So, I took the trouble to watch Bush's press conference yesterday, and the reporter's were a total joke. Basically, the tone of the question can be boiled down to "Mr. President, why didn't you know then what you know now.?" The Washington press corps would like the the president to overcome the laws of physics and time. Meanwhile, I read the NIE on Iran -- http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf . . . and, of course, it's a wondrous example of "consensus" bureaucratic lingo. Now comes our friends in Israel, and guess what? They have different take on the subject. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/FOREIGN/112050069/1001 Here are the facts, however, which are indisputable. --The guys that run Iran are not good guys. --They have been a state supporter of terror --Even though they are awash in oil, they have built nuclear power plants. --The are spending huge sums of money to enrich uranium -- successfully or unsuccessfully, we're not sure -- even though they could buy all they need on the open market for less cost than they are spending trying to do it themselves (thought that U wouldn't be weapons-level enriched) --They clearly have HAD a nuclear weapons program, which they may or may not have stopped, but which they have hidden and lied about These are not intelligence conjectures, hedged by graditions of qualifying "confidence" levels -- these are the facts, ma'am. Frankly, this NIE strikes me as very very dangerous. It could very well lull us into a state of complacency. I am a huge fan of war historian John Keegan, and his book, "Intelligence is War" though interestingly flawed in a number of ways, has this to say at the end of the book...Read it, those on the anti-war left, and think hard on it.
My biggest question is why did the program stop? Did they stop because Iraq stopped being a threat or because of the US pressure? Answering that question will go a long way in my analysis of this report. Until then, Iran still remains little threat to the United States.
There could also have been any number of internal pressures (e.g., budgetary issues) to stop or even simple limits on their capability. Karl, on a different note, I picked up that Bulmer book at lunch. Thanks for the recommendation.
The other reason they could have stopped is they ran into problems they couldn't solve -- then. ANY country -- not just Iran -- is not much of a direct threat to the USA. Not even China, at this point. But think about this hypothetical. One day, in downtown Tel Aviv, a 5 kiloton weapon goes off. 10-15,000 people are incinerated instantly, another 10,000 are killed by secondary effects. An Islamo-fascist terrorist organization or one sort or another claims responsibility. Iran, Pakistan, all disavow responsibility. The Israelis deliver a nuclear weapon into downtown Tehran. 100,000 people are incinerated instantly. The Islamic world declares war on Israel -- including Pakistan. Nuclear war has arrived. So, no, we're not directly threatened. But do we WANT this to happen? Or something like it? It's not, frankly, an outrageous possibility.
The same National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) laughed at in terms of Iraq being held up as the Bible in terms of Iran? Something remains unsaid here... a missing piece in a puzzle box. Perhaps this backroom agreement by Dr. Rice and Javad Zarif: "We'll circulate a public statement saying Iran is not now developing a weaponized nuclear device if the Iranian Qods Force invasion into Iraq stops and Iran stops arming the terrorists in Iraq? That way, we get to say Iran crisis is diffused and you get to say we are the bad guy here. Deal?" That's exactly what happened. Why else would Iran, floating on a sea of oil, be at all interested in nuclear power?
Matt has to moderate all of those irritating arguments between Israeli and Persian zealots, so my guess is that, yes, he wants it to happen. Having had to read some of those threads, I'm inclined to agree.
So can I read from this that you think that Bush got the intelligence right for once? Or is it that what Bush wants to hear has changed to be more in conformance with bojendyk?
If an Islamo-fascist terrorist organization (and we need to be more specific on who this is) bombs Tel Aviv and the Isrealies bomb Tehran, Israel is in the wrong. Now you may say that Israel has the right to defend itself and I agree. But they will be attacking the wrong target. I would not support a US based strike under those circumstances.
Well, hopefully they'd just go ahead and turn Mecca into a radioactive crater and be done with it. Until we and the Israeli's figure out which Arab/Muslim governments helped the operation, at which time we turn Mecca into a radioactive crater and be done with it...
You know, I am not one to believe in conjectures, but I have to say: this makes a lot of sense. Who knows if it's true, but it certainly is plausible. Here's another wrinkle. We strike this deal -- really just a deal about public statements -- while we have an additional deal with the Israelis that they will come out immediately and dispute it, as they did. Of course, the Irsraeli's have nothing to lose in the court of public opinion -- all the Muslim world hates them anyway. And now a THIRD wrinkle. The other thing this NIE does is defuse the demagogic anti-war cries of the Democratic left. Now they will no longer be able to say the Republicans are beating the drum of war with Iran. That has zero credibility. It's taken off the table as an election issue. And with Iraq becoming more stable and less violent that TOO is coming off the table as an election issue, except for the fringe left. Taken in the entirety of its effects, the whole shebang has a very interesting political dimension to it. Now the Republicans can paint the Democrats as big tax, big spend, big government socialist defeatists with little or no extraneous noise. Has Karl Rove REALLY left the White House, I wonder?
Who else thinks our intelligence agencies are totally useless. That said, anyone here ever see the Godfather? Sure you did. Remember the "peace conference"? Here is what Iran (and Pakistan for that matter) should be told:
John Bolton rips the NIE to shreds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../12/05/AR2007120502234.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Boy, the man may have a really ugly moustache, but he can turn the English phrase. My favorite parts:
Clausewitz on intelligence: If we consider the actual basis of this information [i.e., intelligence], how unreliable and transient it is, we soon realize that war is a flimsy structure that can easily collapse and bury us in its ruins. . . . Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain. This is true of all intelligence but even more so in the heat of battle, where such reports tend to contradict and cancel each other out. In short, most intelligence is false, and the effect of fear is to multiply lies and inaccuracies.[/I] I ran across the quote at Jim Miller on Politics, a blog I've read for years and highly recommend: http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/
His conclusion is that Bush still doesn't have control over the intelligence community. Bolton says Bush is a weak leader by pointing out his flaws.
Not even Hitler was able to achieve this. His chief of intelligence was actively plotting against him: http://www.canaris.dk/
According to news reports I've read, US intelligence is standing by the NIE -- they believe that the Iranians stopped trying to build a bomb in 2003 (Libya stopped in 2003 also, what happened that year?) and what is happening is not bomb making but other nuclear activities (it is one thing to enrich uranium, another to build a bomb and put it on a missile). The Israels think the Iranians stopped then restarted. The Germans think the Iranians never stopped. The French apparently think the Iranians are about to take over the planet and install IM as supreme overlord or something. So there some mild disagreement
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that this so . By the way, thanks for resurrecting this thread. The more things change... I guess this all boil down to what the meaning of "is" is. It's like the guy who is about to go out on date with a babe who has been a bit coy with him and he says to his friend, "I'm not planning to get laid tonight" ....though he makes sure he brings a pack of condoms. So, President Acqua-Velva-Dad is not PLANNING to f--k us, but he won't be unhappy if he does.