Iran Remains Defiant on Nuclear Program

Dafna Linzer was online Wednesday, Feb. 8, at 11 a.m. EST to discuss Iran's continued defiance over their nuclear program.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Dafna Linzer: Good morning everyone,

Wonderful, wonderful questions about the story and the subject so I'll get started right away.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Congratulations on a first-rate article.

I notice you are very careful in your characterization of what would seem to be the plans for a nuclear test shaft. Is there any credible alternative explanation for what the plans depict?

Also, I have read the IAEA report that describes the findings from the laptop, and can't help but notice that it omits any mention of the test shaft plans -- unless this is what it means by "high explosives testing." Why do you suppose that is?

Dafna Linzer: Thank you for the kind words and smart observations.

I was careful in the description of the modifications for a couple reasons mentioned in the piece - nowhere does the word "nuclear" appear in the documents and there is no "package" or actual payload or implosion device drawings on the laptop. As far as anyone knows, Iran, unlike the case with Libya, doesn't have drawings for the implosion device.

On the IAEA report, obviously you're a savvy follower of the subject. The IAEA, as far as I understand, is beginning to explore those laptop drawings mentioned in the report - the missile drawings, the green salt project and the detonation experiments. But they haven't begun pursuing the test shaft drawings with the Iranians as far as I know.

_______________________

Confused in Washington, D.C.: First of all, great job on the story today. It provides a great deal of context and she continue to be pursued. However, I have one quibble...

From your article today....

"Taking into account the assessments made by the intelligence community, and others, I just don't have a lot of confidence in the assessments," said a senior administration official who was heavily involved in guiding the White House's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

Why on earth would you allow this quote to be anonymous? It has no classified information. It is total speculation. But yet, you let this person make an assertion that directly contradicts the other judgments in your article without forcing them to be transparent?

Why can't you just say, NO? If they want to question the assessments, they should do so on the record. Otherwise, they should not make any public pronouncements until they have facts to back it up, as opposed to apparent psychic abilities. Haven't we been down this road before?

Dafna Linzer: Thanks so much.

The anonymous quote you're referring to came from a background briefing with reporters that had pre-set ground rules. I always push for on-the-record comments, especially under these circumstances, but in this case I thought it was important to include it even under these conditions.

If I had not included it, you couldn't know that administration officials are telling reporters that they're dismissing or casting doubt on the very careful intelligence assessments at play here. That's just too important to keep from readers just because the official didn't include a name. And in this case, it's not about the individual who said it, but evidence of the thinking inside the administration on the issue and the tensions that continue between analysts and the White House on another WMD issue.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: If there are deep underground installations and the administration is convinced Iran will build nuclear weapons there and Bush has declared that "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves": What will stop Bush from using nuclear earth penetrating weapons (B61-11) to destroy Iranian installations too deep to be reached by conventional weapons? He has sole authority to order it. Why isn't Congress discussing that possibility and the potential consequences of such an action? Why doesn't Congress claim the right to participate in such a decision?

Dafna Linzer: Interesting question. As far as I understand it, no bunker buster is ready to go and as today's article states, much of the work that's contained in the laptop appears to have remained on the drawing board.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Is the government considering that Iran may be planning to launch a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States itself? In this attack, a rocket would launch a nuclear weapon from a ship into space above the U.S. The weapon would be detonated knocking out our electronic infrastructure.

Dafna Linzer: I'm amazed at how many of you seem to be gaming out possible war scenarios. I want to say they're considering everything, but honestly, after what we've seen in Iraq - who knows? I've personally come to believe that EMP attacks are mostly good for transition episodes of "24."

_______________________

Burke, Va.: So who gave the CIA this information? A Iranian exile related to the Shah codenamed Curveball? Why should we believe this information after the way our trust was abused by the Administration on Iraq?

Dafna Linzer:

I can't tell you how many Iraq-related questions and emails I've gotten today. It's impossible to overstate how the Iraq experience is going to hang over the Iran case. The administration knows this and I think it's why they are not out there making an intelligence case against Iran in public.

From my understanding, the source was unknown to any US or allied intelligence when the documents were handed over. Officials say the source isn't part of an exile group and unlike with Curveball (the Iraqi exile who made up the bogus claims about Iraqi mobile bioweapons labs) - this isn't a case where the source is drunk somewhere in Germany.

The source was put through many polygraphs and interviews and the materials have been deeply analyzed - unlike the bogus documents the White House advertised in January 2003 that claimed to show Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. It took the IAEA 2 days of Google searches, literally, to figure out those documents were fake. That hasn't happened here those these ones are much more difficult to authenticate.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Pretty high burden of proof for the West if it can't act unless Iran starts plastering the word "nuclear" on their illicit equipment. Seems like this may be why applying a police/crime approach to international security problems of this sort can be dangerous. Shouldn't the onus should be on Iran to prove it is not doing what it plainly appears they are doing? If the entire burden is on the West, Iran will surely get its weapons.

Dafna Linzer: I think many people believe Iran needs to be more transparent about it's nuclear efforts. The fact that it has not been is why the IAEA board reporting the matter to the Security Council last week. But many people also believe there must be a higher burden of proof for the administration after the Iraq case regarding weapons of mass destruction fell apart.

_______________________

South Huntington, N.Y.: Why should Iran give up its right to have nuclear weapons, when the same right was not denied to Israel, India, U.S., France, UK, China, Pakistan and Russia? This is insane and reveals the hypocritical nature of western -world politician and their minions in the U.S. media. Don't you think so?

Dafna Linzer: I'm constantly amazed by this logic because it means that you think Iran is lying and that they really are secretly trying to build a bomb and that they should have one "because the other kids do."

Iran says it's program is peaceful and it signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty promising not to use its nuclear technology for anything other than energy. India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed the treaty. North Korea signed but then said it was leaving the treaty a few years ago. As part of that historic bargain, which the NPT enshrined, the five nuclear powers at the end of World War II - promised they would move toward disarmament. Some of them have but the US and Russia have come under heavy criticism for not carrying that out the way others envisioned.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: Explain to me how the world can condemn nations like Iran for building nuclear weapons. How does a country like the U.S. or Israel justify building them and then tell others they are not allowed to do it?

Dafna Linzer: See above.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Is this story really worthy of being the top story on the Web site? The hypertechnical nature of the analysis inherently buys into the logic of this administration that there is a crisis when this story has been around for several years. Yes, it's now moving into a new political phase, but that may be just because of this administration's efforts to demonize the Iranians. This is much more a political question about the failures of this administration (and others before it, of course) to engage with a legitimate government. Why else are the Iranians announcing to the world every step they are taking?

Dafna Linzer: Well, no reporter is going to agree that their story deserves less attention.

The fact is, the body of evidence and information on Iran's program has changed significantly since the IAEA began its investigation three years ago. The acquisition of the drawings is also part of that, though as the story says, those drawings do not affect the intelligence assessment that Iran is as much as a decade away from even being able to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon.

_______________________

Lucketts, Va.: Great article. Your article didn't mention what France thinks about all this, and has their intelligence been involved in uncovering some of the facts, like Germany with the laptop? I ask because of France's President's comments a couple weeks ago about France would use tactical nuclear weapons against terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons.

Dafna Linzer: Hi, the story mentions France in the 10th paragraph as part of an effort to describe the reactions of allies to some of the evidence.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Hi, there are two errors and two unlikely Iranian names in the 'green salt' section on page 14: - in first paragraph: 'the Iranian Republican guard' -- you probably mean the revolutionary guard (full name: the Islamic revolutionary guard corps) - in fourth paragraph: 'when IAEA inspectors went to Iraq last month' -- you probably mean Iran. - in first paragraph: 'kimeya madon' -- kimeya means alchemy in Farsi, but madon is not an immediately recognizable Farsi word suitable for the name of a front company. If I had to guess what Farsi word has been mangled to madon in transliteration, I would go for ma'dan, which means mine. - in 11th paragraph: 'fakrizadeh' is not an immediately recognizable Farsi name. Fakhirzadeh, fakhrzadeh, fekrizadeh -- maybe. But not fakrizadeh. Now the Iraq/Iran mixup is probably a typo, but Republican guard is a rookie mistake for somebody dealing with Iran, whether in the business of journalism or intelligence. Did it originate from you or your source(s)? If from your sources, did you see Republican in print, or was it relayed to you verbally? Similarly, did you see kimeya madon and fakrizadeh in print or were they relayed to you verbally? Sorry it sounds like nitpicking, but when the story is (understandably) so cloaked in anonymity, I feel this is the only way I can decide how much confidence I can have in you and your sources.

Dafna Linzer: Extremely helpful and perfectly understandable. Republican versus revolutionary and Iraq/Iran were my mistakes alone and not from sources - I had Iraq on the brain obviously. As for the names, spellings are the result of transliterations only - nothing more mysterious than that. But keep up the sleuthing and if any other red flags appear, let me know.

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: Does American or Israeli intelligence have comprehensive information as to the location of Iranian nuclear sites? If the United State or Israel were to attempt a preemptive strike against said sites, what kind of reaction might we expect? Is it realistic to expect an Israeli-Iranian war?

Dafna Linzer: Again, you're all expecting another war which I find just fascinating. Much of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure is known - these are huge facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment plus the power reactors. If you can see the beautiful graphic online that accompanied today's story, I think that would give you the visual you're looking for.

These facilities were not really considered to be ideal targets because they can help provide nuclear energy for 70 million Iranians and my impression from the White House is that they don't want to take actions that will hurt the Iranian people.

I'm skeptical about Israel taking military action anytime soon but who knows. As I said in last week's chat, Israel has a lot going on right now with Hamas, worries about a destabilized Syria, elections and a prime minister who is in a coma.

_______________________

Ocala, Fla.: Realistically, what can be done to stop Iran? If any country were to attack them it would certainly lead to a major confrontation between Muslims and the rest of the world. Look at what a cartoon started. Hasn't the war in Iraq provided a perfect cover for Iran?

Dafna Linzer: I think the question is what is President Bush's administration planning to do over its last three years in office and frankly, my sense is that they don't know. There is a lot of thinking out there about trying to isolate Iran politically, or reach out to the people in the hopes they'll get rid of the clerical regime. Others talk of engaging the Iranian leadership, or opening up the country's economy. But there seems to be no clear strategy -just a lot of tactics at the moment.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Where do surrounding Arab neighbors come down on the issue of Iran having a nuclear weapon? Does it make them anxious, proud, both, or neither? Does the West believe other countries will want to get their hands on their own weapon if Iran gets the capability? Thanks for the forum and for your work....

Dafna Linzer: Good question. My sense is that the Middle East isn't eager for more nuclear weapons states and they aren't eager for another confrontation between a neighbor and the United States. And there are mixed views in Iran on this well.

_______________________

Harpers Ferry, W.Va.: The article mentioned explosive detonation experiments. Is there any evidence that they use exploding bridgewire or exploding foil initiators? These detonators can achieve the high degree of simultaneity required for a nuclear implosion and clearly are of no use for peaceful applications. If such detonators were described, I think this would be conclusive on their intent, but not necessarily their capability.

Dafna Linzer: Yes on the bridgewires, but I'm not sure about the foil initiators - I'll check on that.

_______________________

Detriot, Mich: "Again, you're all expecting another war which I find just fascinating. "

Why shouldn't we? The same exact statements are being made that were being made in 2002. When people like myself said a decision to go to war was already made, we were shouted down. In this case, a decision has been made to leave the impression we are going to war for the purposes of the election.

The next decision will be made leading up to '08.

The handwriting is on the wall. You know, The Post knows it, I know it, but yet we have this Kabuki dance....

Dafna Linzer: I wasn't implying that you're all wrong. This forum is a good way for me to get a sense of what people are thinking. A year ago, there were fewer who expressed views that another war was possible.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: I agree with the others, one of the best technical articles I've seen on the subject.

Iran has constantly stated that their nuclear projects were for peaceful means, domestic consumption, allow for more export of oil, etc.

How helpful then, is for them to take such a hard-line tact in public and to make the comments regarding "wiping Israel off the map". They are not stupid, so why the aggressive posturing as they clamor for nuclear materiel?

Dafna Linzer: Ya, I think the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-Western statements by the Iranian president have been disastrous for the country.

They have lost allies at every round of IAEA meetings since Ahmedinajad came in because countries who give Iran the benefit of the doubt on the nuclear program, just don't want to be associated with that rhetoric.

The nearest I've come to understanding his posture is that Ahmedinajad is a throw-back who speaks "Islamic Revolution," and that he is trying to build a power base at home. My sense is that a lot Iranians find the comments embarrassing. Ahmedinajad doesn't control any kind of arsenal though anymore than his predecessor did. What Iran will do, beyond words, will be decided by others, chiefly the country's Supreme Leader.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Is the invasion of Iran practical and will the U.S. enter its soil alone if it has no support just like Iraq?

Dafna Linzer: Umm, you're the one out in McLean - you're supposed to tell me!

Thanks everyone. I'm grateful for all the smart and civil questions. Let's keep this up.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.