The stuff that bothers me is this here: (it’s underlined)
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it as not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad-or will acquire in the future-a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously-which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.
C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications-some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
• 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-if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible-prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons-and such a decision is inherently reversible.
F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites-for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
It is a very sobering fact, that the United States of America, with all it’s vast intelligence gathering equipment at the National Security Agency, cannot gather this information and guarantee the accuracy of it. I personally believe that this speaks of the blatant incompetence of this Presidential Administration. Further more, I believe it speaks of the blatant incompetence within our intelligence community as a whole.
How is that the most prosperous Nation on the planet, with all of the advanced technology that it possesses, is unable to carry a simple mediocre task, such as obtaining bulletproof intelligence from a Nation such as Iran? Is it impossible to send covert agents into that country, for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence?
Further more, I am absolutely sickened by the ignorance of the Neo-Conservative Norman Podhoretz, who by scare-mongering, discounts the report totally and says the President should invade anyway. Hey, Norman, isn’t that the stupid nonsense that got us into the quagmire, that is known as the Iraq “War” in the first place?
Just as well, I am highly disappointed in Keith Olbermann, who in his sad blind allegiance to the Democratic Party, used his so-called “News Show”, to smear George W. Bush and cast doubt upon his sanity and his ability to lead the country, instead of objectively reporting on the report. Which is what he is supposed to do. On this same show, he made a very undeserved attacked on Lou Dobbs, who was reporting the news, quite frankly, when Keith was sh*tting green. He also had the nerve to call Lou Dobbs a “thinly veiled” racist. Mr. Olbermann, You did not score points with this viewer. I highly suggest you stick to the prodding of the Fox News anchors, because your attack on Lou Dobbs was quite unwarranted. I have to give Lou Dobbs credit, at least he gives a damn about the sovereignty of this nation, which is more than I can say for you sir. If you spend just one minute of your damn time looking at the facts about illegal immigration, instead of haply defending your liberal open borders policy. You might just get your eyes opened, and you try and equate yourself to Edward R. Murrow? I wonder what his family thinks of that? Quite frankly, you could not hold a damn candle to Marrow. He reported the facts, you sensationalize, smear, and outright lie to further your damn agenda. So, please, do the family of marrow and the journalistic world a damn favor and stop equating yourself to him. It is an absolute insult to his memory.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
