated work on a long-awaited assessment of Iran's nuclear activities, a report that will represent the combined judgment of more than a dozen U.S. spy agencies. The National Intelligence Estimate was due last fall but has been delayed at least twice amid efforts to incorporate information from sources who are still being vetted.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in a brief interview last week that the delay in the completion of the NIE "has to do with the information coming in and the pace of developments."

Some of the most significant new material has come from informants, including scientists and others with access to Iran's military programs, who are motivated by antipathy toward the government and its suppression of the opposition movement after a disputed presidential election in June, according to current and former officials in the United States and Europe who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence gains.

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have acknowledged that an Iranian nuclear scientist defected to the West in June. Shahram Amiri, 32, vanished while on a religious pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia and has provided spy agencies with details about sensitive programs, including a long-hidden uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Qom, intelligence officials and Europe-based diplomats said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042402710.html

[midnight]

1. Darn, but I don't believe this. Not that I have access to other or different info.,

But I just don't....

[cowman]

4. Why don't you believe it?

Sounds like the Obama Admin is getting inside Iran's secretive nuclear program and that is a good thing. Maybe we'll find out what is really going on instead of speculating

[bananas]

11. Here's some other information - when ElBaradei was head of the IAEA, he said

Iran wanted the ability to make nuclear weapons - they wanted to develop the technology so that any point in time, they could kick out the IAEA inspectors and start production. They already used chemical weapons against Iraq, so please don't be so naive to believe that they wouldn't use nuclear weapons in the future. Right here in the USA, we just had a president who wanted to use pre-emptive tactical nuclear weapons on Iran - do you really believe either the US or some other country won't get a bunch of crazies in power like Bush and Cheney? Fortunately there is a movement towards elimating these weapons entirely - see www.globalzero.org

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55G21V20090617

Iran seeking nuclear weapons technology: ElBaradei
Mark Heinrich and Sylvia Westall
VIENNA
Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:51pm EDT
Related Video

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain the reputation of a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast on Wednesday.

<snip>

ElBaradei said the Islamic Republic sees a nuclear breakout ability as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats from neighboring countries or the United States.

"My gut feeling is that Iran definitely would like to have the technology ... that would enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so," he told the BBC.

The enrichment process can be configured to produce fuel either for nuclear power plants or weapons.

"(Iran) wants to send a message to its neighbors, it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it," said ElBaradei.

<snip>

[happyslug]

20. Yes, Iran used Chemical Weapons against Iraq, but it was RETALIATORY ONLY

i.e. Iraq used Chemicals on Iran BEFORE Iran used Chemicals on Iraq.

"Iran used chemical weapons late in the war, but never as extensively or successfully as Iraq."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

The actual US Military report on Iraq and Iranian used of Chemicals in the Iraq-Iran war:
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970129/970110_1620S464_90_0001.html

Some researchers have FAILED to find any use of Chemicals by Iran in that war, pointing out the US findings of such use was speculative at best. Any of the test batches of Chemical residue clearly marked them as Iraqi Chemicals, even in areas the US claim Iran used the chemicals. Do to the nature of the Chemicals Iran had access to it is easy to determine which used used chemicals in any part of the Conflict, thus the failure to find any actual chemical residue tied in with Iranian production (or purchase) tends to support the findings that Iran DID not use Chemicals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iran
http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-chemicalessay.htm

The big claim that Iran used Chemicals was the 1988 poison gas attack on the city of Halabja. At that time Iran could produce Mustard and Blood Agents but NOT Nerve Gas. Iraq was using Mustard and Tabun (A Nerve Gas). At the time (1988) it was claimed by the US viewing films of the victims that they died from Mustard and Blood Agents. Post-War investigation tends to point to Tabun and Mustard. If Tabun was in the mix it was clearly an Iraqi attack. If it was a Blood Agent (A WWI and WWII gas) then it would have been Iran. Both sides could produce Mustard, but it is a persistent gas and thus NOT used in areas you plan to send in your own troops. Given that situation Iran had no reason to use Mustard (Through Iran had Mustard in its supply line) for Iran was doing the attacking. Iran reported the Kurdish civilians they treated had been hit by Mustard. Could this have been an Iranian chemical attack? Yes, but given that Iran was on the attack why use Mustard? It is to persistent for offensive operations (Except in areas you do NOT intend to attack or hold). An attacker thus tends to use one of the Blood Agents or a Nerve Gas (Like Tabun) in offensive operations. The lack of evidence of a blood agent seems to support this was an Iraqi use of Gas, first Tabun and later Mustard as the Iraqis tried to stop the Iranian Offensive.

More on the attack on Halabja:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

My point is simple, there is NO evidence that Iran ever used Chemical Weapons. There is some speculation that Iran used Chemical Weapons, but every time those speculation have been tested, they keep coming up negative. Thus we can NOT claim that Iran has used Chemical Weapons. We need more evidence then we have at the present time to make such a claim. Just a Comment that there is no evidence that Iran has ever used Chemical Weapons and to claim so in your thread is NOT accurate. Furthermore if Iran did use Chemical Weapons it was clearly retaliatory NOT a first strike thus to claim that since Iran used Chemicals as a retaliatory against another country using Chemical weapons in Iran, is the same doctrine as US has for its use of Chemical Weapons (i.e. the US will use Chemicals only if Chemicals are used against our forces first, just as Iran did in the Iran-Iraqi War).

[Mika]

2. Curveball II, Curveball III, Curveball IV ... ... ... n/t

[Iliyah]

3. Why not

believe some aspect of this story. When you have more than half of the Iranian citizenship wanting the same freedoms we as Americans take for granted (which the tea baggers have no clue what that means), then yes, although I'm pretty sure the US will determine which is false information as to what is semi true.

[BobbyBoring]

6. Oh Really!

Just like they did with Iraq? This is just the same old ratcheting up of rhetoric we saw 7 years ago. I just HOPED the Obama administration would be different when it came to war. Guess not~

[hack89]

7. I can understand why Bush would manipulate intelligence to start a war

I don't understand why Obama would. I think he is a decent, rational person who puts the country before personal vendettas. Don't you feel the same way?

[quakerboy]

8. The intelligence community is synonymous with the president?

I think its pretty clear that various parts of the intelligence community have their own goals which do not necessarily coincide with the needs of the country or the aims of the administration.

[hack89]

10. So Obama is being manipulated? Just like Bush?

I didn't realize Obama just a figurehead.

[quakerboy]

19. "just a figurehead"

Hopefully not. Reliant on the information that others give him? certainly. As are most of us.

[Ghost Dog]

12. Stovepipes deployed, Captain. n/t

[troubledamerican]

16. The carpet bombing of Iran begins by ... July 30?

Or will they wait until after August to roll-out the new product?

[Ian David]

5. Great. A whole country full of Curveball. n/t

[Iliyah]

9. I truly

doubt it. This administration is for an diplomatic solution, and probably thru other means supporting the opposition within Iran.

Liebermen totally supports the GOP, and if McCain and Palin had won, I believe we would be at war right now with Iran.

[Ian David]

13. If McCain had won, we'd be foraging for food in the rubble of our cities. n/t

[troubledamerican]

17. We'll get there. Give it 5 more years.

I see a "terrorist attack" like the Polish Aircrash Massacre allowing John Roberts to swear-in Sarah Palin on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at midnight.

[No Elephants]

23. Some people in Boston have been doing that for years. Still are.

Those that don't die off in winter, anyway.

[BetterThanNoSN]

14. It's too bad...

Have we not learned to recognize this propagandist disinformation yet?? Just wait, they'll trot out the next Ahmed Chalabi with tales of Iranian interference in all our wars. Or how much they torture their own people, especially women. That ones always a winner here. I'm waiting for the scientist who says they are planning an attack on the US. We have to somehow get pre-emptive bombing back in the picture ya know.
I loved it the other day was I was perusing the news and passed by Fox. The breaking news in big bold letters: Iran can have a weapon with which to attack the US by 2015 IF they get significant help from another country. And the crawl below soon read, 'For more information on Iran's ability to attack the US go to fox.com. IF they get help? What the hell kind of reporting is that? If they got help i'm sure they could send a rocket in a week. What a crock 'o' shit.

[BetterThanNoSN]

15. And by the way...

Here's some other information - when ElBaradei was head of the IAEA, he said
Iran wanted the ability to make nuclear weapons - they wanted to develop the technology so that any point in time, they could kick out the IAEA inspectors and start production.

Just imagine for a second that Russia/China/whomever has already invaded and occupy Mexico and Canada and has a group of battleships off our coasts. Spewing rhetoric such as, we can't take military action off the table against the US. Threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the US from doing whatever. You think we wouldn't like to have some nuclear deterrent to get them to go back home?

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Good news, bad news.

The good news, judging from the responses on this thread, and on others, is that there is a very
healthy skepticism of the "official" stories and motive of the government.
That mis-trust has been well earned for many years.

The bad news is...same as above.

[happyslug]

21. But how much is being released by the Iranian Government itself???

Lets don't fool ourselves, even the opposition to the present Iranian Government SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Both sides claim no such development is being done at present AND that the only time Iraq will do so if it is threatened by a Nuclear power with the use of Nuclear Weapons.

Given the above why would ANY Government Scientist undermine his own country just because he oppose the present government? Protests in the Streets, yes, sign Petitions, yes, go on Strike, yes, even quit working, yes, but turn over secrets to a hostile government? No way.

Thus much of what is being released may be attempts by the Iranian Government to show the US that they have no Nuclear weapons nor any capacity to produce any. I always remember the Comment Ben Franklin told John Adams when both were ambassadors to the King Of France during the American Revolution. While at that court, Ben Franklin hired a Valet, who turned out to be a British Spy. When Adams brought this up to Franklin, Franklin responded that he knew the Valet was a spy, but sometime it is better to leave the other side "Steal" what you want them to know rather then tell them. Some time the other side feel such products of spies is more reliable then the what the side spied on tells them (Then Franklin added, and he is a very good Valet).

As with Franklin's Valet, the Iranians may believe that the US will believe things leaked to them rather then what Iran tells them and thus all of this information is Iranian Government approved NOT leak in opposition to the present Iranian Government.

[Socal31]

22. LOL @ people automatically discounting this article

and bashing Obama. I think some may be on the wrong website.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Why is this leaked to us/press now???

Why would we openly admit that people within Iran are currently sending us information? I find it odd that the information comes out and is published now. Are we actually hoping that Iran will think we learned more than just what the defector has told us? That Iran might start another crackdown on the Universities causing more unrest?