'No proof' of Iran nuclear arms

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The article says the White House was dismissive about the CIA report.

The US and Europe say Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme - a charge Iran has strongly denied.

'Hostile' response

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an "error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration".

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says if the New Yorker article is correct, it would suggest that the CIA is being more cautious than the Bush administration in evaluating whether or not Iran is on its way to building a bomb.

And he says, as with Iraq, it suggests political battles to come over how intelligence is used as a basis for American foreign policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the White House response:


White House brushes off CIA draft on Iran: report

Monday, November 20, 2006; 11:56 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House dismissed a classified CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, The New Yorker magazine reported.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the CIA's analysis was based on technical intelligence collected by satellites and on other evidence like measurements of the radioactivity of water samples.

Washington Post stories and multimedia reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror and more.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.

"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it," it said.

The United States has accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not respond directly to Hersh's assertions, but said the article was another "error-filled piece" in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration."

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she said on Monday.

The article, in the current issue of the magazine, discussed how Vice President Dick Cheney believed the Bush administration would deal with Iran if the Republicans lost control of Congress -- as they did in the November 7 election.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing an unidentified source familiar with the discussion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00313.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best part in bold. The "viciously degraded our troops" was apparently something like Hersh saying the war was "murderous" (ooh, controversial) the day after Kerry fucked up a joke at a rally. Apparently it's possible to equate what he said with something entirely the contrary.

do americans care?

Why would a country that is sitting on enormous oil reserves decide to switch to nuclear energy, which costs about ten times more to produce energy, AND they'd have to import the fuel from other countries?

There is no rational reason. They are planning on producing weapons.

Because they were up for the challenge?

Axis of EviLOL.

isn't it 'nexus of something or other' now?

Wouldn't the discovery of fresh plutonium and enriched uranium by the IAEA be a hint that Iran is seeking more than an alternative energy source?

shhhhhh this is more about the US govt saying they dont believe one guys report than it is about logic

Global warming?

*fixed

Ya, ahmedinejad is suddenly altruistic.

so they can be self sustaining
because of the environment effects
so they can sell the petro
so they won't be invaded
so they can concentrate on their industry\\


why can israel have not only nuclear power but nuclear weapons as well??

also a matter of national pride

From reading the White House response it seems to me that they hate Seymour Hersh. They say that there are inaccuracies in the article but they do not give any examples, strange. So they deny the story, give zero examples of why the article is wrong, and try to bring down the author. Great job

hersh broke abu ghraib as well

they denied the shit out of that as well

PD, I'd like to see a better answer to the last question than the complete go-round you did. Israel has the weapons, that there has never been an admission or proof is only relevant in regards to the fact there has also never been an inspections regime in Israel. Why is this legitimate?

I didn't say it was legitimate. The other poster implied it was. I agree with you, that there simply has never been an inspection regime. Now, that may be seen as tacit approval, especially by Israel's enemies, but I don't think anyone is concerned about Israel launching a nuclear first strike against anyone, and the same could not be said of a theocratic regime hoping to hasten the return of the lost imam or some shit.

I'd say that Israel ought to just come out and say, "Hey, we've got nukes," like India and Pakistan have done. It would be about as surprising as Doogie Howser's recent admission. But it would also legitimize what Iran is doing, and that is a BAD outcome. So what if it's "not fair". A lot of shit in the Middle East is not fair, especially when it concerns Israel, and it goes both ways.

i am opposed to nuclear weapons all together. i dont trust any humans to have control of such a powerful weapon, including my fucked up government and it's trigger happy leaders.

but why does it come as a suprise to anyone if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons technology. The U.S. has invaded 2 neighboring countries in the last 5 years? including "pre-emptively". i compare it to a corner store owner in a rough area having a .357 behind the counter and bullet proof glass, to protect his store. much like i am sure Iran wants to protect it's oil fields from the US or any other aggresive nation in the future.

i dont support anyone developing nuclear weapons, but i sure cant blame them considering recent events and the new doctrine of "pre-emptive war".

its like beating your wife, then wondering why she gets a protection order?