EXCLUSIVE: Iran Nuclear Scientist Defects to U.S. In CIA 'Intelligence Coup'

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

An award-winning Iranian nuclear scientist, who disappeared last year under mysterious circumstances, has defected to the CIA and been resettled in the United States, according to people briefed on the operation by intelligence officials.

The officials were said to have termed the defection of the scientist, Shahram Amiri, "an intelligence coup" in the continuing CIA operation to spy on and undermine Iran's nuclear program.

A spokesperson for the CIA declined to comment. In its declassified annual report to Congress, the CIA said, "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

Amiri, a nuclear physicist in his early 30s, went missing last June three days after arriving in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage, according to the Iranian government. He worked at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, which is closely connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, according to the Associated Press.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729

[ClarkUSA]

1. haha

:)

[yourout]

2. Probably a janitor or some other meanial employee.

[Barack_America]

4. You might want to read the entire article.

That seems to not be the case.

[ShortnFiery]

5. What? Is he related to our OTHER illustrious CIA mole who whipped up FEAR ... one each, Chalabi?

:silly:

[Barack_America]

3. Smart man. And it sounds like he timed his pilgrimage wisely.

i.e. around the time of their turbulent elections, after which the country was placed on lockdown.

[BunkerHill24]

6. he must be another "Curveball". lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

[ShortnFiery]

7. Oh Lordy, they're getting lazy with orchestrating Propaganda and Disinformation efforts at

either the bowels of the Pentagon and/or the CIA. :eyes:

http://members.peak.org/~greglief/cc/Chalabi.html

Second verse ... same as the first! :evilgrin:

C H A L A B I
Chalabi.... oho
Chalabi... ohohoho

You were ready to squeal,
So you made up a whale of a tale for a hell of a deal...

You fed us nothing but lies
Of germs that fell from the skies
Now you claim to be heroes in error dismissing
The reasons you gave us for war

And you offer to fall on your sword
Like the prodigal whore
But the troops and civilians who died for your cause
Deserve more...


by The Compassionate Conservatives

[BunkerHill24]

8. Yup, same BS part deux. nt

:hi:

[14thColony]

10. How so exactly?

Both CIA and DIA continue to hold to the unpopular position (unpopular with the GOP and AIPAC/Israel) that Iran has NO nuclear weapons program at present, and may have never had one, which is the same conclusion the IAEA has come to as well. DIA just recently re-stated its support for that conclusion, as CIA has apparently done as well accoring to the article. That's 180 degrees out from the situation with Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion, when the IAEA was ridiculed and discredited, and the US intelligence agencies (outwardly at least) supported the fiction of an Iraqi nuclear program.

[BunkerHill24]

15. I'm not sure if you recall the war drumbeat that started right after 911

at the time we had the same intelligence reports which said that Iraq had no WMD's, but was later altered to match the war preparation. I believe this is another way that the intelligence can be tailored to make case for war with Iran. It worries me that the same spin doctors would use this "defector" to create, once more, the smoking gun.

[14thColony]

16. Oh I recall it very well, believe me.

But the pre-war estimates back then started out as "we're not sure, but they probably have a program", which was easier to turn into "we're now sure that they do have a program." I was briefed by one of the main US weapons inspectors back then, and while I agree with you that we said there were no weapons, we were never at the point of saying they had no program; it was always "probably have a program" which as I said is easier to manipulate into "we're sure they have a program."

The DIA and CIA positions now are 180 degrees out, in that they're publically stating "there is no program, and may never have been one." Not even using "probably" which is nearly standard boilerplate in intelligence estimates. It's much harder to retreat from that position, because you have to admit you were totally duped AGAIN, this time the other way around.

There are factions in the CIA and DIA who feel they got used by the previous administration. It's POSSIBLE that experience caused them to develop an aversion for politicized intelligence manipulated to support some viewpoint, since they were left holding the bag once already. Human nature being what it is, they just may not wish to get hung out to dry again, so they're sticking strictly to the evidence.

Believe me I'm no fan of the CIA. My former community was usually in a fairly adversarial relationship with them. But in this particular case I sense they're playing it straight, mainly because they're going out of their way not to go along and get along with the warhawks and necons, even in the late days of the Bush administration when pressure to do so would have been stronger.

edit: typo

[BunkerHill24]

17. Thanks for your response and insight. Let's all hope for the best.

:hi:

[14thColony]

18. I couldn't agree more! nt

[ShortnFiery]

24. I don't hope and there's still plenty of Bush-Co hold outs within the CIA and DIA.

Many good analysts retired or resigned during the "dark days."

I don't EVER consider that the leadership of the CIA will play it straight with us because, in practice, they serve the Executive Branch. ;)

The CIA playing it straight with the American People? :spray: :rofl:

[14thColony]

34. You've read into my response things I cannot find there

I never wrote or implied "...with the American people" or "...with us." Those were your words.

So I'm afraid your jokey faces were wasted making fun of your own strawman. In which case I agree that your strawman deserves much fun being made of it. There, we have found common ground!

[ShortnFiery]

36. Cute but your response makes little to no sense. No strawman here - just YOUR words.

If you believe that the CIA does not lie to the populace ("I sense they're playing it straight ..." :wtf:), then how about buying some swampland in Florida from me? :evilgrin:

p.s. I luvs me some "jokey faces" professor. ;)

[14thColony]

38. Yes of course. I must be an idiot. Probably illiterate too.

(see, I can make my own strawman!) OK, first YOU'RE RIGHT. I typed it exactly as you said, to include "with the American people" or "with us" or whatever other wording you want me to say I used so that you're right.

Now that that's out of the way -- why in the hell are you upset that the CIA is casting cold water on the idea the the Iranians have a nuclear weapons development program?!

FOR CHIRST'S SAKE THEY ARE SAYING THERE IS NO PROGRAM AND THEREFORE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ARMED CONFLICT! Isn't that good?

Or do you just slobber on command whenever the 'CIA bell' is rung?

Yes I like the jokey faces as well. Nice to slip in the 'professor' jab too. How very anti-intellectual/Tea Partyesque of you.

[ShortnFiery]

39. No, I don't "slobber on command" but that's one nice visual and I'll be sure to file it.

I'm not anti-intellectual. However, I do get the impression that you may be trying to baffle us with bullshit. Again, the CIA lies as a matter of course because IT IS their nature. They serve the Executive Branch and most THINKING people understand that.

I'm confused by your obsession with Pavlovian Conditioning?
BTW ---> Since you bring up the word "slobber," I'd bet all hell breaks loose when your dinner BELL rings? :evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

40. + I should add that the present position of the CIA is subject to change ...

with nothing more than the mere whisper of a command from the Administration.

Therefore, I'm not going to laud their present position that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. As soon as us dumb-ass chattering classes begin to complement the CIA's bravery, they'll do what they did before the run up to the invasion of Iraq by REVERSING their original positions due to pressure from "the top."

No, this process of "manufacturing consent" for Israel to make a mini-nuke strike on Iran's various weapon's sites is not going to be made easy by me.

No, I don't trust any source that has lied to the American People in the Past.

That's far from anti-intellectual, it's prudent, if not wise. :shrug:

[14thColony]

43. It wasn't bad was it?

Feel free to use as you see fit. Dunno why I got stuck to Pavlovian symbolism today. But I have a short attention span so tomorrow I'll be on to the Beatles or something.

Look as I said before I'm no fan of the CIA. My former community was usually in an adversarial relationship with them and to be frank I thought they had a higher-than-usual ratio of dicks to decent people. And of course they lie a lot, all intelligence agencies do; but I dispute that they are incapable of telling the truth. When lies serve their interest they use those, and when the truth serves better, no reason not to use that. To lie when the truth better serves their objective would pretty much be directly contradicting their own interests. I think they're dicks, but I don't think they're stupid.

And yes I know they serve the Executive. Actually they'll tell you it's exclusively the Office of the President; in fact in my experience that's nearly their stock conversation-starter. See previous comment about 'dicks.'

Sorry if you think I'm trying to bullshit you. I'm not, but then again if I were that's just what you'd expect me to say, isn't it?

I like the word 'slobber' and I try to work it in somewhere at least once I day. I'm also trying to revive 'groovy' and 'righteous.' We just don't have enough multi-purpose words like those anymore.

[tritsofme]

9. Chalabi was a disgruntled politician.

With an agenda.

Not quite sure what he has to do with an Iranian nuclear scientist who defected.

[Rage Inc.]

11. Ah, Ahmed!

You have an Iranian brother!

[ShortnFiery]

22. Just a guess, but just perhaps it's a different actor with a similar script?

:-) That is, who better to SWEAR that the Iranian leaders are up to no good than a defector who has everything to gain if "our forces" take over the running of his former Country?

[Jane Austin]

12. What's up with the tag-team ridiculing of this story?

This scientist has been missing for months.

Why would these commenters think he is a janitor?

Or why should we think they know more about than the rest of us do

[EFerrari]

19. CIA isn't known for its veracity or for its skill so, it's tempting

to cast asparagus.

[bemildred]

20. Well, the thing is, we DO KNOW the CIA lies as a matter of policy, it's what they do. nt

[Jane Austin]

21. Well, Bush's CIA sure did.

I'd say the jury's still out on Obama's CIA.

[bemildred]

25. Not saying things cannot change, but lying is always what the CIA has been about.

Among other things.

[ShortnFiery]

28. The same players are still in place within high level positions and I fear that ...

71 y.o. Leon Panetta, IMNSHO, can't possibly have his hand on the pulse of all the "goings on" through these Bush-Co underlings.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Operative word: STORY.

:evilgrin:

[SkyDaddy7]

13. This has to rub the Republicans RAW!!

Many here might not like Obama & Hillary's foreign policy but it sure does seem to be working.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Foreign Policy has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats as they both are pro-WAR.

It has to do with VERACITY. After the run up to the Iraqi invasion, I believe little to nothing that's declared by our government as FACT, i.e., not confirmed by several INDEPENDENT sources. That doesn't make me any less of a good American citizen, just one who's not gullible.

[pjt7]

14. did we kidnap

this person?

[ShortnFiery]

26. No, the point is that we know NOTHING except what the government is reporting to us.

We could be good little stenographers like our USA M$M or we could "withhold judgement" of it's veracity until provided with more information - and hopefully independent sources.

[kpete]

29. EXCLUSIVE: Iran Nuclear Scientist Defects to U.S. In CIA 'Intelligence Coup'

Source: ABC News


EXCLUSIVE: Iran Nuclear Scientist Defects to U.S. In CIA 'Intelligence Coup'
Shahram Amiri Disappeared Last June in Saudi Arabia, Reportedly Now Resettled in the United States


An award-winning Iranian nuclear scientist, who disappeared last year under mysterious circumstances, has defected to the CIA and been resettled in the United States, according to people briefed on the operation by intelligence officials.

The officials were said to have termed the defection of the scientist, Shahram Amiri, "an intelligence coup" in the continuing CIA operation to spy on and undermine Iran's nuclear program.

A spokesperson for the CIA declined to comment. In its declassified annual report to Congress, the CIA said, "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

Amiri, a nuclear physicist in his early 30s, went missing last June three days after arriving in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage, according to the Iranian government. He worked at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, which is closely connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, according to the Associated Press.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence/story?id=10231729

[bemildred]

30. Was he a "number two"? nt

[Voice for Peace]

31. is he a forgery?

[Purveyor]

32. Not this shit again.... Iraq Pt. II eom

[MidwestTransplant]

33. Freepers saddened by good news for US

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483390/posts

One wants to credit Bush despite Bush having been out of office for 5 months when the guy was approached to defect.

[14thColony]

35. Ok I'll admit to being confused by the responses here

1. The CIA says Iran has no nuclear weapons program, which puts them in agreement with the IAEA (not from this article, but IAEA's posn is a matter of record)

2. DIA agrees with CIA, and goes so far as to say any program Iran might have had was abandoned long ago (also not in this article, but ibid.)

3. This nuclear scientist was accessed/turned long enough ago that anything he might have revealed to undermine (1) or (2) would have had plenty of time to alter the CIA's and the DIA's very public position that no weapons program exists.

4. Both agencies continue to maintain their original position that there is no program, strongly indicating that Amiri told them nothing that would overturn that position.

5. But I see here that the CIA always lies, this scientist is probably a ruse/plant/Curveball II/whatever, and neither he nor the CIA can be believed CONCERNING THE VERACITY OF THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.

6. Therefore does it not follow logically that the majority here must believe that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, and are seeking to cast doubt on the CIA's position that they do not have such a program?

Because otherwise I'm confused at the effort to undermine an intelligence agency that says there is NO program, and therefore NO "existential threat" and therefore (by extension/implication) NO justification for armed aggression. Isn't this what we WANT them to be saying?

What I'm seeing here appears to be more a Pavlovian reaction to the acronym 'CIA' than reasoned consideration of the actual facts of the matter.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Cite us some site references re: the CIA has taken *a firm stand* which claims

Iran has NO nuclear weapons program? As I understand it, an Intelligence Assessment gives "the weight" of the prevailing data. Such data sets can be massaged, altered and/or tweaked at any time to support an entirely different conclusion.

Yes, a thoughtful and well informed American Citizen would be wise not to take ANY statement our government makes (whether it be from the CIA, DIA or DOD) on FAITH alone.

The CIA is infamous for it's penchant to spread propaganda and disinformation in order to serve their own (or the Executive Branch's) agenda.

It's just what they do best because it's in their nature.

As a person who, in the past, has worked within the intelligence field (in addition to within academia), I know better than to TRUST information that can not be traced to multiple and varied sources.

No confusion here - I don't trust either the M$M nor my government to give me "the unvarnished truth." And "yes" they've earned my distrust.

[14thColony]

41. By all means...

Some sources for you:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
This is the 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program and intentions. As you know from your experience in the US Intelligence Community an NIE represents the consensus view of all 16 IC member agencies on a specific warning problem. In 2007 all 16 agencies (including CIA and DIA) signed off on this NIE. Read the Key Judgments page for the main points of the estimate. While NIEs are produced 'on request,' in my experience if intelligence comes to light that markedly changes the judgment of the current NIE, the IC will often initiate an update to the NIE to publish the new judgments. No such update or new NIE has been produced, but...

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/01/17/new-iran-nie-coming-soon/
Rumor has it that a new NIE may be in the works as of Jan 2010, but in this article the author cites a Jan 2010 interview with the Director of DIA wherein he says DIA's position is that the 2007 NIE is still valid. Perhaps this Iranian scientist has in fact revealed new information that overturns the 2007 NIE, and that's where the rumor of a new NIE originates, but in that hypothetical case the Dir DIA is either unconvinced by the new intelligence or not privy to it (the former would be far more likely).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/Iran_NIE_update_delayed.html
Subsequent article that the new NIE has been delayed. A delay most likely indicates either that a sudden controversy over the available intelligence has thrown the IC into conflict over the tone of the new NIE, or that the IC members have judged there is not enough of a change from the 2007 NIE to warrant a new NIE. These are not the only explanations, but in my experience the two most probable. The statement by Dir DIA would tend to indicate the latter.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2010/gov2010-10.pdf
Most current IAEA report on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Sections E and F are most instructive. F says "While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." Out of the organizations we've discussed here, that's about the most pessimistic statement on Iran's possible weapons program that I can find.

You wrote: "Iran has NO nuclear weapons program?" That is the current judgment of the 16 members of the IC, re-stated in Jan 2010 by Dir DIA. It is also the direction IAEA is tending, although they are even more conservative in their wording than the IC.

You wrote: "As I understand it, an Intelligence Assessment gives "the weight" of the prevailing data." I would direct you to the introduction to the 2007 NIE. Phrases such as "high confidence" have very specific meanings. When using that phrase, "the weight" is pretty darned heavy.

You wrote: "Such data sets can be massaged, altered and/or tweaked at any time to support an entirely different conclusion." Then by extension it's not too hyperbolic to say that facts don't really exist at all since there is no ultimate assurance of the accuracy of anything. Sure, any data can be faked or altered, but all 16 agencies have to agree to the deception such that none spoil it by throwing a "dissenting opinion" into the NIE. And bear in mind not all IC agencies are Department of Defense. Besides CIA, Energy and State are also full members, and on nuclear issues Energy carries a lot of weight and has a lot of credibility at stake. Obviously this did not prevent politicization of the Iraq NIE in 2002/3, but if you read the current NIE it seems pretty clear they know they got burned and aim to prevent it happening again. Out of a sense of self-preservation if nothing else.

You stated: "I know better than to TRUST information that can not be traced to multiple and varied sources." Of course; that's intelligence analysis 101. But the problem here is you will never be given access to the multiple and varied (intelligence) sources involved, so by your own statement you can never trust anything. But if you mean open sources, then you already have multiple and varied sources (NIE, Dir DIA statement, parallel IAEA reports for example) that point to the same conclusion: based on the best evidence available in 2007 and up to the present, at least 17 agencies (IC + IAEA) do not believe or have little indication that an Iranian nuclear weapons program exists.

Please note the by "weapons program" we're talking a production program aimed at producing a useable nuclear weapon. There is some evidence that Iran is doing research on various technologies that are applicable to (sometimes ONLY applicable to) a weapons production program. But capability to do something does not automatically, or even predominately, equate to intent to do something. For example Japan has more than enough nuclear expertise and infrastructure to produce a nuclear weapon in pretty short order. They just have zero intent to do so.

By the way you have a disconcerting tendency to throw quotes around words I never used, like "a firm stand." I select my words carefully and I would appreciate it if, especially given your academic background, you would refrain from placing quotes around things I didn't write as is standard academic practice. Yes, I said very similar things, but I never used those exact words, and therefore quotes (either "" or **) are akin to putting words in others' mouths. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

[mdmc]

42. such a better solution to war..

bomb bomb bomb .,bomb bomb Iran..