Doesn't Iran Matter?

[GaryC 7]

Doesn't Iran Matter?

Yesterday the director of national intelligence released a summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate's findings on Iran, which directly contradict the previous NIE's findings of 2005. The summary helpfully provides, on the final page of the PDF linked atop this article, a table of the differences between the 2005 findings and the 2007 ones.

In 2005, the authors of the report "assess[ed] with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable."

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The summary offers the disclaimer (page 5) that "a 'high confidence' judgment is not a fact or a certainty, . . . and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong." Which seems obvious, given that it is difficult to see any way in which what the NIE says with "high confidence" now is consistent with what it said with "high confidence" two years ago. And of course it's possible for the intelligence community to err in both directions: It famously overestimated Saddam Hussein's weapons capacity early this decade after underestimating it in the 1990s.

Now, consider the response to this document, as reported in today's Washington Post:

Critics seized on the new National Intelligence Estimate to lambaste what Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called "George Bush and ####### Cheney's rush to war with Iran." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), echoing other Democrats, called for "a diplomatic surge" to resolve the dispute with Tehran. Jon Wolfsthal, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, termed the revelation "a blockbuster development" that "requires a wholesale reevaluation of U.S. policy." . . .

Presidential candidates responded as well, with Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) using the news to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for being too willing to support the administration on Iran, an assertion she has rejected. Obama said the report is a reminder that "members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force"--an apparent jab at Clinton, who was briefed on intelligence before the Iraq war but did not read the full report.

The New York Times covers the story similarly, casting the NIE's findings as a setback for the Bush administration's putatively aggressive approach to Iran. And of course the left-wing commentators and bloggers are crowing.

Something is askew here. One Democratic congressman hints at it in the Washington Post story:

Some moderates in Washington expressed concern that this intelligence report's conclusions will be overinterpreted in one direction, just as past findings have been distorted. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), chairman of a nonproliferation subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said Iran's uranium enrichment remains worrisome and is not dependent on U.S. intelligence because Tehran has openly acknowledged it.

The real lesson of the report, he said, is to recalibrate U.S. policy and try more diplomatic and economic levers. "It's a validation of the middle road," he said, "between going to sleep . . . and the let's-bomb-them-now approach."

To some extent Sherman is setting up a straw man. One would think the "let's-bomb-them-now approach" would entail actually bombing them, which of course the U.S. has not done. And to the extent that the NIE undercuts the credibility of the threat of military force, it reduces American leverage over Iran (and over our own allies) and thereby diminishes rather than enhances the prospects for diplomatic success. If indeed Iran stopped its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, is it a coincidence that this was the same year America made good on its threat of military force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Here's what troubles us about the report, though: If one can have high confidence in the NIE findings, then those findings are good news for America. They mean that a regime that has repeatedly shown its hostility toward our country is less of a threat than we had reason to fear. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it could create a humanitarian catastrophe. Or it could use the threat to do so to do all sorts of mischief that would be destructive to U.S. interests in the region.

But we haven't seen anyone celebrating the NIE as good news for America. The people who profess to believe it all seem to view it as a partisan document, a weapon to be used in their battle against the Bush administration. To the administration's domestic foes, it doesn't seem to matter how much of a threat Iran poses; short-term political gain is more important than the interests of America.

The administration is vulnerable to the same criticism. By releasing the NIE now, it seems to be signaling that it has decided to throw in the towel on dealing with the Iranian threat, leaving it for the next administration.

This column does not have high confidence that the NIE is right. But we certainly hope it is, because if it isn't, its consequences could prove very dangerous.

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010944

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The neo-cons won't stop beating the war drums no matter how wrong they are. Fortunately, they don't run things anymore and the people see them for what they really are: bloodthirsty and greedy war mongers.

[GaryC 7]

The neo-cons won't stop beating the war drums no matter how wrong they are. Fortunately, they don't run things anymore and the people see them for what they really are: bloodthirsty and greedy war mongers.

You didn't even read the story did you? Just jumped into attack mode. Typical.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

[GaryC 7]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

i have high confidence that you're not familar with intelspeak, are you?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

Clearly. Which one? You may want to believe one over the other, but wanting to believe one outcome over the other is precisely what got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. The real problem is the low quality of our intelligence and this weaselly garbage they produce to get out of taking accountability of any kind.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The neo-cons won't stop beating the war drums no matter how wrong they are. Fortunately, they don't run things anymore and the people see them for what they really are: bloodthirsty and greedy war mongers.

You didn't even read the story did you? Just jumped into attack mode. Typical.

I did. And this is part of beating the war drum by casting a shadow of doubt over the relatively positive assertion the NIE offers in regards to the Iranian situation. It just ain't as dire as the administration or the authors of the column would like to portray is. And I am glad the intelligence services learned from the 2002 / 2003 debacle...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

i have high confidence that you're not familar with intelspeak, are you?

Of course I'm not. This report was put out in public, it's become part of the public debate. Maybe it should have come with Cliffs Notes for those of us who aren't part of the secretive little fraternity of intelligence?

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

read it again.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

read it again.

Clearly, none of us are qualified to, so why don't you help us out? Without the sarcasm, if you will. I would genuinely like to understand this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970. These five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). This is why the recently proposed US-India nuclear energy deal has come under (legal) controversy as it threatens to undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation regime exploiting the loophole granted by the nature of dual-use technology, as has the Russia-Iran uranium deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...feration_Treaty

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

read it again.

I ain't no expert but it seems to me that a determination to do something doesn't necessitate my actively being at it at the time.

[GaryC 7]

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

My tax dollars paid for THAT?

Let's just say, I can say now with a very high degree of confidence that I think the agency that wrote that is garbage. Also, I'd like to add with an insanely low degree of confidence that they will one day produce valuable, actionable intelligence.

I think that it is strange that in 2005 they had a "High confidence" that Iran was working on a bomb but in 2007 they had a "High confidence" that they stopped trying in 2003. So which is it? One of their "High confidence" opinions is wrong.

read it again.

I am not sure I understand what you mean Charles. It looks pretty clear to me that they thought in 2005 that Iran was making a bomb but in 2007 they thought they stopped in 2003. Both assessments can't be right.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

read it again.

Clearly, none of us are qualified to, so why don't you help us out? Without the sarcasm, if you will. I would genuinely like to understand this.

there's no sarcasm there.