The NIE Changes Nothing

It's interesting to see all the controversy stirred up by the recent Iranian National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). As critics lambast the administration for its past saber-rattling, the administration insists that the NIE actually reinforces its policy as the correct approach.

But the White House said the report vindicated its concerns because it concluded that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program until halting it in 2003 and it showed that U.S.-led diplomatic pressure had succeeded in forcing Tehran's hand. "On balance, the estimate is good news," said national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. "On the one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen."

Hadley disagreed that the report showed that past administration statements have been wrong, noting that collecting intelligence on a "hard target" such as Iran is notoriously difficult. "Welcome to the real world," he said.

And he defended Bush's World War III reference in October and repeated it himself during a briefing, saying if the world wants to avoid an Iranian bomb and "having to use force to stop it with all the connotations of World War III, then we need to step up the diplomacy."

Critics should be careful not to dismiss the threat, Hadley added, pointing to Iran's continued enrichment of uranium, which could eventually be used to assist a weapons program. "I'm sure some people will use this as an excuse or a pretext for, you know, flagging on the effort," he said. "Our argument is actually it should be just the reverse, because we need to keep the halting of the nuclear weapons program in place."

Here's a prediction. You're going to hear from the right-wing community that the reason Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is because the US government deployed 250,000 troops into the Middle East in its invasion of Iraq. So the logical conclusion is that 1) the 2003 invasion had multiple positive effects on reducing the regional threat to US interests, and 2) an aggressive confrontation with Iraq and Iran is better than continuing nonproliferation efforts. Wait for it. The spin is coming.

Comments

[NVH]

Who is stopping non proliferation efforts? Your analysis J. is correct, why call it spin? What benefit does it provide this administration to say anything other than what you have stated and draw those conclusions? It'll get a republican elected? No one will remember in a week. The fact is we keep hard diplomacy on Iran b/c if we back off they take miles from us and see it as weakness. The fact is they don't have a nuke but continue to enrich uranium, which even at a low grade of enrichment they could conveniently transfer to HAMAS and IRGC for RDD fun in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel. So unfortunately, Hadley's right, J., and the NIE Changes Nothing.

[nerdgirl]

Here's one:
"U.S. Intel Possibly Duped by Iran"
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html

Summary: It's Tom Fingar's fault.

[nerdgirl]

NVH - perhaps.

Problem is that we don't know (openly) what was/were the main factors and what were obstacles for Iran's 2003 decision.

The unclassified NIE says:

"Iran may be more vulnerable to influence [via diplomacy, sanctions, & inducements] on the issues than we judged previously."

"Our assessment that 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 pressure, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, [i.e., carrots *&* sticks] might—if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

So is credit due to the Europeans and IAEA? Multi-lateral diplomacy and transparency (extendable beyond the nuclear realm)?

Was invasion of Iraq a motivating factor or a hurdle that had to be overcome? If the former, was it US hardline policies or the fact that Saddam Hussayn was removed, by whatever means?

[Jonathan Baum]

With all due respect to the American intelligence agencies, anyone who thinks the Iranians aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons - if they don't already have them - has got his head up their ass.

[J.]

Thanks, Jonathan, but we've already seen the Israeli government's response...

[NVH]

1st of all, JB's right. Second of all, nerdgirl, they halted in '03 b/c of Afghanistan and how easy it was to get to Baghdad for us. Iraq was going well at the time. And IRAN was easily next at the time. So they stopped. WE kept up the rhetoric diplomatically b/c that crazy bitch in IRAN wants to nuke Israel. And has the missiles to do it, if they could get the nukes right, but that will take time, we've known that since AQ Khan started holding court. The facts are you do NOT build an internal nuclear power network the way Iran is. You build a nuclear weapon development capability the way they are. The way to convey you are not is NOT the way Iran is conveying it. So feint, cajole, stick and move all they want, just like Saddam, in another 10 years of sanction violations from the UN, we'll be in Iran if the students don't get Ahmandinejad first. And it will be before they get nukes, Hopefully.

[mosquito]

The militaristic attitude that has indoctrinated too many Americans is frightening. It is the mindset of an evil empire, a bully terrorizing other nations in the world with "it's our way or extinction".....it's sad, it's sick and it's definitely not moral or ethical.

I have relatives in the military who are "sickened" by the might is right mentality. This militaristic mindset has made us too many enemies in the world.

My vision of America is of a powerful nation insisting upon peace...and only using the military only if we are invaded and have to use it.

Unfortunately our military has been used too many times to push forth a corporate agenda.

buzz...buzz...
Buzz...Buzz....

[ry]

Well, Iran has been working at the nuc weap thing, since, oh, Reagan. NO, they don't have a tested and working model(much like the DPRK, and the world laughed when Cartman Jung-Il had his one test fail last year).
So, take home? Yeah, they proll'y do/did have intentions on the matter, but nothing outrageous or strappable to their Shahhab series of missiles.

Why stop in '03? I dunno. NerdGirl hit on something though---the Iranians biggest threat evaporated. ANyone look at a map lately? Land invasions from Iraq or AFghanistan go thru shitty terrain(mountainous terrain) and then would proceed across soft sand desert. NOt really the kind of high speed, machanized warfare the US A prefers. AMphib? I don't want to find out how good Phalanx is. I don't want to actually test our ASW and AMW(anti-mine warfare) capabilities, considering that the USN has cut training and ships in these two essential categories. An amphib would be a bitch and a half. Iran's not worried about an invasion.(Keep in mind, I'm not saying we couldn't do it. It'd just be very costly in terms of equipment and people. It's doable, but not as cheaply as Iraq, in historical terms, is.) What purpose do they have to continue such an expensive line of research? By simply enriching U they've got people already assuming that they have something and THAT acts as deterent(they did the French one better on the Force du Frappe idea didn't they?).

What I think is stupid about all this NIE business is nobody trully knows why the Bush Admin did what it did, though everyone has an opinion which they use as if it were factual, and whether there existed a good reason for it. Ex: Blix kept telling the Iraqis that they'd better let his inspectors into areas or he'd refer the matter to the UNSC and the US. A bad cop, good cop routine. BUt, hell, let's just assume it's 'cause all them idjit reichwingers are warmongers without two functioning braincells, ja?

Just bounce a dinner roll of my forehead next time, J. It's more polite. ;)

non-proliferation? Sigh. NOt sure it works much at all, though it's a noble concept. THe Pope banned jousting and the crossbow and nobody cared. C/BW have tons of treaties regarding them, and our host worked in the field even though both the US and USSR promised to get rid of them(even though we both had rather robust programs right up to a decade or two ago). It simply doesn't work very well. Those you don't have to worry about honor the rules, and those you do find ways to break them(Iran in this case, since it lied for years about their nucweap program) or simply don't sign(India, Israel, Pakistan(I think, but don't quote me). Noble concept. SOmething I wish actually worked. But I'd rather we spent more finding ways of making the delivery of NBCR exceptionally difficult instead of spending money on trying to make them go away by fiat. But that's me.

[CKR]

...and how is it that we know that they had a nuclear weapons program in 2003?

[lester]

the program stopped in 03 because the reason they had it, the hussein regime in Iraq, had been eliminated.

Also, is it just me or are the reactions to this utterly contrived and bordering on bizarre. it is now our best guess that one of our biggest fears doesn't exist. We are safer than we were yesterday. how is this bad? do people WANT Iran to have a nuclear weapons program or something?

[ry]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/iran.intelligence/index.html

I just luuurve this whole 'how did we know' thing. Look, either you trust the professionals to do their job or you don't. Either all that imint and sigint and humint we gather on Iran, well the humint not so much since our humint is not so good, actually tells us something or not. The CNN link tells what parts of the story it can tell: we bought people(bribe, whatever) who gave us info along with sigint. Been doing that for several decades. BUt, apparently for some on both sides of the political spectrum, that's rather inconvenient, facts that is(I got 'yer email, J, that isn't directed at you, homey).

As I see it, Iran's getting a lot of mileage out of simply enriching U beyond the level necessary for power plants. And therin lays the rub. (Barnett has his take on it here: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/12/dissecting_irans_decision_not.html)

[CKR]

I bring up the "how do we know thing" because there was no evidence of a (relatively) current Iranian nuclear weapons program before this NIE. The IAEA had found no evidence of such, although there were questionable experiments a couple of decades back that are yet to be explained. This NIE just blithely says, oh yeah, they ended that nuclear weapons program (that we all know about because President Bush keeps referring to it) in 2003.

So what is the evidence that there was such a program? Other than the laptop of death, which isn't very persuasive.

After you've botched enough readings, you have to give evidence. We can argue whether the botchers are the IC or the policymakers, but the principle holds.