Posted on 12/11/2007 5:39:37 AM PST by SJackson
|
||
By Daniel Pipes 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. 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:
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." Therefore, the real question is not whether Iran will be stopped, but how. 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. |
Iran should’ve been dealt with long before their nuclear capabilities even became an issue. They’re still the #1 supporter of Islamic terror in the world, and when fighting a war on terror, their threat is very real and needs to be dealt with.
Before the NIE report I used to think we needed to bomb Iran. That’s clearly wrong: we need to bomb FOGGY BOTTOM and THEN bomb Iran.
Let’s bomb them back to the Stone Age and get it over with!
Meanwhile, Iran makes ready for economic warfare against the United States Nigeria’s scam artists are setting up shop in Iran at the invitation of Iran.
We are missing the obvious. Iran slowed or stopped the flow of arms, men and IED’s into Iraq, and we backed off on attacking Iran. It is not a coincidence.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
The enhanced US strategy in Iraq stopped and disabled Iranian terrorist cells. Improved Iraqi Security forces find more and more chaches and the main Iranian explosives factory at Parchin, near Tehran just recently suffered a major “accident”. I don’t think that the Mullahs stopped the mayhem in Iraq on their own.
We are at war with Iran and have been for some time.At some poijnt we will finish the job. Or Iran will.
Congressman Billybob
Spot on.
The whole thing conclusion is nonsense. I can well believe that the Iranians might have dropped work on a plutonium bomb in 2003. But a Hiroshima-style U-235 bomb is a simple thing. As long as the centrifuges spin someone there knows the critical mass for U-235, and they have enough explosives to arm a heavy artillery shell, and enough machine tools and steel to make a cannon barrel and a bomb casing, the notion that they have abandoned a nuclear weapons program is absurd.
Is it just me or are the logic in these anti-NIE articles getting more and more convoluted? Pipes is saying that the NIE will reduce diplomatic resolve, thereby ensuring military action. But the issue everyone else was complaining about was that it reduced the resolve for military action by making the threat hypothetical rather than imminent. Say what?
I have no idea, nor do any of the critics, what is contained in the classified portion of the NIE that caused these bureaucrats to make a career-threatening assessment that runs directly counter to Israeli/White House policy and was guaranteed to bring this level of condemnation. Whatever it was, Cheney isn’t disputing it, but is confined to arguing that Iran could restart it. I’m sure it will leak with time.
Note that there is absolutely no interest in whatever that information is for Pipes and his ilk; his main concern is the fallout damage it has done to the media campaign. As the saying goes, truth is the first casualty of war.
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
You'll note the assessment is far from as "one sided" as reported in most of the media. No one is risking their job by going against the Israeli/White House view, whatever that is. The report clearly indicates that Iran has the capability to produce nuclear weapons, ceased in 2003, and disagrees with Israeli-White House-French-British-German positionsbut that ...these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007. Probably by mid-2007 isn't going to cost anyone their job, Iran could restart tomorrow and the estimate would be on target.
To Pipes point, the estimate clearly indicates that the halt was due to international pressure, which must be maintained. If it's not, and the way the media has played this it may not be, then the option of negotiations is, in fact, off the table.
continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do soIran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing
We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
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
We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives
We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon
We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
We cut a deal with Iran?
Lower the level of violence in Iraq and you can have nukes.
Distinct possibility.
Also possible our change in tactics has worked.
You got it. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publically stated the 50,000 centrifuge goal. The bigger question is: Has North Korea proliferated plutonium to Iran? How about those spent nuclear fuel rods from the Bushehr reactor that the Russians were suppose to receive back from Iran? I believe this was 2005 when the Russians refused to have rods shipped to them citing ‘payment default’ from the Iranians.
I am in firm belief they already have some form of bomb and if we bomb, I assume our carrier fleet will be well prepared to not allow a missle to get within a two mile radius. I would further speculate the Iranians will use dozens, if not hundreds of conventional missles with one or two armed with the nuke.
Actually, they're #2, right behind Saudi Arabia .......................... FRegards
Not career-threatening if they're friends of Bill and Hill.
Interesting.
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.