Posted on 12/04/2007 8:44:58 AM PST by West Coast Conservative
A new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” has just dealt a serious blow to the argument some of us have been making that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons and that neither diplomacy nor sanctions can prevent it from succeeding. Thus, this latest NIE “judges with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”; it “judges with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work”; it “assesses with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”; it assesses, also with only “moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”; but even if not, it judges “with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.”
These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program. For that one, issued in May 2005, assessed “with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons” and to press on “despite its international obligations and international pressure.”
In other words, a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.
It is worth remembering that in 2002, one of the conclusions offered by the NIE, also with “high confidence,” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” And another conclusion, offered with high confidence too, was that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”
I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.
But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”
If this is what lies behind the release of the new NIE, its authors can take satisfaction in the response it has elicited from the White House. Quoth Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser: “The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically—without the use of force—as the administration has been trying to do.”
I should add that I offer these assessments and judgments with no more than “moderate confidence.”
These internal games are going to spawn a second sunrise in our future, if we don’t all get on the same page. ;(
We talk about that on this thread:
thanks Ernest.
I have read some reports that the site in Syria, Dayz al Zwar, which the Israeli's took out a couple of months ago may not have been a nuclear reactor under construction, as was originally reported.
It possibly was a Nuclear Weapon assembly operation. The site had no cooling towers, ventilation ports and stacks that are typical of a reactor site.
The Syrians rushed to cover the entire site under tons of sand and dirt....indication that some highly enriched material may have been in the debris, indicative of a bomb making site.
Isn’t the CIA cram-packed full of Clinonsistas and leftover Carterites? Kind of hard to get a paradigm shift with such a crowd when they can’t be fired.
We can all have a ‘high degree of confidence’ that the “Intelligence Community” which missed the 1979 Iranian Revolution, 1983 Beruit Bombing, 1989 collapsing Soviet Empire, 1991 Russian Communist attempted counter-coup, 1993 WTC bombing, as well as Khobar Towers bombing, USS Cole bombing, the 9-11 attacks, Madrid bombings, London bombings are “Dead-On” with their 2007 NIE - and those are only some of what they’ve missed - but they’re “Dead-On” (pun intended) with their 2007 NIE speculative piece since our intell within Iran is weaker than in any other country and this is what will make everyone ‘feel good’.
What were the political possibilities of doing that at the time, given all the hoops he had to jump through to attack Iraq? It is easy to be an internet Rambo but quite another to get it done.
No matter, If Ahmadouchbag is attempting to construct a nuke, in time Israel will react with a wink and a nod from us and the problem will be solved.
I believe the Israelis. The number of dyed in the wool liberal whackjobs I’ve encountered as ex-CIA agents is troubling.
A few forays into Syria, in hot pursuit of terrorists and those Syrian regulars aiding them, would have shown our resolve. A few bombings of Syrian installations that support the regime would have further cemented the notion. Following that action, reaching out to elements within Syria that are not allied with Iran could have followed. Syria's regime's support is very shallow, and the ruling Allawis could be toppled with a minimal amount of US support.
Iran should have been a major focus of our efforts from 2003. Read Michael Ledeen and all his pleading for the Bush government to take action in Iran, from 9-11 to the present. He is not an internet Rambo, nor am I. I believed then that the Iranian mullahs can be brought down, but it would take an active policy to foment revolution and support those who would do the toppling. We should not go into Iran except to prevent them from having nukes under a mullah regime, and then only to destroy the programs that they have. We can defeat the Iranians if we wish, but at a much higher cost than Iraq, and at the cost of weakening our global reach in places such as east Asia. China is the biggest winner so far in this war on terror.
Don't be a Bush apologist all your life. He's done some good things, but not lately.
“The CIA and the FBI are stuffed full of clintonoids.”
Add State.
bttt
I try not to be but I think he is a man of integrity and courage and when others blithely start Monday morning quarterbacking and denigrating him I think it is because those on the outside aren't dealing with the same advice and information he has.
As I understand it he has always been one to pick those who seem to him to be the best persons to do the job, give it to them and then stay out of the way while they did it without micro managing them like LBJ and some others.
From the beginning he has said he would give the military what they asked for and he always followed the advice they gave. I am an admirer of Rumsfield and I am sure he listened to his Generals also. All the things you mention about Iran and Syria I wondered about at the time myself. Those happened under Rumsfield and he is now gone.
Bush has always acted on the best information and advice he could get. Did he get good information and advice, especially from the CIA and the State Department? I seriously doubt it. Yet, he hasn't thrown in the towel even though the enemy's best friends are right here in the USA, misrepresenting the facts, threatening to impeach him, and blocking many of the things he is trying to do.
Perhaps you are not an internet Rambo but there are many here on FR. I just try to keep things in perspective.
Good one, Phil, and stolen! ........................ FRegards
Yes, I’d have added State, but clinton didn’t even need to do much about them. Foggy Bottom was a lost cause way back in the days of Dwight Eisenhower, who tried to reform them but gave it up as a bad job.
FDR packed the State Department with his Communist friends back in the 30s, and it’s been hopeless ever since. Who handed China to Mao?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.