NIE Report Plays Down Iran Threat
4 December 2007
A surprising new NIE report admits that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Many are breathing a sigh of relief, but of course this is no guarantee that this exceptionally determined administration might not find a pretext for war anyway. Rather than opine, I will simply use this space to record relevant articles about this very significant development. (Or at least, it should be significant, in a rational world.)
BBC: US report plays down Iran threat
WP: A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy
Arms Control Wonk: More on the Iran NIE
A MIRACLE: HONEST INTEL ON IRAN NUKES
Ray McGovern, Antiwar, 4 Dec 07
The main points of the NIE:
"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...
"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.
"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely...
"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.
"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."
Having reached these conclusions, it is not surprising that the NIE's authors make a point of saying up front (in bold type), "This NIE does not [italics in original] assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons."
The Progressive: Bush May Still Bomb Iran, Despite NIE
Robert Baer: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?
Robert Scheer: Turns Out Ahmadinejad was the Truthful One
IAEA: Statement by Director General on New U.S. NIE
ACA: Statement by Executive Director on New U.S. NIE
National Review: Editorial: The threat is as great as ever
Norman Podhoretz: Dark Suspicions about the NIE
Michael Ledeen: I'm Not a Believer
5 Dec 2007
Justin Raimondo: No Iran Attack? Don't Be So Sure...
Gareth Porter: Iran NIE Validates 2003 European Diplomacy
David Ignatius: The Myth of the Mad Mullahs
Jim Lobe: Realist Revenge
Asia Times: US spies concoct a potent Iran brew
Simon Jenkins: The West must hug Tehran close
NAF: U.S. Iran Policy After the NIE (video)
AN IRAN BOMBSHELL FOR BUSH
Mark Follman, Salon, 5 Dec 07
FLYNT LEVERETT: Here's what they are leaving out of the discussion: What the Iranians want ultimately is a strategic deal with the U.S. that would address their fundamental security and legitimacy as a republic, their role in the region. The NIE concludes that if Iran could actually achieve that sense of security and a regional role without building a nuclear weapon, they'd be open to a deal. But you have to put something on the table in front of them that's really going to address those things. Not only has the administration never put an offer like that on the table, they've explicitly refused to do so.
Take the incentives package put together [back in 2005] by the Europeans: The section dealing with regional security had all kinds of explicit and implicit guarantees for the Islamic Republic of Iran, as part of an overall settlement talking about Iran's role in a regional security framework. The Bush administration would not sign on to that package last year until literally all of that language was taken out. They've never been serious about negotiations.
6 Dec 2007
Joe Conason: Telling the Truth About Iran
Noah Shachtman: Intel Insider: Iran Report Ain't Political
Philip Giraldi: Danger of War with Iran Remains (audio)
Joseph Gerson: Empire and Nuclear Weapons
Antiwar Radio: Scott Ritter on Iran
7 Dec 2007
Justin Raimondo: Iran: Why Won't We Take Yes For An Answer?
Dilip Hero: The Zero-Sum Fiasco
Alan M. Dershowitz: Stupid Intelligence
8 Dec 2007
Gordon Prather: Smoking Laptop Follies
Ray McGovern: Bush Spins Iran's Centrifuge
Alexander Cockburn: The Coup Against Bush and Cheney
Robert Parry: Neocons Devastated; Don't Count Them Out
10 Dec 2007
Justin Raimondo: Iran, Nukes, and the 'Laptop of Death'
Eric Margolis: Final disgrace for Bush & Co.
Scott Ritter: Calling on Congress to Stop a War
Flynt Leverett: Bush's real lie about Iran
Philip Giraldi: Neocons Strike Back on Iran
11 Dec 2007
Gareth Porter: White House Fought NIE
13 Dec 2007
Daniel Pipes: That NIE Makes War against Iran More Likely
John Bolton: The Flaws In the Iran Report
Caroline Glick: The Abandonment of the Jews
Ken Timmerman: Skepticism Mounts Over NIE Findings
Patrick Clawson: Judging Iran's Nuclear Program
Valerie Lincy: In Iran We Trust?
NYT: Despite Report, France and Germany Keep Pressure on Iran
WP: NATO Envoys Back Rice In Urging Iran Sanctions
NYT: IAEA praises U.S. report, but keeps wary eye on Iran
Yossi Klein Halevi: An Insult to Intelligence
TP: White House Rejects Right-Wing NIE Witch-Hunt
CAP: Neocons Attack the NIE, Yet Again
Opinion (14 Dec 07): Now that we've heard from both sides, I have to make some comments. Whatever the reliability of the new NIE, I am astounded at the cynicism of the neocons. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, they were only too happy to grasp at any straws of 'intelligence' from the US government that made their case for war. Now that the latest intelligence confounds their belligerent plans for Iran, they shamelessly accuse the same intelligence services of being 'politicized'. Such transparent opportunism give chutzpah a bad name.
To be fair, though, one mustn't conclude that all intelligence is inherently worthless. The pre-invasion 'intelligence' was cooked up in a neocon shadow-CIA operating out of a politically-appointed office in the Pentagon, from where it was 'stovepiped' to our ignorant and receptive president, whereas the latest NIE is the assessment of all 16 intelligence agencies of the government, chastened by the Iraq disaster and released from crude political intimidation.
It is clear that the neocons, as well as a great many politicians of both parties in Congress, are determined to bomb Iran on behalf of Israel, regardless of what the facts might be.* There was never a snowball's chance in hell that any NIE could change their minds. These people give lawyers a bad name too. The truth means nothing to them; the spin and resulting political power are the only thing they care about.
*As of 25 Dec 2007, I have decided that this statement puts a bit too much blame on AIPAC. Articles by Stephen Zunes have convinced me that AIPAC is only second fiddle to the military industrial complex. AIPAC deserves its share of the blame, though not the preponderant portion (but see also Rabbi Lerner). Merry Christmas, AIPAC! (from a Hindu-Buddhist)
So, am I sure that the Iranians do not have a secret nuclear weapons program? And what about the possibility that a civilian program could be quickly converted to military use? I have answered these questions in my recent article called Why Not To Bomb Iran. Briefly, my points are as follows:
Iran is not obliged under the NPT to prove that it does not have a nuclear weapons program, which is impossible under any circumstances (a.k.a. 'proving a negative'). One may always have suspicions about any nation, but a pre-emptive attack based on suspicions is no less a war crime than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Indeed, that attack was somewhat more justified, in that we had already cut off Japan's oil supply.) What matters is that the IAEA certifies that Iran has been complying with inspections. IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei has confirmed this to be the case, and I have a better impression of his integrity than of that of any neocons, or of most American politicians, for that matter. (Speaking of suspicions, let us note that Iran has not attacked anyone in modern memory. Can the same be said of the US?)
Moreover, the Iranians would have rational reasons for wanting a bomb, not the least of which was our illegal and disastrous invasion of their neighbor Iraq, based on bogus evidence. Then there was the not-so-small matter of our bloody trampling of their democracy in 1953, with a resulting reign of torture under the Shah. (But is the present American administration much concerned about torture?) Instead of taking all this into account and negotiating in good faith, we simply demonize and bully them.
Why? Because our politicians are in the pocket of the hawkish Israel Lobby, not to be confused with the generally liberal Jewish-American population. Basically, the Israeli government is determined to squeeze the Palestinians out of the West Bank, in order to placate Jewish religious fanatics in Israel. (It does not matter whether Labor or Likud is in power.) The repression in the West Bank in turn provokes (or aggravates) the enmity of Muslim world, to the point where Israel feels it must hold a secret arsenal of some 200+ nuclear weapons, even though no other nation seriously threatens her. This in turn is pushing the region towards a nuclear arms race, with not a peep from our supine politicians, who forget which country elected them. The solution, of course, is to give the Palestinians a homeland along the 1967 borders (more or less), while negotiating with the Iranians and others to give them assurances that neither the US nor Israel wishes to attack them. However, this would require saying no to the religious fanatics in Israel. To be sure, the Muslim world has more than its share of religious fanatics, but it is the ones in Israel (and the US) who are driving us towards the 'World War IV' that Norman Podhoretz so ardently desires. And it is the craven corruption of our politicians that allows this to happen, helped along by the general ignorance and indifference (if not worse) of the American public.
Scott Ritter weighs in
UPDATE (22 Dec 07): Scott Ritter's interview of 6 December 2007 with Antiwar Radio is essential listening. Ritter makes the point that the recent NIE's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, prior to 2003, is unsubstantiated. This claim is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, many pundits are breathing a sigh of relief that there is no weapons program. On the other hand, as Ritter explains, the administration could always argue that the program has been restarted, based on some fortuitous new 'evidence', and that the burden of proof is on Iran to prove that the (never existing) weapons program has not been restarted. This is the famous and impossible case of proving a negative, the same trick used to justify the invasion of Iran in 2003.
Other oddities are that a hypothetical secret weapons program would not have been producing nearly as much enriched uranium as one openly declared and inspected by the IAEA, and that the best evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program was a highly questionable laptop, which, even if its contents were true, hardly made the case, according to Ritter. Finally, the administration already has the pretext it needs to go to war, namely the recent declaration by Congress that the Iranian Republican Guards are a terrorist organization, a designation never before accorded to a branch of a government. In light of the 2001 resolution authorizing 'all necessary force' against Osama bin Laden, or the 2002 resolution against Saddam, Congress 'has its hands tied' in preventing, say, a springtime attack on Iran, should the president feel so inclined. Further, there are now attempts to link the (unsubstantiated) nuclear weapons program to the (allegedly terrorist) Republican Guards, according to this article by Gordon Prather. The Democrats can claim they don't have the votes to stop Bush, but they have made little effort to stop him, and have even facilitated his plans. Is that because AIPAC is pushing some buttons?
Ritter's interview is also excellent for an overall view of the situation in Iraq and why the fundamental problem is the US occupation. I'm glad he agrees with me on the 'cowardly nature' of the current Congress. They'd rather sacrifice soldiers' lives rather than take any political risk — which means continued funding of the war so that we 'support the troops'. How ironic! Just wait until we attack Iran. An even starker lesson of all this is the sheer incompetence and stupidity of the US administration, reminiscent of Vietnam. And not only will the cowardly Congress not step up to the plate on a ruinous war, they won't even save the Constitution! We have met the enemy, and he is us!
17 Dec 2007 and thereafter
David R. Henderson: Don't Lean on the NIE
Gordon Prather: Why the NIE Is Wrong
James Schlesinger: Stupid intelligence on Iran
Iran Hawks Find New Supporters Against the NIE
Back to the Home Page
