The NIE Makes War Against Iran More Likely (Daniel Pipes On Why The CW Is Wrong Alert)

With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," a consensus has emerged that war with Iran "now appears to be off the agenda." Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a "fatal blow" to the country's enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a "great victory."

I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.

The NIE's main point, contained in its first line, famously holds: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Other analysts – John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Caroline Glick, Claudia Rossett, Michael Rubin, and Gerald Steinberg – have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are "not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts. British intelligence believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.

Let us skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?

For the sake of argument, let us assume the May 2005 NIE was correct, in which sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Let us also assume there are three possible American responses to the Iranian nuclear buildup:

1. Convince the Iranians of their own accord to stop the nuclear weapons program.

2. Stop it for them through military intervention (which need not be a direct strike against the nuclear infrastructure but could be more indirect, such as an embargo on refined petrochemicals entering the country).

As for Option #3, President Bush recently noted that whoever is "interested in avoiding World War III, … ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." So far, the lame NIE has not changed his mind. He appears to share John McCain's view that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

The 2007 NIE has effectively terminated Option #1, convincing the Iranians themselves to halt their nuclear program, because this route requires wide external agreement. When key countries banded together to pass Security Council Resolution 1737 in December 2006, it caused the Iranian leadership to respond with caution and fear; but the NIE's soothing conclusion undercuts such widespread cooperation and pressure. When Washington pressures some Western states, Russia, China, and the IAEA, they can pull it out of the drawer, wave it in the Americans' faces, and refuse to cooperate. Worse, the NIE has sent a signal to the apocalyptic-minded leadership in Tehran that the danger of external sanctions has ended, that it can go undisturbed about its bomb-building business.

That leaves Option #2, direct intervention of some sort. Yes, that seems unlikely now, with the NIE dropping like a bombshell and shifting the debate. But will this hugely-criticized one thousand-word exercise really continue to dominate the American understanding of the problem? Will it change George W. Bush's mind? Will its influence extend to a year from now? Will it extend yet further, to the next President?

Highly unlikely, for these projections assume stasis – that this one report can refute all other interpretations, that no further developments will take place in Iran, that the argument over Iranian nuclear intentions closed down in early December 2007, never to revive. The debate most assuredly will continue to evolve and the influence of this NIE will fade and become just one of many appraisals, technical and non-technical, official and unofficial, American and non-American.

In short, with Option #1 undermined and Option #3 unacceptable, Option #2 – war carried out by either U.S. or Israeli forces – becomes the more probable. Thus have short-sighted, small-minded, blatantly partisan intelligence bureaucrats, trying to hide unpleasant realities, helped engineer their own nightmare.

My take is that the purpose of this report is to make all the fence-sitters in Europe and on the Arabian Peninsula realize that they must participate in the efforts to disarm Iran. They can no longer sit on the sidelines as the United States insulates them from damage from Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, and elsewhere.

The American electorate cannot focus on any problem for the long term, and they need to realize that the Country is torn apart by this effort, and cannot continue on this course indefinitely.

If we stop leading from the front, what then will happen to those in the Iranian sphere of influence? It is absolutely necessary, that if we are to preserve peace in the mideast, that there not be a nuclear Iran. If this is to happen, America cannot politically do it alone.

The time for the back benchers is now, and all must take a stand. Why should the US care more about the safety fo the mideast than those who live in the mid-east?

Why should the US care more about the safety fo the mideast than those who live in the mid-east?

Let's assume the worst, that neither we nor Israel stops Iran from getting bombs (yes, plural - they're planning enough centrifuges to enrich uranium for about 17 bombs per year). What'll happen?

Either: 1) Iran's influence in the area will skyrocket, either out of admiration for what they did, fear of what they'll do or jumping on the bandwagon of a budding power; or 2) Iran will use the bombs on Israel.

Option 1 will end up completely undermining our position in the Mideast within a few years. You think that we have unstable regimes and a terrorism problem now? Wait until Iran's bomb jacks the price of oil up, a few of the Gulf states become Iranian allies and all this additional oil revenue is available to be used on arming and training terrorists. Are you SURE that none of these groups will be getting a bomb to be planted in one of our cities, or to be launched from a ship off one of our coasts to explode at high altitudes, thereby generating widespread EMP effects?

Option 2 also sucks - but moreso. Not just for Israel, but for everyone. If Israel is bombed, then ALL bets are off. It is pretty much guaranteed that every major Arab city will shortly thereafter join Haifa or Tel Aviv as part of our atmosphere, along with Israeli dirty bombs (cobalt-cased so as to ensure longevity) being dropped on the Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iranian and Iraqi oil fields. See what that does to the price of gas. See what effect that'll have on the world economy, and the political/military stability of this world - I believe it'll result in a world war, just as the Great Depression led inexorably to WW2. For letting Israel die, then entire globe will be plunged into war...there's Genesis 12:3 again, coming around to bite the entire world in its collective arse.

Oh, there is a 3rd option, which is Israel bombing Iran on its own. The thing about that is: how will Israel do that? Oh, it'll be the IAF in the lead for certain, but HOW will the IAF get to Iran to turn Ahwannajihad's toys into scrap metal? Yeah, that's right, they'll have to pass over Iraq - because Turkey isn't going to let them, and for certain the Saudis won't. That means going through US-controlled airspace. Which means that we'll be blamed for the raid even if we don't participate in it. Maybe the Israelis will be smart (that is SOOOO unusual, isn't it?) by stealing our IFF codes, painting their planes with US markings and piloting them with English-speaking pilots. Who gets blamed then (as if the US wouldn't get blamed ANYWAY)?

Option 4 is the best, IMHO. We bomb the crap out of any target of any military, nuclear or intelligence potential in Iran. Destroy the regime's power base along with the nukes, but while minimizing civilian casualties. There was a story about 2-3 months ago that we had identified about 1,200 such targets, and which mentioned that we could destroy ALL of them in about 3 days. No ground troops, no nation building. Simply destroy their ability to fight - COMPLETELY. BTW, this'll help a bunch in Iraq, as then the money will be shut off from Iran either because the Iranian people find new leaders or because this regime is too busy fighting rebels and rebuilding its military to fund them.

This issue is our Munich. If we fail, the consequences will be far more disasterous than in the original. If we succeed, we not only eliminate Iran and most of the radical Moslems as a significant threat to us, but we show the Russians and Chinese that we aren't a bunch of pansies.

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.