Talk:Views on the nuclear program of Iran

NPguy

Non-Proliferation Guy has all kinds of problems with the facts. Here are the original facts that he unreasonably keeps cutting out:

---

The situation in the United States is, as ever, frightening:

Right now the polling shows: 1. That most Americans support a strike on Iran (presumably to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon) and 2. That most Americans think Iran already has a nuclear weapon. Which is to say, most Americans don't know what they're talking about.

---

Peter Beinart's facts were powerfully and amply supplemented by the observations of Charles Simic in a blog post today for The New York Review of Books:

"Widespread ignorance bordering on idiocy is our new national goal. It's no use pretending otherwise and telling us, as Thomas Friedman did in the Times a few days ago, that educated people are the nation’s most valuable resources. Sure, they are, but do we still want them? It doesn't look to me as if we do. The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state, such as the one we now have, is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit. . . . It took years of indifference and stupidity to make us as ignorant as we are today.

~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Views on the nuclear program of Iran

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Views on the nuclear program of Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nti.org":

• From Iran and weapons of mass destruction: "HEU as weapons material – a technical background" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-20.
• From Dolphin class submarine: http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/
• From Nuclear program of Iran: "HEU as weapons material – a technical background" (PDF). Retrieved 20 September 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the first one. I fixed the link. NPguy (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Current views on the 2007 NIE

Recent edits have suggested that the U.S. government view now discounts the conclusions of the 2007 NIE, which said Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The wording of the NIE has been criticized (with some justification) as misleading, but that's not what is at issue here. One edit cites Defense Secretary Panetta in 2009 saying that Iran is seeking a "nuclear weapons capability" and implying that this is inconsistent with the NIE. In fact, "nuclear weapons capability" is usually used in this context to refer to the capability to produce high-enriched uranium, a key ingredient in a nuclear weapon. Iran has persisted in developing its enrichment capabilities, as the 2007 NIE made clear. Saying Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability in no way contradicts the NIE.

There does seem to be one change in the U.S. intelligence assessment, which is reflected in the IAEA's November 2011 report on the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program. According to this report, some of Iran's weapons-related R&D continued after the weapons design program was disbanded. Let's agree on a set of edits that make these points clear. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any edits made were properly referenced. We report what references say, and the headline of the reference says exactly that, and cites Panetta specifically in regards to that, not as a general comment. It's not for us to interpret it on our own. --Activism1234 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize it may be un-wiki, but I'm making an appeal to accuracy. Where an otherwise reliable source makes a mistaken judgment (in this case misinterpreting Panetta's remark) it's best not to repeat the error.

To respond to your question on my talk page, U.S. officials have said on the record that their assessment of Iran has not changed, since the 2011 updated NIE. That is, effectively, a denial of claims that the U.S. assessment has changed. I noted one such citation, but there have been quite a few. NPguy (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your appeal to accuracy, but this is your interpretation of what he said, and as far as I know, is not backed by other references. It's an explicit statement about the pursuit of nuclear capability. We can't allow editing based on what one person thinks is the real interpretation of what a person said, despite the reference saying the opposite.

Also, I'm not asking about denying the U.S. assessment. All I'm asking is for a reliable reference specifically about denying the 2012 NIE report (yes, there exists such a thing in politics as saying one thing in public but the opposite in an internal document). It shouldn't be that tough to find if it's really true. CNN, BBC, Huffington Post, any of these. --Activism1234 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the reliable basis for claiming that there was an NIE? Public speculation by Ehud Barak?

Jeffrey Lewis just posted a great analysis of this issue on the Arms Control Wonk blog. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The reliable basis for this, which would be attributed, are two articles in Ha'aretz that coincided with an article in Yedioth Ahronot, and Ehud Barak's subsequent statements on it, again properly attributed. No one is attempting to write it as a definite fact, just that this has been in the news etc.

The link you posted is an op-ed on a blog written by a partisan author, and blogs generally aren't used as Wikipedia references, in addition to the fact it's an opinion piece. Either way, however, although a fascinating read (albeit some key mistakes are made), it's unrelated to what I've been saying here.--Activism1234 02:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reports of Barak trying speculating in the Israeli press that there is a new U.S. assessment. They are reliable expression of his efforts. But his claims are contradicted by official U.S. statements that the U.S. assessment is unchanged.

If this information belongs anywhere in this article, it should be as a the statement of Israeli views: Defense Minister Barak, arguing that a military attack might be needed to halt Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, claimed that the United States had changed its assessment, but U.S. government sources did not support this claim.

Arms Control Wonk is actually a quite reliable and not particularly partisan source compared to many "reliable" press sources. This article is particularly good, and was also published online by Foreign Policy. NPguy (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant part of that FP story is in regards to Panetta's statements on Tuesday. Can you point out specifically where in his statements he denied that iran is working towards a nuclear capability, or affirmed the 2007 NIE report?

Q: (off mic) on Israel-Iran issues, there's been an uptick in publicity in the Middle East about speculation that Israel is getting ready to attack Iran again. This periodically happens, obviously.

On April -- on August , you were in Israel and you said we -- we need to exhaust every option, every effort before undertaking military action. Five days later, Michael Oren, the ambassador to Israel, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Time is dwindling. The window of opportunity that opened 20 years ago to stop their program is almost shut."

At this point, what's your view here? Is Israel closer than ever before to undertaking unilateral strikes against Iran? And, General Dempsey, what's your latest thinking about the effectiveness of those types of strikes undertaken by a nation with non-stealthy aircraft and a limited number of bunker buster-type of weaponry?

SEC. PANETTA: I've said this before; I'll say it now. I don't believe they've made a decision as to whether or not they will -- they will go in and attack Iran at this time. Obviously, they're an independent, they’re a sovereign country. They're ultimately make decisions based on what they think is in their national security interest. But I don't believe they've made that decision at this time.

And with regards to, you know, the issue of where we're at from a diplomatic point of view, the reality is that we still think there is room to continue to negotiate. We're just -- these sanctions, the additional sanctions have been put in place. They're beginning to have an additional impact on top of the other sanctions that have been placed there. The international community is strongly unified in opposition to Iran developing any kind of nuclear weapon. And we are working together, both on the diplomatic side, as well as on the economic side, to apply sanctions.

And I think the effort, you know, is one that the United States and the international community is going to continue to press, because as I said -- and I'll continue to repeat -- the prime minister of Israel said the same thing, that military -- any kind of military action ought to be the last alternative, not the first.

Q: But when you've got the ambassador saying the window is almost shut, that implies they're at wit's end, almost, and that they're ready to strike.

SEC. PANETTA: I mean, I -- you know, obviously, Israel has to respond to that question. But from our point of view, the window is still open to try to work towards a diplomatic solution.

GEN. DEMPSEY: And militarily, my -- my assessment hasn't changed. And I want to make clear; I'm not privy to their planning. So what I'm telling you is based on what I know of their capabilities, and I may not know about all their capabilities, but I think that it's a fair characterization to say that they could delay, but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.

The Reuters article linked to in the FP article specifically says,

"'U.S. officials would not directly comment on whether there was a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which is a compilation of views of the various U.S. intelligence agencies."

Thanks. --Activism1234 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)