As late as 2005 U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb, but in a stunning reversal the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) ordered by Congress in 2006 concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The Israelis and Iranian dissidents, in particular, are not buying it - and there's good reason for skepticism.
The Atlantic ticks off several examples of cognitive dissonance in the report's conclusions, a compilation of the assessments of 16 U.S. spy agencies:
While Iran did suspend uranium enrichment for a time, it reversed this move in early 2006. Natanz went live later that year, and just last week, Iran started operating 3,000 of the estimated 60,000 centrifuges at Natanz, making good on its promise of industrial-scale uranium enrichment. Since the alleged halt, Iran has continued to develop a ballistic missile program capable of delivering nuclear warheads and consistently obfuscated UN inspections. Nowhere in the NIE is there discussion as to why Iran would resume this enrichment and continue to thwart the inspectors if it were giving in to international pressure and halting its program. ...
If Iran were really succumbing to international pressure in halting its weapons program, why would it not do so in a way that would benefit the country? If it were to take the measures of ceasing enrichment and adopting transparency, the numerous sanctions and restrictions against it would be lifted. A key moment would have been nine months ago, when the UN Security Council enacted tough new sanctions against the country for failing to cooperate with the IAEA. But Iran made no concessions. So what has it gained in all this by the logic of U.S. intelligence? The NIE essentially claims that Iran has created for itself a lose-lose situation, where it has stopped its nuclear weapons program without reaping any of the benefits. Why would Iran have any interest in such a scenario? It is a question the NIE summary fails to address, and one that should keep us wondering about Iran's true intentions and capabilities.
A scant six weeks ago, President Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could set off World War III. Why the 180-degree turnabout? Maybe the reality (resignation?) finally set in that the U.S. cannot simultaneously fight wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. As Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer in the Middle East, speculates, with the situation in Iraq improving and Lebanon settling into some semblance of political stability, the Bush administration concluded that striking Iran now is counterproductive:
With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head.
Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they're not going to help the United States. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don't even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the United States can't do.
[H]aving claimed proudly to have forged at Annapolis a coalition of Arab states in opposition to Iran and its radical Islamist proxies, Bush and Rice might well be thinking that it might be handy at this stage to have a reason to implicitly back down from the military option that those "moderate" Muslim allies so ardently oppose. That's certainly what the NIE report conveniently provides, even if that won't be publicly acknowledged by the administration.
What does the NIE analysis really tells us about Iranian nuclear intentions and capabilities? That's anybody's guess. But from a Jerusalem viewpoint, the message it sends from Washington seems to be: If you're thinking of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel - you're on your own.
So if the U.S. has no intentions of bombing Iran back to the Stone Age, what can we do to keep it on the nuclear straight and narrow? The Washington Post's Robert Kagan makes the case that now is as good a time as any to initiate talks with Teheran:
A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is now gone. ... Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible.
With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.
Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system. ...
This is as good a time as any. ... America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region - a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated. ...
The next administration, especially if it is Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn't begin talks before the summer of 2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb. Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted.
Regardless of all available information those inclined to believe that JFK was shot by a second gunman (an alien escapee from Roswell) will continue to see conspiracies where none exist. If one argument is squashed Scotched another one will arise. If Clinton/Obama sees Iran as a threat then Iran will remain a threat (if only their minds). And as such will remain a threat to world peace (Clinton/Obama's politically driven attitudes that is). Sooner or later the clandestine services will 'find evidence' their jobs depend on it.
As for the NIE report it is sufficiently abiguous to if the mind is so inclined as to supply other justifications for continued surveillance. A bit like betting on both horses in a two horse race.
When asked about how dangerous snakes were My old Granny used to say " It all depends on how hard and often you poke them " Think about it America
Australia has 8 of the top 10 most dangerous snakes in the world yet snake bite is relativly uncommon.
A snakes' first respose will alway be to try and escape.
Research has since shown that 98% of reported snake bites occur when people try to intefere [kill] the snake. They can strike at 11times faster than you can hit.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 8:29:20 PM
The Koran says it is permissible to lie to infidels to advance the interests of Islam. Just as the Saudis and Turks help us with one hand and undermine us with the other, the Iranians cannot be trusted to abandon their nuclear ambitions just because the rest of the world wants them to. Having said that I don't know what we lose by negotiating with them to see if there is something they would rather have than nukes. Brinksmanship is not the way to go.
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 9:48:02 PM
Are you saying that the West (USA) doesn't lie to get its own way or its advantage? where's the difference ? US lies are justified how?
My point was those who want to see threats won't be disappointed. As you're obviously not.
Personally I take a larger view that what is in the oil corporates interests.
Neither am I saying that Iran isn't a threat just that if American presidents etc spent a little less time publically condemning others there may be an opening for realism.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 3:32:52 AM
But the notion that we can go around bombing one country after another is surreal. I am in favor of talking instead of bombing. But dialog must be preceeded with international pressure to get a rogue nation in the right frame of mind to resolve an issue to the entire world's satisfaction.
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 6:07:55 AM
But is that from the world's position or that of the UN dominated by the US.
One could argue that historically one of greatest threats to world peace is US Hegonomy. It is the height of intellectual myopia to suggest that it's OK for Irrael, Pakistsan, India, China, US, Russia and a number her Ex states to have nuclear bombs or material. All of these hold some risk/threat. I would put it to you that the threat of 'the bomb' has been with us since the 1950's. Most, not all near nuclear wars in that time have stemmed from Cock ups (an ancient archery term for mis firing an arrow upside down the feather bit facing down rather than up.) in the US systems Def com 4's. Over the last 50 or so years have been due to a series of oops (and that the ones that NORAD admit to). How secure do you think that makes nations who aren't freinds of the US. How confident do you think that leaves friends like Australia.
I AM NOT SAYING THERE ISN'T ANY RISK WITH IRAN. I'm simply saying look a bit deeper to find out why there is a threat and I think that it has nothing to to with their Theology. Ask an Iranian, and I have what do they see as the biggest threat and they say Israel (keep in mind Israel's history and the Passages in scripture on which they base their claim to Palestine it actually included Iran and mort of Iraq. Their second fear involves America's unconditional support lor Irael as a means of having a claim for interference in the Middle Eatern and its oil. The iraqi was was supposed to be paid for by ...their oil. from their perspective US come and trashes our country looking for WMDs which don't exist , rape the country, kill inocents with impunity, defile our religion our culture and then want us to pay. If they're a little frightened and cynical can you really blame them? It appears that all america wants it to control the oil... Which country has the next biggest reserves not indirectly controlled by the US...Iran.
Then ask could there a better way to resolve the fear that doesn't involve sabre rattling, brinkmanship and punishing the average Iranian with pointless and cruel sanctions like Iraq (how may peopld died unnecessarily?) so that the political elites can be hairy chested.
Would you accept all the countries of the world boycotting The US trying to send it into the stoneage because of the excesses of GWB or some other ideological and intellectually constipated president?
Iranian contrary to US opinion aren't all tribal peasants most are just like you so ask yourself why would they want to spend the kinds of money necessary for Nuclear bombs and risk total ahnilation if they weren't terrified and felt they had no choice.
The western world grossly misunderstands Islam and Jihad. Islam is no more about Jihad than Chritianity is about white supremacy and Intelligent Design (sic).
I AM NOT TAKING SIDES ONLY PLEADING FOR OBJECTIVITY AND A BIT MORE LONG TERM SELF INTEREST. Rather than short term paroctarcial political gain or bllind ideological stances.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 4:19:09 PM
On the one hand, a nuclear armed Iran is one more nuclear armed country to worry about. On the other hand, it is a soverign nation and have the right to determine their own energy, economic and even military policy. However, speaking selfishly as an American, I would prefer that our own interests prevail and if it's in our interest for Iran to have the bomb then we should do everything we can to ensure it doesn't get it. Right now that would be diplomacy to find out what Iran wants in exchange for giving up its nuclear ambitions. Unless and until Iran actually tests a device would saber rattling be justifiable. I think Bush & Cheney were unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory. Again.
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 8:14:31 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
