Without revealing its sources, those who compiled the NIE have to be taken on faith. Should we? Is their record one of such amazing accuracy, displaying such an uncanny understanding of, inter alios, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and General Musharraf? Have the compilers of the NIE shown they comprehend the Ikhwan in Egypt, or why Libya "gave up" its nuclear project, or what Bashir in Khartoum plans to do to keep holding off any effective intervention in Darfur?
Do you have confidence that those in our intelligence services comprehend the meaning, and menace, of Islam, as fifty years ago Western intelligence services understood the meaning, and menace, of the Soviet state, and Soviet Communism? But in those days there was a better class of agent, one well-versed in Communism and in the history of the Soviet Union. He was aided by many refugees from the Soviet Union and Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, as well as by former Communists in the West (see The God That Failed) and defectors from the Soviet security services, whether those services were called the Cheka, or the NKVD, or the KGB.
Do you have the impression that the American and other Western governments have been listening to, de-briefing, the equivalent today -- that is, such defectors from the Army of Islam as Wafa Sultan? Why not find out what she thinks might be possible in Syria, with an Alawite-controlled army but a Sunni-controlled government? Have they been listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and so many others? And these defectors are being joined every day by the intellectually and morally most advanced people -- their numbers are few, but truth is on their side -- who through no fault of their own, were born into Islam, and then made the slow mental journey, with a long stopover at the waystation called "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, until they made it to the wide uplands of complete, and unapologetic, apostasy.
The fact that not only Israel, but many European governments, are now reported to have raised a skeptical eyebrow about the NIE report, that even the operation of Al-Baradei seems surprised, should make us hesitant about adding our voices too quickly to all those screaming with what they presume is delighted vindication, or vindicated delight. They assume we are all merely going to accept, without the slightest doubt or questioning or skepticism, this most unlikely, un-verisimilar news, the conclusions hedged in with qualifying words that seem not to have been noticed, or if noticed, to have been paid no heed.
The Bush Administration, however, has created the conditions where such things are accepted. Its lunatic policy, both naive and sentimental, of keeping American forces in Iraq once the regime had fallen and the entire country scoured for weapons of mass destruction -- that is, by February 2004, the month after David Kay made his final report, and two months after Saddam Hussein had been captured -- in order to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East," has created those conditions. And that policy of the Bush Administration is based on willful ignorance of Islam and Jihad and Islamic supremacism, and fear of learning about, recognizing, and figuring out how best to deal with the meaning, and full menace, of Islam and Jihad and Islamic supremacism.
One wonders who continue to be the biggest boosters of the Iraq democracy project. Is it Condoleeza Rice, or others? If it is she, as a loyal supporter of the belief that "democracy" (defined in the most primitive, elementary-school manner as the mere head-counting that characterizes the "democracy" in Iraq), then she needs to realize, sooner rather than later, that the ideology of Islam can no longer be put off as an object of study. And that study will require training people in Islam, its world-view, its meaning and menace. They will not learn by continuing to deposit them into the jaws of the smiling crocodiles of Islamic apologetics -- such as Esposito and his Saudi-funded operation, or Bechtold at the Foreign Policy Training Institute. That farcical reading list provided to General Vines, some months ago, on the recommendations of Esposito and Bechthold -- Vines himself could be excused for not realizing what that list had been designed to conceal, and what to present -- must not be repeated.
But in the present atmosphere of such incomprehension, there is no reason to credit the NIE report on Iran. It is true that one could know very little about Islam and find out the truth about Iranian plans. But if you are not versed in the duplicity that comes naturally in the world of Islam (Fouad Ajami keeps warning about that, even though he fails to connect that duplicitous world which Americans remain babes in the woods with Islam, taqiyya and kitman, Muhammad's "war is deception" and his many examples of his acting on that motto), then you are much less likely to possess the right frame of mind for analysis of data, or even for assigning such dangerous adverbial phrases as "with a high degree of confidence" and "with a moderate degree of confidence." I would put a "high degree of confidence" only in those analysts of Iran's project who have a thorough understanding pf Islam, a learning that cannot come from relying on the small army of apologists abroad in the land, and not only of Islam, but of the particular chiliastic version, Hidden Imams and all, to which the finger-waving (that finger-waving means, in Iran, something very menacing indeed) Ahmadinejad devoutly subscribes.
Given the nature of Islam, one would expect the opposite to be true. Just like Saddam and his WMD.
Perhaps someone will explain the difference between plutonium and enriched uranium, and how that affects the story.
It is said that you need three components to explode a bomb -- material, a delivery system, and a means of making the explosion happen. Iran is succeeding in getting its hands on the first two, and is crafty if waiting for a Democratic President before going forward with the third.
And the third is not required for a dirty bomb.
Before the United States invaded Iraq, practically everyone under the sun, including the leaders of the Democratic Party, believed that Saddam possessed large numbers of WMD. To date, the large caches have yet to be found. And although it is possible that more will be learned about Saddam’s WMD in the future, what we know to date should lead us to believe that what we thought we all knew may have been wrong, that the intelligence we were listening to was bad. This is not the same thing as saying that anyone lied, for I do not accept that mantra.
Until three days ago, most of the world believed that Iran was actively engaged in developing nuclear weapons. All that we had learned to date pointed to this conclusion and it was reasonable to believe.
Some have stated that the NIE report can be taken at face value because they think that such reports can no longer be manipulated by policy makers or intelligence analysts. They feel that the Iraq intelligence “failure” makes such rank manipulation impossible. I reject such a thesis first, because it is not substantiated. Second, there is no reason to assume that everyone got together and decided to never manipulate intelligence again for their own partisan purposes. Human nature has not suddenly changed and the press has not become a reliable watch-dog.
In July, the Deputy Director for Analysis, Thomas Fingar, the same person behind the current NIE report stated the exact opposite of his current NIE report in testimony under oath. He made it clear in July that Iran was still proceeding in its quest to develop nuclear weapons. What new has he learned since then? Obviously, Director Fingar reevaluated what he thought he knew.
While we must be willing to reevaluate what we think we know when new information is presented, this does not necessarily mean that the current NIE report is accurate. The question is, is this new intelligence more accurate and reliable than the previous? It is quite difficult to determine because sources and intelligence gathering techniques are rarely revealed in order to not compromise them. Unless someone goes blabbing to the New York Times, we may not know for a very long time.
Everything that I think I know about Iran and its religious leadership tells me that this report is inaccurate and dangerous. Like Hugh I believe that U.S. intelligence services are woefully ignorant of Islam and the Islamic world. This also causes me to doubt practically everything they produce in this area, including this NIE report.
The damage is done. Any hopes of tightening sanctions on Iran are now dashed.
This report was more harmful to non-proliferation efforts than any propaganda campaign the Iranians could ever have mounted. Salute...to our courageous men and women in the intelligence community.
Hugh:
You left something out of the third sentence of the next-to-the-last paragraph of your otherwise very good article. Please fix your sentence, then delete my post.
In an article today in the Washington Post, former UN ambassador John Bolton said, among other things, that "...many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence."
If true, that personnel situation explains a lot of things.
I used to work in (military) intelligence, and, for a while, helped make command (SAC) inputs to the annual NIE (that is, our part, a very small part, of the NIE). It was always frustrating to see a careful analysis homogenized by level after level of massaging by successive layers of "corporate review," often by senior officers without intelligence training or other working-level professional intelligence background. This review typically included the stripping off of carefully worded caveats about the bases, scope, and limitations of a conclusion and the replacing of hard information with meaningless vacuities until the final product was so vague and watered down as to be almost unrecognizable.
The damning thing about this NIE (a flaw we all understand here at JW/DW, but which is not understood, apparently, at the CIA), is that there is no mention in the unclassified analysis (as it is quoted in the press--I have not seen the actual document) about the open secret of Islamic ideology as a motivator for Iran's actions, and as a caveat on the reliability of information coming from defectors or other sources from Iran. That fundamental omission means to me that this NIE conclusion is less than worthless. There might be some useful material in the more detailed, classified portion of the document. But the unclassified part, as quoted, appears to be tainted by political manipulation by CIA people who are probably hostile, for one reason or another, to the international policies of the Bush administration.
I have my own hostility for the Bush administration. But that hostile attitude is based on the same critique--their willful, unwise, and frankly quite contemptible cluelessness about Islamic ideology--which is derived directly from the immutable Koran and the life example of that Perfect Model of Human Behavior for all Time, Mohammed. When dealing with an Islamic nation, or analyzing its motives, goals, and actions, that is where one must start, and end.
This is a partial re-post from another thread yesterday that is relevant here:
On Iraqi WMD, Bodansky - in "Secret History of the Iraq War" describes transportation of WMD to Syria immediately prior to and just after the American attack. This was confirmed in another book by the ex-chief of the Iraqi Air Force, who described the further transport of these materials to Sudan in Iraqi aircraft.
------
On Iranian nukes, former Congressman Curt Weldon's book (2005 Countdown to Terror) details his liaison with an Iranian dissident with a fake of name of Ali. Ali described Iranian nuclear efforts, and had very high-level contacts in Iran, and he presents results of top level government meetings. He used his own funds till they ran out, and then hoped to get CIA help.
According to Weldon, the CIA rejected Ali and chastised him for even talking to Weldon. The book presents a series of reports by Ali from April 2003 through September 2004. These reports included info on overall Iranian strategies as well as the nuclear bomb program. The June-August 2004 report- Chapter 15 of the book - is titled "Crash Effort to Develop Atomic Bomb, Ali pleads for CIA Assistance".
Ali had gotten no aid from the CIA. Significantly the date of his report June-August 2004, was well after the date (2003) that the NIE report claims the Iranians closed down the Nuclear bomb project.
Weldon describes CIA indifference even hostility to Ali, and even Porter Goss could not overcome CIA resistance to Ali. Ali's information indicated that the nuclear bomb program was in full swing in 2004. The last report in the book was dated September 23, 2004. Here is a quote:
"1. Khameni has congratulated the group working on the atomic bomb, telling them 2 bombs should be made the first of January of 2005, otherwise they couldn't be considered as true Muslims".
So was it stopped in 2003, according to NIE, yet still going on in September 2004, with planned bomb production in January 2005? Was it restarted in 2004? According to Ali, it was going on well after 2003 with plans out to January 2005. That is where the book stops.
Apparently, the NIE report (which included the CIA) never considered Ali or his high-level sources. The NIE report states that it knows about events after 2003. Why would they refuse to collaborate with a dissident with high-level contacts in Iran?
People who want to believe the NIE report should check out Bolton's "Surrender is not an Option", which documents the massive incompetence and America-hate that envelops foggy bottom. Bolton, Curt Weldon, and Scarborough all describe the CIA and Foggy Bottom as centers of incompetence. The Peter Principle: all bureaucrats rise to their level of incompetency.
If the Defense Department operated like State Department and CIA are, the troops would be using muskets and cavalry.
Here is an idea: privatize the State Dept and the CIA. It could not be any worse and the chances are 99:1 that it would be infinitely better.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 5, 2007 10:40 PM
John Bolton was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer the other day talking about this report. He said that it was a document of over 150 pages, 4 being released for the public. He also said it doesn't have a majority of the intel community signing off on it as accurate. He has huge doubts on it, and also stated that those who concluded their estimates were the same State Department Officials of years past, that have had the same views and have not changed signing off on this report "the intelligence community".
There are very serious problems with this report, very damaging and even more so due to Bush supporting it's conclusions instead of stating the doubt he had in it based on the same things Bolton was presenting for his source of doubt.
As a result, you have Iran coming out with the ability to say "see we told you all our program is peaceful" while they work dilligently on their nuclear weapons program. It gives Al Baradei a chance to say "see we were right too" and it gives the peacemongers a chance to make similarities between the bungling in Iraq, therefore preventing action from taking place that may be necessary to stop another Islamic Nuclear weapons program.
If the US intel is always so wrong, like the leftists like to comment on, how can they have any faith in this latest report of Iranian Mullahs good intentions?
Everything about this intel report was bad news, and now makes sanctions with any teeth impossible, and Bush already stuck his foot in his mouth by claiming he supported the estimate. So if US policy is based off of these types of intel conclusions, US will be powerless to stop Iran from obtain their bomb.
The whole thing is a bad joke.
"Do you have confidence that those in our intelligence services comprehend the meaning, and menace, of Islam, as fifty years ago Western intelligence services understood the meaning, and menace, of the Soviet state, and Soviet Communism?"
I do not have such confidence.
First of all, the services are not doing anything to exclude Muslims and Muslim sympathizers from their ranks.
Second, the top people in government do not understand Islam and its threat, thinking the only threat is from misunderstanders of Islam.
Third, it is extremely difficult to develop reliable intelligence contacts inside a tightly-controlled totalitarian system such as Iran, but that problem is compounded when your potential contacts within the Muslim world know full well that the intelligence people with whom they would be trusting their lives by sharing information are either infiltrated with Muslims, sympathetic to them, or hopelessly naive, and have a history of leaking like a sieve.
In the intelligence struggle with the Soviets, it was always hoped that we could buy someone off, since the communist system was not staffed by people who believed in anything other than some abstract concepts and dogma unsupported by religious beliefs. For whatever reason, the offer of money for reliable intelligence does not seem to work well in the Muslim world, as evidenced by the fact that huge well-advertised rewards have failed to lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. The people within the circles of power in Islamic regimes are thoroughly brain-washed and intimidated.
Suppose there was a potential source who, although sympathetic to the West, had been able to consistently maintain the outward appearance of being a devout Muslim so that he could achieve and keep a sensitive high-security position on the inside of his Islamic circle, and who was willing to trust us and had a way to communicate with us. Would our intelligence services find a way to contact such an individual and gain his trust, and even if they did, would they know whether he was a bona fide source or was just playing us? Probably not. Implementation of various recommendations following the Church Committee investigation leaves our intelligence community without many arrows in their quiver.
We need to understand that there are things that our intelligence services simply do not know, and that there are some decisions that need to be made without perfect intelligence.
When Iran went to great lengths to build underground facilities to hide their nuclear effort, refused to allow inspections, and began making bellicose statements regarding, for example, the end of Israel, they invited the attention of a pre-emptive strike.
There is a remarkable lack of scientific knowledge in this NIE. The first atomic bomb - the Hiroshima bomb - consisted simply of fissile uranium with a very simple trigger mechanism. As long as Iran keeps those centrifuges refining Iran's uranium, then the potential for this type of bomb is there. Hence, the thousands of centrifuges, in and of themselves, constitute a weapons program.
chsw
Foggy Bottom is infested with careerists, Clinton holdovers, conspiracists, time servers, liberal ideologues, and general nutjobs.
Will one believe these guys or your lyin eyes ?
They want one to believe that Iran has done a Quadaffi, and the smelly apeman Nutjob is just a harmless ventriloquist.
Go ahead, tell us that islam is peace.
Well it won't stop me building my nuclear fall out shelter in my basement.
It confirms that there was a programme and it confirms that it stopped in 2003. It makes it clear that they have no information on whether it was re-started. John Bolton said that this was little different to the previous report.
I wonder if Iran will relax a little, after all a little surprise is better than none at all, three carrier groups in situ, a huge increase in the purchase of aviation fuel by the US in the area. A larger force in Iraq then normal due to the surge.
Politically if Bush and Co then came out with real proof following a bombing then this would be a non-issue, I suppose I live in hope, the Art of War makes it quite clear to hide your intentions.
Seeing the reaction of the Europeans is also interesting...
"On Iraqi WMD, Bodansky - in "Secret History of the Iraq War" describes transportation of WMD to Syria immediately prior to and just after the American attack. This was confirmed in another book by the ex-chief of the Iraqi Air Force, who described the further transport of these materials to Sudan in Iraqi aircraft." (From post by Jimmy Bones)
In April of 1940, Norway, faced with a surprise Nazi invasion abetted by a Quisling 5th column, and with only a few hours of advance notice, bank employees threw together a plan that succeeded in removing the Norwegian gold reserves (many tons of gold) from the national bank in Norway through an ad hoc and unplanned effort staffed by last-minute volunteers. The Norwegian resistance was involved in a month-long cat-and-mouse game of moving tons of gold north to a port, and eventually smuggled those reserves to Great Britain. This effort succeeded even though the Nazis had, as one of the primary early goals, the securing of these reserves, arrived at the national bank within hours of their invasion, found the vaults empty, and then devoted considerable resources to the continuing search.
When we invaded Iraq, it had considerable prior warning, much more than the Norwegians. Any Iraqi watching CNN in the months and weeks prior to the invasion knew it was coming, and roughly when. Furthermore, the Iraqis had the opportunity to gain considerable experience in hiding things and moving things, as they had been dealing with (and frustrating) UN inspectors for years prior to the invasion. So, is it at least possible that Iraq had the time and ability to move or hide WMD or elements of a WMD program?
Before we try to answer that question, we need to ask another. How large is a weapon of mass destruction? If it is a WMD, it must be massive, right? Bigger than an elephant? And Iraq is really small. I saw a map of it once, and I could cover the whole country with a coffee cup. So there you go. If David Kay went over there and couldn't find anything, it must have never been there, right? I mean, if we cannot believe an official in the Bush administration, who can we believe. So, it is now gospel that there were never WMD in Iraq, and the invasion was pointless.
So, once again, how hard is it to hide WMD? Let's see, anthrax spores. Weaponized spores are maybe a micron or two in diameter. How many spores of that size can you fit into cubic meter? That's right, a million times a million times a million (a million trillion). That's a lot of anthrax, capable of being easily smuggled in the trunk of one car. Remember, a tiny amount of anthrax inside one letter labeled as anthrax shut down the Senate office building for months and required two or three fumigations before it could be reoccupied. Tiny amounts leaking out of other letters killed several people. Whether the post-911 anthrax attack was or was not connected with Islamic terrorism is beside the point: it showed a vulnerability. We could not allow an enemy such as Saddam (or others of similar ilk) to acquire such an ability, and we know Saddam was trying to do so prior to the first gulf war.
Also, the Iraqi resistance certainly had no problem removing huge stores of explosives and other weaponry out of captured but unguarded munitions dumps and hiding them for later use during the insurgency.
So, why is it so hard to believe that WMD or its components could not have been either hidden in Iraq, or smuggled out? We may be unable to prove they were there, but neither has David Kay "proved" that Iraq never had WMD.
The “mistake” of invading Iraq may not have been a complete mistake. It certainly ended a hostile regime. It may also have shut down a nascent WMD program, or prevented the later restarting of such programs. Although planned poorly by Washington, the invasion was executed brilliantly by an understaffed military. And, it was better to do something than nothing.
Whether the Bush administration’s current and continuing mission and strategy (trying to “win the hearts and minds” of people indoctrinated to hate us as a religious duty, and rearming them in the hope they will support our ideals) is wise and will work is another story. I hope our current Iraq stategy works, but I wish our leaders had a better understanding of the problems we face, and a better strategic vision.
It's no secret they themselves admit that "confidence" on this report is "low to moderate".
"Wards" like these are noted for a reason, as they represent intel lexicon...
"confidence" in intelspeak=confirmability,
"low" "moderate" "high" afterwards speak for themselves.
If intel says "confidence is high" you can take it to the bank it's pretty much irrefutable...
this report however, has confidence at low to moderate level.
I would use it as toilet paper to wipe with.
NIE-
No Intelligence Evident.
The lemonaide of the report is the fact that the people in the media trying to spin this are getting thier asses handed to them. I was listening to MPR this morning and the reporter was trying the usual spin move in an attempt to make GWB look bad, but she, and hopefully millions of others learned that the hardest part of weaponizing nuclear weapons isn't the actual shapping and fitting of the weapon to a delivery system. It is the delivery system, and centrifuge technology that is the hard part. The report also stated that it is known that the Iranians sought and aquired plans for shapping, and fitting nuclear devices to delivery systems. What one learns from the report if one is paying attention to all the details is that the Iranians are developing multistage missile systems capable of delivering nuclear warheads ... and that they have one that can possibly reach the U.S. They have centrifuge technology, which if left unchecked will give them enough material to build a bomb in under five years. This leaves them with the merely acedemic problem of molding and fitting the warhead to thier delivery system. No new news here.
"Without revealing its sources, those who compiled the NIE have to be taken on faith. Should we?"
We shouldn't but many will anyway. Our educational system, including our universities, is designed to encourage taking things on faith in the authorities, and discourage all but the most narrow, trite, assigned critical thinking--critical thinking in a limited area, and only when the authorities ask you for it.
Public acceptance of the sketchy NIE report is the political cost of moulding the nation, in K-12 especially, not to uphold freedom, but to be more obedient corporate workers. Fascism--and that is what the ideology behind our educational system is and has been since the 1920s or so, a belief that government runs education for the sake of the economy ie. business interests--doesn't work.
It took a while for it to really sink into the culture, but not that it has, we're going to pay a great deal. The ideological power distribution is all wrong. Let alone that the main economic thrust this trend, in contrast with earlier American intellectual trends, is mere top-level stability, not innovation.
Solution: home schooling, vouchers, private schooling structured on alternative models.
"But in those days there was a better class of agent, one well-versed in Communism and in the history of the Soviet Union."
In those days, first, the culture of the population from which agents were selected was radically different. Minds were not bound so much by self-destructive ideologies.
Second, Communism was not a religion in the sense of having a God. Most Americans--there was a study to this effect--still, today, after 9/11, find atheists more threatening than Muslims. Americans are wary of saying any belief system involving gods at all, and especially a single God, can have much anything bad about it.
Why is this? I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with shoring up their own faith in God. It can't be simply pluralism, because then the anti-atheist stats wouldn't be so high.
Solution: rejection of political corectness, embrace of critical thinking about religion. (Many religions can stand up to such critical thinking. 'Many' is not to say 'all'.)
"Do you have the impression that the American and other Western governments have been listening to, de-briefing, the equivalent today -- that is, such defectors from the Army of Islam as Wafa Sultan?"
No. And the reason is important: we are not supposed to think critically about religion. (Which is quite a different thing from being encouraged to carelessly bash Christianity specifically, which is strongly encouraged in many circles.)
This is especially so of the religions of others, and yet more so of the religions of others from other parts of the world.
"And that policy of the Bush Administration is based on willful ignorance of Islam and Jihad and Islamic supremacism, and fear of learning about, recognizing, and figuring out how best to deal with the meaning, and full menace, of Islam and Jihad and Islamic supremacism."
Why do they will this ignorance? That's important for figuring out how likely they are to change their ways and under what conditions. My best guess is that the truth conflicts with democratism, a common idol of the day:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071127/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334488
I can't say what causes people to drop these sorts of idols. Far-leftist academic sorts STILL haven't really dropped Communism, despite the fall of the USSR.
In my view, our best hope is to make things hurt for ideologues at the election. With a Clinton v. Giuliani race, that might necessitate third parties.
I have a question:
Why are people on the left all concerned that the US government is in Iraq to take oil wealth from Iraq, while the evidence suggests that if anything beyond ideological insanity, the US is in Iraq in part as justification to redistribute wealth from US taxpayers to corporations that provide military and building services.
I think it is because Americans, at least those on the left to whom such appeals are made, see it as far worse to sucker someone else over than to be robbed to the tune of trillions. So much so that the difference cancels out that the latter is the one with evidence behind it.
And how exactly did the right go from opposing forced self-sacrifice for the supposed benefit of others (you know, welfare and other such socialist wealth redistribution schemes), to supporting it on this scale?
I think it is that authoritarianism had come to trump all the power and tax concerns that used to exist on the right. And so, doing what our republican leaders want is right, even if what they want is to redistribute wealth to corporations and ingrateful Iraqis.
Solution: enlightened self-interest. Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him?
patagonianplato said
The rank manipulation that I said was impossible was for the Administration to repeat its performance leading up to the Iraq invasion, in which it pressured then DCI Tenant to "prove" that Iraq had WMD's, when the evidence did not exist. I am sure that some intelligence will be fudged in some future case for some political reason. In this particular case, I highly doubt that Congress or the American public will fall for the same trick twice. You seem to disagree. Fine.
But I'm trying to understand how and why this rank manipulation is happening in this case in your opinion. My interpretation is that manipulation is not occuring, and that the intelligence agencies were unable to find proof of current Iranian activity to build nuclear weapons, even though I'm sure they were pressured to do so.
What is your interpretation? That the evidence exists, and that the intelligence agencies are being forced to hide that evidence? If so, who is applying the political pressure? The Bush Administration? They have been claiming publicly that Iran is building nuclear weapons. If the evidence existed, it would be difficult to keep it away from the President, because even you would have to admit he would love to present that evidence to back up his claims. So who is covering it up? The Dhimminazicrats? But if they have the ability to coverup good evidence within the CIA/NSA, why didn't they coverup the bad evidence leading up to the Iraq war?
This reminds me of the JFK conspiracy theorists. It sounds reasonable to say that someone else was involved. But then you're forced to elaborate on the specifics of the conspiracy, and then we start getting into the Mafia working with the CIA and Secret Service and FBI and Dallas PD to assassinate JFK in retaliation for the failed assassination attempts on Castro, or some such nonsense. So who is perpetrating the conspiracy in this case?
I still believe that, if an intelligence agent doesn't find the evidence to back up our preconceived assumption, we should NOT release their identity to the press, and/or arrest them for being a "traitor", and/or cast doubt on their loyalty. And I am comfortable being the sole representative of that belief.
There's a good piece on this today on, of all places, the New York Times op-ed page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/opinion/06milhollin.html?ex=1197608400&en=91412ab064a958db&ei=5070
Excerpt:
"During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.
"Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?"
Hugh said
A comprehension of the core beliefs of Islam is not required to answer the question of whether or not Iran has acquired the equipment and materials required to build a nuclear weapon. It is not required to determine whether or not the workers who would need to work on such a system are actually working on it. That comprehension is not required to photograph the facilities where the work would be done. That comprehension is not required to record the phone conversations of the government representatives talking about it.
GWB has no comprehension of the core beliefs of Islam, but he was still able to posit the belief that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
One is not required for the other.
The flaws in the Iran report
Thu. 06 Dec 2007
Washington Post - By John R. Bolton:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13436
"A comprehension of the core beliefs of Islam is not required to answer the question of whether or not Iran has acquired the equipment and materials required to build a nuclear weapon. It is not required to determine whether or not the workers who would need to work on such a system are actually working on it." (Post by special-guest.)
But a comprehension of the core beliefs of Islam is required to understand the motivations of this adversary (Shia domination) and its tactics (lying and deception are okay) and to understand the full consequence of failing to stop the mullahs from getting their hands on such weapons (these people cannot be deterred from conducting crazy if not suicidal acts in pursuit of their religion, so the consequences of guessing wrong are really bad.) Understanding the core beliefs would help us understand why this adversary might be motivated to gain this power, and would not be easily convinced that it should quietly give up its nuclear ambitions.
Because we simply do not have good intelligence to prove or disprove whether Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program, and because it is difficult to gain such reliable intelligence (our satellite photos will not answer this question, special-guest), before we just give the benefit of the doubt to Iran, maybe we need to think this thing through using a full understanding of the mind-set of our adversary.
No way.
special-guest
“But I'm trying to understand how and why this rank manipulation is happening in this case in your opinion.”
“I still believe that, if an intelligence agent doesn't find the evidence to back up our preconceived assumption, we should NOT release their identity to the press, and/or arrest them for being a "traitor", and/or cast doubt on their loyalty. And I am comfortable being the sole representative of that belief.”
First, I stated that your belief that manipulation was impossible was unsubstantiated and that it was a possibility. This is not the same thing as stating that it actually happened in this case. As much as I might suspect, without hard evidence, and not knowing enough about the people behind this report, I just do not know for sure one way or the other. However I have come to the point where I trust no-one in Washington so I feel that it is wrong to dismiss this as a possibility. You may well be correct that it did not happen.
Second, I thought I had made it abundantly clear that even though I might be predisposed to not believe the NIE report, I was trying to keep an open mind about it because I do not know what made the Director change his mind. Again, in the absence of such knowledge there is no way for me to know.
Third, please drop the crude mellow-drama. Neither I nor anyone else (that I have read here) has suggested or implied that intelligence resources should ever be compromised regardless of whether or not they might substantiate what we already are predisposed to believe. I only pointed out that leaks to the press are usually the way that such information tends to come our way, (and not all of it necessarily accurate.)
For the record, I wish that no-one ever leaked classified information. I would rather remain without confirmation than to ever advocate such a thing. For the record, I wish that our intelligence agencies were not filled with people who refuse to honor their oath of secrecy. I would like to see them sent to prison for such treason. Instead they are lauded by the press as patriotic Americans.
The three principal authors of the NIE on Iran, Tom Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill are all hyper-partisan former State Department officials with an anti-Bush axe to grind. Whether or not their findings can be trusted will remain an open question.
Nevertheless, as National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley pointed out, Iran's continuing uranium enrichment and ballistic missile programs render the NIE moot. All indications point towards the mullhacracy's desire to develop nuclear weapons and US policy should continue to reflect that assumption.
As a veteran of several Soviet-related NIEs, I was astonished to hear that a single, questionable source had changed the fundamental analysis of Iranian nuclear intentions. Even if State and "National Intelligence" wanted to say such ridiculous things, CIA, NSA and DIA would have to agree and I wouldn't expect them to (particularly the last two).
However, Bolton's excellent article explains it pretty compellingly. The State Department is the most irresponsible and politicized part of the foreign policy/military/intelligence community, and transfers to the "National Intelligence" has made that worse by giving them two votes at the table -- nominally the senior vote as well.
"On Iranian nukes, former Congressman Curt Weldon's book (2005 Countdown to Terror) details his liaison with an Iranian dissident with a fake of name of Ali. Ali described Iranian nuclear efforts, and had very high-level contacts in Iran, and he presents results of top level government meetings. He used his own funds till they ran out, and then hoped to get CIA help."
Weldon is a psycho, and his supposed contact has been proven to be a fake.
Mackie
Thanks for directing me to Ambassador Bolton’s piece. I have always thought highly of him due to his tough straight-talking no-nonsense approach. He does not mince words. His article explains quite a bit!
There is no basis to believe Iran about anything except 2 things. It's desire to destroy US and Israel.
I smell dead Fish and Rotten Eggs and the Demoncrats seem to be in love with the smell.
patagonianplato said
No, what I read here was that the intelligence analysts should be tried for treason, a capital crime. What I read here was that the intelligence analysts were forced by someone to hide their data for political reasons. It was the White House that compromised a CIA resource as punishment for reporting that the Niger yellowcake document was not genuine. I may be crude, but I am neither mellow nor melodramatic. This has been the actual response to the analysts who are trying to do their job. It was not the analysts who manipulated the data in the case of Iraq. That was done at the top.
Again, you're casting aspersions on the analysts, when they were not the ones who refused to honor their oath of secrecy, it was the White House that broke that oath when they exposed a CIA agent for political gain.
special-guest
Niger Yellowcake? Thank-you.
You obviously believe a well-documented pathological liar who suffers from delusions of grandeur,
Ambassador Joe Wilson.
From the John Bolton column that Mackie linked to:
That goes both ways. Ardent supporters of the intelligence community are suddenly criticising it with no supporting evidence as soon as the evidence doesn't agree with their preconceptions.
A pity Mr. Bolton didn't have his sudden onset of skepticism of intelligence data five-and-a-half years ago, when it could have saved us a trillion dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives. But back then it was all so "slam dunk".
The intelligence community says they have no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program, so Bolton criticises them for not explaining the rationale that the irrational Ahmedinijiad used? Who wants to climb inside that head and explain the "logical thought" that is going on inside? No-one has suggested that Iran gave it up as some sort of diplomatic submission to the U.S., that is Bolton's red herring. Maybe they gave it up because they were unable to get the materials; maybe they gave it up because our intelligence agents were getting too close; maybe they gave it up because the mahdi came surrounded by a blue light in a dream and told Ahmedinijiad to give it up.
This is a real hoot. Disinformation and deception is a possibility in intelligence gathering? Shocker! Intelligence gathering is not held to the standards of scientific certainty? Stop the presses! This has disingenuous stamped all over it.
[sniff sniff] Is that petty internal political jealousy I smell? Here, he is criticising John McConnell, the DNI. Who is this traitor who is hiding the evidence of Iran's nuclear program? He's a former admiral in the Navy (29 years), who later headed up the NSA. This wacko-liberal was appointed by that other wacko-liberal GWB. Yeah, this is the seditious mastermind. Like I said, as soon as you have to start explaining the conspiracy, it all starts to fall apart.
patagonianplato said
No, thank you. Excellent ad hominem. Superb.
So, you're sticking with the Niger yellowcake document being genuine?
Above, I spelled it George "Tenant", it should be "Tenet". Mea culpa.
The other U.S. official who investigated the Niger yellowcake document was the deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr. He also reported back that it was a forgery. What nice things do you have to say about him? Another traitor to add to the conspiracy?
special-guest
Not ad-homonym, Fact! For what you may think it is worth, the United States Senate who investigated this said that he had prevaricated. No doubt it does not make you pause in the least that he was a Kerry campaign adviser.
You and I must both be careful lest we be accused of going off topic.
From RoobartSbunsar above
"On Iranian nukes, former Congressman Curt Weldon's book (2005 Countdown to Terror) details his liaison with an Iranian dissident with a fake of name of Ali. Ali described Iranian nuclear efforts, and had very high-level contacts in Iran, and he presents results of top level government meetings. He used his own funds till they ran out, and then hoped to get CIA help."
Weldon is a psycho, and his supposed contact has been proven to be a fake.
Roobart - do you have any source for that statement?
patagonianplato said
Touché. Or, if you prefer, two shay.
Thank you for the warning, but vilifying intelligence agents because they do not validate preconceived assumptions is the topic.
special_guest
It is unfortunate that you chose to ignore my specific points about Ambassador Wilson. I was looking forward to a substantial response.
I am moving on to an old James Burke documentary. I look forward to trading responses with you in the future. Goodnight!
patagonianplato said
He's a liar and has delusions of grandeur. I just don't see 1) how these are specific points and not merely personal insults, and 2) how his personality traits influence the accuracy of his report. I had delusions of grandeur (astronaut/nuclear physicist/neuroscientist) when I was a child, so shoot me too. If you think he's lying about that document, then point out where he's lying about that document. And point out where General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr. is also lying. And remember he's a Marine and can kick both our a$$e$ with his hands tied behind his back.
This pattern of totally smearing and slandering anyone who disagrees with you (I don't mean you personally) is not healthy for a democracy. We have to be able to disagree without calling each other traitors and liars.
The funny thing about this whole thread is that I believe that there is a good chance the Iranians are continuing their program. I just don't call the men and women who are dedicating their lives to make sure we're safe a bunch of traitors and liars and delusional political hacks because they came to a different conclusion than I did. They have access to much more information than I do, and I trust them to do their jobs. They obviously don't understand Islam, but I'm confident they do understand how to search for clues to a nuclear program. That's something they practiced all during the Cold War. They've got that part down.
Anyways, I hope you enjoyed James Burke, he rocks. Regards.
special_guest:
Iran is full of....well you know.
Bolton says so, and that is good enough for me, but few others unfortunately.
This event shows one thing, the world runs away from the idea it must come to terms with Nuclear power.
In all that is said here, no one is offering a way, or a procedure, to place the control of this technology under some form, or controls, to make a way forward clear.
When one questionable document from a group of people, perhaps with a agenda, can produce such a uproar, one hopes the world can see that continuing down the path of "Atoms for Peace" is about putting the blinders on, and not looking at the sides where the real issue is.
OK, I saw a question about the difference between enriched uranium and plutonium and also an opinion about getting bomb making technology. This raises another question:
Whatever happened to those "30,000 centrifuges"? This is the modern path to enriched uranium isotope U235.
U235 is the low technology but expensive path to an effective atom bomb. Little Boy (or Thin Man) was such a bomb that was prepared without actually testing one. Once they solved the gun dynamics, they went straight to production and dropped it on Hiroshima.
Plutonium is a higher technology path to the same thing. Getting the focused compression technology right took a lot of work and they had to test that one in the New Mexico desert. Making plutonium requires a reactor with graphite moderators. This is what Saddam tried (or thought he was doing) and the obvious vulnerability came in the form of an Israeli air strike.
Now, about that opinion. Does Iran have the "smarts" to make focused explosive weapons? Our experience in Iraq with a new breed of road side bombs says "Yes!" These bombs are punching holes in armor at a distance and that is an example of sophisticated focused high velocity explosives. That was the critical skill needed to make the Nagasaki "Fat Man" bomb work. It can also be used to make U235 bombs smaller.
Now, what about those 30,000 centrifuges?
We should not read to much into this, I doubt highly if the Iranians ever stopped work on their program, but apparently they have fooled some in our intelligence community into thinking that they did. If we have learned anything by now about our intelligence apparatus, it is that it is deeply flawed and cannot be relied upon. This does not bode well for us in the West, and I fear that we will learn of an Iranian nuclear weapon only after it has been detonated in an attack.
WMD in Iraq: "Slam Dunk!".
WMD in Iran: "Got None!".
The Criminal Imbecile Agency has a record of being consistently wrong on everything.
Further comments on the technical side, mostly just confirming the NYT piece, Bolton, and Jerome's post.
Most of the uninformed commentary on the NIE does not consider what a "nuclear weapons program" would consist of, and what the suspension of one would mean. Short answer: not much, in this case.
In Iran's case, it can be "confidently" (there's that word again) assumed that they possess workable designs for gun-type uranium weapons, if not for the more sophisticated implosion devices. The A.Q. Khan network marketed such plans along with much enabling technology, and Iran was one of many recipients -- although such designs are not hard to produce from scratch with a minimum of technical knowledge. The rub is that without a high degree of sophistication, or an ongoing testing program, producing a reliable warhead small and light enough to mount on a missile may be difficult, depending on just how good AQK's designs were. Gravity bomb, speedboat cargo, truck or container delivery -- not hard at all.
I would suggest that in Iran's case, the latter delivery means are laughably simple and seriously threatening against all Middle Eastern targets -- not to mention ports and porous borders worldwide. Given that the track of any ballistic missile provides a clear return address, these delivery systems may be much more attractive, and worry me much more.
The weapons designs, while they could benefit from further development that would reduce the weight and amount of fissile material required, and increase reliability and predictability of yield, are almost certainly mature enough for Iran's purposes, and were by 2003.
Which leaves only the material. I am not sure where the "30,000" centrifuges suggestion came from originally, but the 3,000 we know about may in fact be only a fraction of the total. Truth is that, once a nation knows how to build the devices and the facility that houses them, it's basically just a production issue to increase their numbers and rate of throughput.
The attractiveness of the uranium enrighment path to nuclear weapons is many-fold. The technology is appropriate and authorized by NPT and all international treaties, law, and customs for a nuclear power program, which as we see with Iran, provides cover for acquisition and startup of the system. The same enrichment technology that produces low-enriched reactor fuel will produce the highly enriched uranium usable in weapons -- you just have to keep the wheels-a-spinning for a while longer.
Briefly, on the plutonium path -- it certainly has advantages for a maturing nuclear weapons program, as it takes less plutonium to build a weapon, which makes smaller and more deliverable weapons possible. Note that North Korea pursued both plutonium and enriched uranium paths at various times and rates. If Iran survives the transition to being a declared nuclear weapons state, we could expect plutonium to become their material of choice, just as it did for us. Until that time, uranium enrichment -- which can be dispersed, and difficult to detect and destroy -- is much more of a threat.
The question of how long it will take Iran to produce sufficient material to assemble weapons is impossible to answer with any accuracy, as we don't know how many centrifuges they're running, or how sophisticated their designs are. Based on that, it could be anywhere from a few months to the NIE's few years. Hard tellin', not knowin'.
Consider also that they are not likely to declare, much less use, their first weapon, but will seek to develop at least a small arsenal before making any "use" of them, for PR, deterrence, or killing.
Apologies for being long winded, but what it wraps up to, is that while it is quite plausible that some sort of "nuclear weapons program" might well have been ostentatiously dropped by the Iranian regime in 2003, it matters not one whit. They have usable designs; they have simple delivery means in hand, and a robust ballistic missile program that has never slowed; and they're presumably cooking up HEU as fast as they can, which may be very fast indeed. You don't want to be "hopeful" and estimate on the wrong side of that range of possible outcomes.
This NIE contributes a lot of heat and very little light to what may be the most signficant issue of the century. There will be heat and light a-plenty before it's done.