The truth? Pressure has worked in Iran

Does the report that Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 really

transform the political and diplomatic debate about what to do about Iran

as Coffee House suggests?

Yes, of course, but instead of producing the outcome that the Spectator blog suggests:

At first blush, it appears to thwart any chance America and the EU-3 had of getting the UN Security Council to vote for tougher sanctions on Iran.

the response should be the opposite.

If Iran has indeed halted the programme, it did so under huge US pressure and in the same year as the attack on Saddam. The lesson is that this pressure works.

Huge numbers of articles have been written since 2003 about how the US was powerless and how the Iraq war had strengthened the war. The new assessments suggests that these articles were wrong.

The debate should be transformed - with those urging a tough line feeling greatly strengthened.

Comments

[Bruce Robertson]

It's the US which has backed down!

[adam]

So there's one middle east country where US intelligence said that there were WMDs so we invaded, found none and wrecked the place.

And there's another where there were WMDs (or at least a programme towards them), we didn't invade, but now US intelligence has said that there are none.

Try and pick a coherent foreign policy out of that one.

If the intelligence is true, then the big question is how close were we to invading *another* country which we thought had WMDs but didn't?

[Simon Stephenson]

I appreciate that the ficticious Vito Corleone, as portrayed, was not born in the United States, but does anyone else see parallels between his penchant for making unrefusable offers and the US negotiating stance in diplomacy with Iran, and elsewhere?

[George]

Mr Finkelstein has got it wrong as usual but what can we expect from someone who only sees the US/Israeli side of any arguement.
I noticed you never see him criticise Israel for illegal un UN sanctioned attacks on its neighbours?

[Stuart]

There's another reading of the same evidence that says that offers of talks, of renormalising diplomatic relations and of new trade deals allowed more pragmatic heads to over-rule to head bangers who wanted big weapons to wave around. It could also support an argument that the good-cop, bad-cop routine by the EU3 and the USA was more effective.

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

Sorry, Danny, what we have here is just another horrible example of Bush's dishonesty, this time revealed before he does any more harm.

He started a terrible war before, knowing full well the facts of Iraq's weapons status. He used and abused the Director of CIA as well as others in carrying out his obsession.

He has been lying through his teeth about Iran.
If anybody believes the cover story that this estimate is brand new, he or she should contact me about a bridge I want to sell.

The President is given weekly intelligence estimates, along with periodic priority updates as required. Would Americans want it to be any other way?

I think what we have here is the intelligence community trying to prevent another disaster. Many in the military and intelligence community understand the truth about Bush.

They understand what a strategic blunder Iraq was, and they understand how stretched their forces are.

There are stories that a number of senior military officers are prepared to tender their resignations should Bush attack Iran.

This man is a narcissistic liar, one of the key requirements for a psychopath, who believes only his inner voice, regarding the thoughts of others as meaningless.

[John Negroponte]

See? Bush is lying againnn... And for the people of Iran, we congratulate them for their hardship and determination to protect their beloved nation from murderers, maniacs and liars.. Long Live Iran.

[Volker]

Well, i don't know whether this new report means that pressure worked or not. But i know one thing now: the US intelligence services are a bunch of incompetents. First they say that there are WMD in Iraq. Then they claim for years (!) that Iran is doing everything it can to develop WMD. And now they say: Ooops. We got new information (like "new human resources" or transcripts from conversations intercepted via satellite; wow) and guess what: there is no WMD programm anymore since 2003 (!!!). Consequence: just forget about what they say. They simply do not know anything for certain.