Today’s front page New York Times feature detailing the consensus of the U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran isn’t working to build a nuclear weapon ought to provide encouragement for those opposed to tough American action on the issue. Bookended with parallel arguments being put forward by many in the Washington foreign policy establishment that a nuclear Iran would be easily contained, this presents the country with a pair of calming notions: Iran isn’t going nuclear but even if it is, it’s no big deal.
However, the most distressing aspect of the piece, which is the product of highly placed anonymous sources within the intelligence establishment, is not so much the lack of alarm on the part of those who are supposed to be the nation’s eyes and ears so much as the fact that they are also willing to admit that they haven’t a clue as to what is actually happening in Iran. The article contains startling admissions that the Islamist tyranny is a mystery to American officials. One went so far as to say that U.S. intelligence agencies view it as even more of a closed book to them than the hermit-like regime in North Korea. Considering their disgraceful failure to prepare the government for the possibility that the North Koreans were on the brink of nuclear capability, this confession should undermine the credibility of the same officials’ boast that they are certain no Iranian nuke is in the works.
Many writing about the intelligence about Iran continually speak of the days before the invasion of Iraq when we were assured by the government that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. Since it was already proven that he had used chemical weapons on his own people and had a nuclear program before Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981, these were not unreasonable conclusions even if they turned out to be wrong. However that failure, which led to charges that the intelligence community’s convictions about Iraq were wrongly influenced by political considerations, has led to a passionate determination on the part of those in charge that they will never sign off on any conclusion about this sort of an issue again if it will be used as an excuse to go to war. Like generals who always prepare for the surprises they faced in the previous war, America’s spies will never raise the alarms about WMDs again.
Fear of repeating mistakes is understandable. But history rarely repeats itself in this manner. That makes beliefs grounded in that fear often as wrongheaded as the original errors. If the intelligence community’s beliefs about Iraq were incorrectly influenced by a desire to agree with the Bush administration’s predilections then it is just as easy to argue that its current views about Iran might be just as mistaken.
But no matter what is influencing their opinions, it is difficult to work up much confidence in the conclusions of agencies that are so open about the fact that they are flying blind in Iran. Though the anonymous officials have confidence in their non-human assets, they are quick to dismiss any evidence, such as the recent satellite images that have led the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspect that work on weaponization of nuclear material is being carried on in Iran simply because it does not fit into their preconceptions about the regime. But it’s clear that the lack of input about Iranian intentions that can only come from real human intelligence has crippled American agencies to the point where it has become an article of faith on their part that they must be right, even if they can’t back up those conclusions with any evidence.
What we are witnessing here is the sort of cyclical group-think that will be reversed once again if the Iranians confound our spooks the way the supposedly easier to read North Koreans did. Another U.S. intelligence failure will simply make their analysts lean more on the side of action the next time around. But the problem for Israel, the Middle East and the world is that if they are wrong about Iran, the consequences of that mistake will be far worse than even those generated by the Iraq disaster.
No intelligence officials have said they are “certain” that Iran is not developing nukes. Intelligence is not an exact science and anyone who says he can forecast exactly what the government of, say, Brazil will do in the next year is a fool or a liar. Much less can intelligence analysts forecast with certainty what will happen inside a largely opaque, hostile government that is trying its best to hide and deceive.r nr nPolitical leaders are obliged to make judgements, which may be assisted by intelligence, but even if these leaders are literally blindsided by a foe, they must still decide. Pretending that they were misled by intelligence or the lack of it must never be allowed to be used as an excuse.
Can they be so incredibly stupid and incompetent? If so, we might as well surrender right now. Two thoughts for those crooked imbeciles for whom we pay heavy taxes (note that I have absolutely no respect for them): 1. Every piece of evidence indicates that Iran is trying to build atomic weapons and the means to deliver them. They would be more stupid than I can give them credit for to put up with all the sanctions and secrecy that they do if they did not have the object of making atomic weapons. 2. If there were any but the most totally convincing doubt that they were building atomic weapons, a government as hostile and evil and dangerous as Iran must be wiped out just in case they are making weapons and BEFORE they make them and use them.
The United States will not act militarily to preempt Iranian nukes, acknowledged, not believed in, or acknowledged but with acknowledgement suppressed. Most likely never ever. If the Iranians test a weapon in the Jornada del Muerto desert over the expanses of New Mexico, maybe, but just. Israel probably doesn't have the means to preempt and Obama will do all in his power to preempt their preemption. Sanctions may move the needle on the Iran side and Western diplomacy may exploit that movement to good ends or blow it in self-initiated unilateral concessions. Israel may develop the technologies (bunker busting etc.) to go ahead and attack if nothing happens and Iranians continue to test out the components of a device. But nothing in the coming months.
That hasn't stopped them from claiming Israel is insanely dangerous for coming to any conclusion at all though. You have to wonder or maybe you don't since it's similar to arguing with someone on the internet – - they literally accept nothing as evidence of anything unless and until it actually falls on their head. Then they scramble for excuses about how it's the colonialist Zionist capitalist white man's fault after all.
right, your Highness. according to Obama, it's all Israel's fault. they seem more worried about Israel striking Iran than Iran getting the bomb! n nit's all part of Obama's very lefty worldview, where, as you note, it's all the fault of the white man (oh boy, now we Jews get to be considered "white" all of a sudden!).
Obama is a man, after all, who actually had his flacks go out to tout the "historic speech" he had given to zero effect on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (the 1967 borders proposal) This is a man willing like the crowing cock to take credit for the rise of the sun, but emerges from a car wreck reeking of gin to blame the other driver or the stoplight signal or the weather or Bush or someone anyone somewheres anywheres.
And from YNET: n n"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that Israel is a cancerous tumor that is being paid by the West to "continue the criminal occupation of Palestinian territories. " Meanwhile, head of Iran's parliamentary foreign policy commission said Sunday that the West will suffer if it fails to accept the reality of Iran's nuclear abilities." n nNevertheless how long before the New York Times headlines: n nTRIUMPHANT OBAMA PROCLAIMS P5+1 SUCCESS, "IRAN AGREES TO OUR CONCESSIONS" n
What's the surprise here? This is no different than the conveniently timed National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2007 that stated that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. n nIt took awhile, but the CIA and other intel agencies are now thoroughly staffed with liberal Democrats (redundant, I know). If the Democrat-in-Chief needs justification for war (a la Libya), then he will get intel that supports that. If he wants soothing intel that undermines any call for military action, as in Iran, he gets that, too. n nThe saddest part of all this is that our intel agencies have become so politicized that even if a solid conservative President were elected, he/she would be hamstrung by the very agencies vital to making the difficult and risky decisions. Same thing with the State Dept. It is one craptastic mess and it is hard to conceive of how this will get straightened out short of some cataclysmic event that allows for the elimination of these agencies and a complete overhaul.
Couldn't agree more with you. They're worthless. We pay hundreds of billions of dollars for what, exactly? A clown show. And I'm not talking about the guys who are risking their asses in the field. I'm talking about the mandarins in Langley, the ones in charge of desks, with high GS numbers, puffing on their pipes, formulating their own conventional wisdom, and getting it all wrong. Collapse of the USSR? 9/11? Whoops-a-daisy. Gosh we just didn't see those coming. But God help anyone — mostly those in Republican administrations — who holds a view that doesn't comport with theirs. Then it's off to leak to the WaPo or NYT or CBS. But that's OK: They've got the nation's real interests at heart, y'see. Right. Administrations come and administrations go, and the bad news is CIA is always there. The worst news is it can't find its own ass with both hands.
As I've said many times before, the international community already HAS more than enough evidence and justification to impose harsher sanctions and yes, even blockades and military action based upon Iran's continued/on-going proxy war that it's been fighting against the west and Israel since 1979. IMHO, the nuclear issue is but the tip of the iceberg. n nI fear that history will NOT be kind to all of us in regards to allowing Iran to continue it's deadly war for 3 decades with virtually no response from the west.
Absolutely. Winston Churchill's summary of the situation facing Britain in 1939 applies to us today with alarming relevance: if we will not stop the enemy when it would be relatively easy without cost, and if we will further not stop the enemy when it would be difficult and somewhat costly, then we will inevitably face the day when we are fighting for our lives with no assurance of ultimate victory. n nBut then, I suppose this requires seeing the Iranian Regime as an "enemy" and a belief that there is such a thing as "victory." For the last 30 years, the U.S. has acted like a boxer in the ring who refuses to acknowledge that he is in a fight. With predictable results.
To add to my my comment above, everything that US policy makers need to know to decide what to do about Iran's nuke program and its government's intentions comes from public sources: Iranian officials' pronouncements, diplomatic contacts, news accounts of its nuclear work, and the reports of UN inspectors. We know that Iran is enriching uranium. We know it is testing missiles. We know it has repeatedly deceived UN inspectors and others. We know it has publicly told the international community to take a hike. In addition, imaging and other intelligence confirms what we know from these open sources. The idea that before US policy makers can decide what to do and act, they must have some sort of "slam dunk" intel — reading the Supreme Leader's mail, recruiting a spy at the top of the regime, whatever — is just ridiculous. It will not happen and even if it did, the information gleaned would still be subject to interpretation, not to mention that it might well be a deliberate bum stear from someone with an axe to grind. n nIntelligence analysis and certainty do not go together.