Dark Suspicions about the NIE
- 12.03.2007 - 5:50 PMA new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” has just dealt a serious blow to the argument some of us have been making that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons and that neither diplomacy nor sanctions can prevent it from succeeding. Thus, this latest NIE “judges with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”; it “judges with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work”; it “assesses with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”; it assesses, also with only “moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”; but even if not, it judges “with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.”
These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program. For that one, issued in May 2005, assessed “with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons” and to press on “despite its international obligations and international pressure.”
In other words, a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.
It is worth remembering that in 2002, one of the conclusions offered by the NIE, also with “high confidence,” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” And another conclusion, offered with high confidence too, was that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”
I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.
But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”
If this is what lies behind the release of the new NIE, its authors can take satisfaction in the response it has elicited from the White House. Quoth Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser: “The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically—without the use of force—as the administration has been trying to do.”
I should add that I offer these assessments and judgments with no more than “moderate confidence.”
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 PM
It is my gut impression that the NIE is staffed by “elites” who graduated from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and other so-called universities of distinction. These people are very dangerous. A very high percentage of them, maybe even the majority, embrace a deceitful pacifism. They are utopians that believe on a subconscious level, if not even consciously, military action almost always causes more harm than good. This is especially true if those who threaten America possess dark skin. In that case, they are victims of our alleged imperialist policies. Everything will work out fine if we were only nicer to them. These folks would feel quite comfortable with the 1933 Oxford Union resolution declaring, “This House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country.”
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Could it be that Tenet was more susceptible to pressure from Cheney’s office than his successor?
Why would you trust anything the CIA publishes to begin with? They specialize in mass-manipulation.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:29 AM
A bad day for neoconservatism, but a very good day for the United States!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:17 AM
It’s good news in a way to think that the NIE gives Bush the key he needs to negotiate with Iran over stabalizing Iraq. If Iran isn’t developing the nukes, then any military action is off the table and it’s even hard to sustain Iran’s “rogue nation” status (although they still owe us a lot). Amazing how this could change the whole geopolitical equation from one day to the next. One has to see what happens next here, but this is starting to get interesting.
Two personal opinions: I don’t like the idea of negotiation with religious fanatics, expecially fanatics who have been satanizing us for the last 25 years and using terrorism against ordinary civilians. Once again I have to remind myself that politics and ethics are distinct, to put it in the nicest way possible.
But I agree with the main point here: What’s is it with these NIEs? The 2002 NIE was famously at fault fot the “Bush Lied!” line. Now they’re saying the 2005 NIE was dead wrong, by about two years and we have to wait two more years to find out about it. However I don’t share (or don’t want to share) Podhoretz’s “dark suspicion” that our intelligence agencies are “calculatingly” producing information to undermine Bush. That’s a bit too much for me. Besides being a betrayal of the President, it seems just downright stupid. It’s hard to believe that our leaders are that stupid. But it is enough to arouse another “dark suspicion”: that someone is just playing geopolitics with NIEs as counters. If that “someone” is Bush/Cheney, then I’m willing to believe that “Bush Lied!” I probably should move over into the Bush-haters camp just for that reason, but I’d rather wait and see. If we get a stable and neutralized Iraq out of the deal, then I’ll concede that “Bush Lied!”, but add that his lies come out to a Bismarckian reordering of the Middle East’s balance of power in our favor.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:21 AM
THE ADMIRALS AGREE: THE NEO-CONS ARE NUTS
(Via Josh Marshall)
The neo-con’s wish for military action against Iran SOON is stupid.
Adm. Fallon, the head of CENTCOM, said this a month ago and now Adm. Mullen, chairman of the JCS, said the same in an interview with the NY Times:
He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.
With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/10/admirals-agree-neo-cons-are-nuts.html
December 4th, 2007 at 4:44 AM
Face it Norman, It’s time to hang up the hat. You paranoid obsession once again is proven wrong.
I’ll bet this was leaked by one of the cooler and more sane heads in the administration: Bob Gates. And good for him. You guys have made a big enough mess already. Time to retire, Norman. And take Krauthammer with you.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:16 AM
Just to get this straight, Bart:
If the Iraq war caused Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions for a half decade or more, that proves the neocon obsession to be wrong rather than, say, awesome? It means that they should retire rather than, say, toast Norman, Krauthammer, et. al. and celebrate wildly God’s kindness in providing the world with such insightful minds?
It may be that NPod is right that the NIE is wrong, in which case this is an important contribution and we can go on debating about the value of his other contributions, or that he’s wrong and his earlier contributions were valuable beyond compare. I’m not sure I see either as leading to a hat hanging conclusion.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:40 AM
Nice comment, Bart–it shows where your loyalties lie. Lefty kook…
December 4th, 2007 at 7:25 AM
I see most of the commentators seem to think that Iran’s actions revolve around US Politics… which is the typical worldview of the Left.. being as self-absorbed as it is.
No one is looking at this issue from the POV of the Iranians who are surely enjoying how stupid this NIE is making us. Do any of you know what the Twelvers are all about and what their goals are? All this stupid Leftist hatred of the right… it’s so unreal I could cry.
Iran thrives on this as this is the game they’re playing… playing for time.
The Iranians admit as much on Iranian TV (from 2005)
“Chief Iranian Negotiator on the Nuclear Issue Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz ”
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm
Transcript
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[…]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA – this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.
[…]
We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.
[…]
Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.
[…]
Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting - the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.
[…]
There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.
[…]
Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:42 AM
I work in a shop where we produce intelligence estimates, some of which filter up to the national estimate. I am here to tell you that any assessment written that diverts from a straight line drawn on a vector from 2003 to now and into the indefinite future will not make it past the initial chop. Notice how this leaked NIE assesses the past with such confindence. The prevailing view is that nothing has happened that has shown up on CNN (which runs constantly on two screens where I work) so nothing has happened. But I disagree with Norman in his dark assessment of motives, never attribute an action to malice when incompetence, gutlessness and CYA will suffice. Most of the Colonels and Navy Captains who sign off on these estimates are betting that Iran won’t do anything for at least the next few years, by which time they will have a star or have been forced to retire. Then, whatever does happen, they can write a book claiming that their dire warnings were ignored and that they were the lone voice arguing ________ (you fill in the blank). Just wait and see.