Should Bush be proud that the 2007 Iran NIE, proved he was right all along?

Question

.
Bush said that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The 2005 Iran NIE said iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

So Bush decided that international pressure was the best way to make Iran stop nuclear weapon development.

Now the 2007 Iran NIE, offers proof, that Bush's policy on Iran has in fact worked.

That Bush's policy of internetional pressure, did in fact make Iran halt nuclear weapons development in 2003.

Nuclear weapon development, that Bush's critics, said Iran was not doing, but how could they stop doing something in 2003, that Bush's critcs, said Iran had never done in the first place?

Now it seems, that since Bush's policy towards Iran, has been shown to have been sucessful,

They now want Bush to change his policy.

That makes no sense at all, his policy has worked.

Answer 1

This is a pretty intelligent question and I will try to answer it intelligently.

Part of what this revelation tells us is that we have had some major gaps in our intelligence programs. This has bitten us several times in recent years, most harshly on 9/11.

Bush's policy regarding both Iraq and Iran has been reasonably intelligent, but has been hobbled at times by poor intelligence estimates and poor planning at the level of operational commands. However it is very possible the policy and the current war will help bring in something the entire world badly needs for its safety--a more stable Middle East.

Some of the Bush policy has been what Clinton said he wanted to do but didn't. Much of it has been the result of an urgent need to secure ourselves against a very real danger from the radical Islamic terrorists.

You do have to separate policy from politics. About all the two have in common are the first four letters.

Answer 2

It is truely dissappointing that to this day 99% of Americans still have no idea why the war in Iraq happened and why the subsequent war in Iran will be fought.
It is not a war on terror, nor is it about nuclear weapons. It is about global economic security. Why not just come out and say that? Because too many people don't understand the ramifications of an all out oil war and will never see it because Paris Hilton is on the other channel and she's got new shoes! People react a lot more quickly to nuclear weapons threats as they are better understood.
Bush may or may not have had an impact on whether or not the Iranians stopped development, but stopping development of nuclear weapons has little to do with whether or not they will be invaded. That is up to thier oil policies and whether they disrupt the flow or not as a means to hurt the west. This report means nothing. It is just one more distraction for those who only think they are informed.

Answer 3

Here is a link to the report: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Where does the NIE report specifically say that pressure from Bush in 2003 halted the program? Look at the NIE carefully and stop feeding your war mentality into the ambiguities (it's only 7 pages of actual Iran content and not a difficult read).
Here is what the NIE report actually states in page 7:
"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."

Like I said in another string to this same questioner, suggesting the Iranians respond only to blunt force of war is dangerous thinking--this kind of hawkish jingoistic logic has gotten alot of people killed since the invasion of Iraq, so get informed, buddy.

Furthermore, I can twist things around just as easily and say that the 2003 invasion saved Iran alot of money when they scrapped their nuke weapon program because the US killed Sadaam for them (don't forget they warred with Sadaam and lost a million people) and that the war has only helped them generated more prestige for them and hatred toward the US in the middle east. That's where all the sabre-rattling will get us.

Answer 4

Bush seems very stupid like his policy, every body knows except some people with a little QI, that bush wants to attack iran to get a better position in this area.. all the matter is oil.. So now that the CIA has proved that there is no reason to attack iran, he's got to find something else.. or not he doesn't even have to find a reason.. he's going to get iran even if all the world play against this unfair and terrorist policy..

Answer 5

So in 2005 Bush decided international pressure was the best policy.

How does this relate to their stopping development in 2003? Does he have a time machine?

Answer 6

Compared to so many crazy things Bush has done this is nothing, people who say Bush should change his policy are right, they're just trying to stop him from spoiling the only right decision he has ever made !! and good point by tonalc1, they had stopped way before he tried to stop'em

Answer 7

Yes. Excellent Question. They supposedly backed off after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Momar Kadafy gave it up shortly after that as well. Like Teddy Roosevelt said...walk softly but carrying that big Fin Stick to hit them with"

I am looking forward to reading the appeasing Lefts comments on your question.

Answer 8

talk about spin.

the NIE said that they stopped trying to make nukes in 2003.
bush claims they are still trying. he even threatens ww3 because of it.

that's pathetic.

but we don't want bush to change his policy with iran, just like we didn't want him to change his policy with iraq. sanctions work. war doesn't.

Answer 9

Libs think they can keep us confused all the time. It is like those questions about a pardon for Bush. No crime, no pardon.

Answer 10

If it was all along Bush's efforts, why does he seemed baffled by the findings of the NIE?

Knowing him, he would have tooted his own horn.
Believe me, he knew NOTHING about the findings.

But your ramblings would suit him and Bush's supporters just fine.
In fact, you could be Karl Rove, the man who pulled the wool over.....