I was actually hoping to have this done before the man himself weighed in, but I was having technical problems so hopefully my readers will forgive me. Some tidbits from the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) got leaked to the press this morning and I suspect that this is yet another effort from some people to say, "See, they aren't that close to nukes, we can still do a grand bargain!"
One can't help but notice that those portions of the Iran NIE that got leaked to the press only dealt with the nuclear program and didn't discuss, say, Muqtada al-Sadr, Saif al-Adel, or Saad bin Laden. Nor did it mention the fact that Brigadier General Suleimani's Qods Force (the elite of the IRGC) appears to be operating under the assumption that they're basically at war with the US and getting away with it. And in the interest of caveats, let me just say that my understanding is that the NIE is "ambiguous" (dare one say purposefully) as to the exact status of the al-Qaeda leadership based inside Iran. It'll be interesting to see, if during the course of the London investigations, it turns up that the 7/21 cell was under orders from the Gulf al-Qaeda leadership, who in turn are under orders from Saif al-Adel and the rest of the Iran-based al-Qaeda.
That said, here are some choice quotes from the Washington Post article in question:
The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."
No offense, but senior Iranian officials speaking openly of a nuclear exchange with Israel and pulling out of the NPT leaves me somewhat doubting their good intentions. And given that the people most likely to be dissuaded by the sweet words and economic goodies of the Euros (like the wonderful "pragmatist" Rafsanjani) are no longer the ones in the driver's seat, I am somewhat dubious that the regime is going to be willing to capitulate on an issue that these same intelligence experts keep telling us is a source of national pride.
One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.
The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions.
Has another review been conducted since 2002? Quite a bit has changed in the Middle East and inside the regime since, not the least of which being the fall of Saddam Hussein, the rise of Ayatollah Sistani as a major Shi'ite spiritual and political force, the neutralization of the reformist movement as a viable political force inside Iran by the hardliners, the January 2005 Iraqi elections, the Syrian withdrawl from Lebanon, the ascension of Ahmadinejad to the Iranian presidency, etc. that would seem worth being incorporated into an intelligence estimate.
Moreover, if Iran is as far from the bomb as the NIE evidently says, isn't that all the more reason to support democratic revolution in the country, before the mullahs get the bomb?
Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.
That we know of. While it's tempting to point out that the claims that Iran was within 5 years of bomb sound an awful lot like the claim that cold fusion has been just 20 years away for the last 40 years, Ledeen's counter-point that the US was able to make its own bomb from scratch in a lot less than 10 years is a pretty effective rebuttal. Anybody know how long it took the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Israelis, or the South Africans took to make their nukes?
Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said.
Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials said.
"If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon."
So the Iranian military is doing its own research on centrifuge R&D for a purportedly civilian nuclear program and making design modifications to include room for a nuke on their new toys but that doesn't mean there's a master plan? While that's true in the strict sense, it's highly suggestive that at least somebody is planning to be able to use these nukes at some point ...
At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less definitive conclusions.
The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons.
Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed.
Tolerance for ambiguity is one thing, but buying Iranian BS is quite another. Anybody want to explain why you need to do business with Abdul Qadeer Khan's nuclear black market for nuclear technology for their peaceful nuclear program?
The bottom line with this whole thing is that it doesn't matter, at least to advocates of democratic revolution in Iran, as to whether the country is 5 or 10 or 15 years away from the bomb. The problem, as I've written before, is not so much the idea of Iran having a nuclear program as it is the regime would be in control of it. There is a very good reason why we don't wake up in the morning living in fear of Japanese or Australian nukes, for instance, even though both nations could probably produce the bomb in relatively short order.
If the NIE estimate is true, then there is every reason to press forward with encouraging democratic revolution inside Iran so as to head off that inevitable point of no return that the Post tells us is still 10 years away. If it is false and darker estimates are accurate, then that should only lead us to quicken the pace of that option.
Faster, please.
Anyone wanna guess who the guys who put the report together voted for last time?
What sources said that? Fading? What part of "We are going to restart our enrichment process no matter what the E3 puts forth" suggests fading suspicions by the semi-alert are warranted?
If Iran were still ten years out, the mullahs would not be pushing as hard in every aspect as they currently are, predating even the installment of Ahmedinejad. But that coupled with the actions toward the E3 in recent weeks alone are indicators that they are preparing for a sprint. If they were still a decade out, would they not be patient for just a few more weeks and grab the E3 Economic Carrot and resume underground?
Why not take the trade gifts, and eventually obfuscate the rest of the agreement? Hell, we saw how UN inspectors (under any alphabet moniker) can be manhandled and lead by the nose for a decade by Saddam Hussein. He bought 12 years. Iran is no Iraq. They may well be able to buy nearly that much, even in todays environment of conflict averse wishful thinkers.
I for one hope that Iran continues its current course and gets even more stern, less cooperative and more brutal. Only then will the usual suspects begin to be marginalized. Those whose only defense is to sit on their hands and hope for the best will fully half then see the light, effectively sidelining the remainder into irrelevance.
Many in here may view that as a simplistic cowboy approach to a complex situation.
To those, I respectfully suggest that at some point you have to divorce yourself from the intoxicating complexities and recognize that the epicenter of international terrorism must be dealt with decisively.
Shall we do this before they have a nuclear weapon or after?
We all know the two roads that can be taken (or a path between). One must be chosen with alacrity and planned & executed with unwaivering, unquestioning dedication.
So, even if we assume the foolish position of a Ten Year Timeline, what shall we do, wait those ten years? Find out then (or earlier)?
It is sad commentary when one considers that if the geographic proximity to Iran were reversed for America and Europe, we surely would not be having such discussions today.
Let's even forget about the nuclear weapons aspect. Let's say that arguement is ceded.
If you think there are problems with al Qaeda, prepare to meet Hezbollah, the defacto Foreign Policy arm of the Iranian regime. Unlike al Qaeda, Hezbollah enjoys the full support (training, funding, arming and marching orders) of an oil producing state. They are more organized, more lethal and more highly skilled in many respects than al Qaeda. I believe Ahmedinejad just telegraphed Hezbollah's full active emergence onto the international terrorism stage.
Among other places, they are already well established (albeit quiet) in the United States. But, for ten years we won't have to worry about Iranian nuclear weapons.
Whew! That's a relief. Just those pesky truck bombs and the like. No big deal.
It's not just about the nuclear issue.
It's about the head of the snake. We will (and must) continue to take chunks from the body, scales here and there when we can, and even the rattler. But at the end of the day, there is going to be no getting around the head of the snake. It must be dealt with.
Apologies if that's not nuanced or enlightened enough for some.
It can't be wished or bargained or negotiated away.
That's just the way it is.
Maybe it's time for a note of levity:
Iranians are slow.
My friend has been working on a three-month project in Iran for 5 years. He is not alone. This is the way things are here.
The regime, even "the mullahs" you guys talk about, is made up of divisive elements. Despite appearances, here is very little unity in Iranian politics. There is even less among the mullahs.
Normal Iranians support the nuclear project. Here is Iran, the spin is that America does not want Iran to have nuclear power. That is the internal spin, and it is working. It's important to clarify the argument for Iranians. Tell them clearly that no one is objecting to nuclear power; they are objecting to a missile program.
BTW, Iranians still love Americans. The US would do well to examine how it can keep their love. I would think that there would be more discussion of that and less discussion of bombing Tehran.
This Iran NIE can't help but recall Western intelligence assessments of Iraq in the runup to the war. Is the point to state the most likely range of outcomes, or to anticipate the worst-case scenario, or to argue in the style of a defense lawyer about what charges haven't, yet, been demonstrated to criminal-court standards of proof? The worst of all worlds would seem lie in being unclear about such objectives, and that appears to be where we were with Iraq, and where the CIA is with Iran today.
Michael Scheuer noted in the introduction to "Imperial Hubris" (IIRC) that relying on open-source materials is a superior strategy to depending on Top-Secret briefings in developing a broad appreciation of a developing situation. Too much of the Classified information has been edited, sanitized, or parsed for a host of hidden reasons--some petty, some political, some bureaucratic, some compelling.
Whatever the quality and tone of its comments, LGF is tremendously powerful as an aggregator of news on Iran's nuclear weapons programs. I don't have the reserves of willpower that are required to continue believing that the mullahs' programs are dedicated to civilian uses. It's good, I suppose, that some people do.
The National Intelligence Estimate was drafted on the heals of what has been characterized as a huge national intelligence blunder leading up to OIF. It is little surprise that the NIE has been denuded of negative speculation and downplays the constellation of facts that when connected would clearly reveal Tehran’s maleficence. Let’s hope that the intention was to soft sell Iran’s emerging capability in order to not upset the pending E3 diplomatic process. In retrospect, the recent break down of the E3 process adds additional foreboding to the situation. As a rational person it seems unlikely to me that the matter will be allowed to fester much further without a reckoning by western states, namely the US, Israel, and parts of Europe.
And before Pakistan and India achieved nuclear capability what was the NIE community estimate?
As I recall it was unlikely in less than a decade...anybody have a better memory?
Moreover, if Iran is as far from the bomb as the NIE evidently says, isn't that all the more reason to support democratic revolution in the country, before the mullahs get the bomb?
The mullahs is what keeps Iran away from the bomb. The first thing that an Iran not ruled by the mullahs would do is build a bomb.
Hell, we saw how UN inspectors (under any alphabet moniker) can be manhandled and lead by the nose for a decade by Saddam Hussein. He bought 12 years.
12 years? 14 years atleast as they still haven't been found
And before Pakistan and India achieved nuclear capability what was the NIE community estimate?
India exploded a "purely scientific device" in 1974. Kahn stole the ultracentrifuge in the 70's. The surprise was that they showed that they had them but everybody knew that they and Israel have them.
Iran's Revolutionary guard, and Hezbollah, MUST be targeted by American special ops, and intelligence agencies.
Hezbollah is probably the foremost terror organization on the planet (along with the IRA, but the IRA is not a threat to America).
Hezbollah is controlled by Iran's revolutionary guard, and is using Hezbollah to train and equip Iraqi insurgents.
The shaped charges that killed our Marines this past week, are thought to have come from Iran.
This is a development that the media needs to get more on top of.
Hezbollah maybe tuff in the terrorist world, but they have never been a match for the US Miltary (any more then Al Qaida is).
As for the Marine Corps, well, we owe Hezbollah for the cowardly sucker punch attack they carried out on us back in 1983. And we will collect our debt in rivers of Hezbollah blood.
Hezbollah has a history of mainly attacking military targets so calling them the foremost terror organisation on this planet is simply incorrect. Besides Nepal, Sudan, Congo or Liberia you have real examples of organisations that rule mostly by terrorizing the populace.
You could call them Americas greatest (declared) enemy and probably be right but that simply doesn't make them the worst terrorists in the world.
The Iraqi goverment is controlled by Iran so sounds like they want to make sure that you not leave like in Vietnam but are really defeated in battle.
It is so manly to use battleships and their cannons. Especially if you were helping one side in a civil war and the other side decides to take up the challenge.