The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 1, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran is really just a peaceloving country not pursuing nuclear weapons - damn you neocons!
ProDemocracy    12/4/2007 10:21:06 AM
link

economist.com

Iran's nukes

Less scary than we thought?

Dec 4th 2007 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com


America's spies change their minds about Iran's weapons programme

Shutterstock






Get article background

IT REPRESENTS a remarkable change of opinion. Just two years ago the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies was tough and unambiguous: Iran was ?determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.? The fact that Iran then, in 2006, overtly restarted nuclear enrichment?the process to make nuclear fuel which can also be used to make fissile material for bombs?in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions only increased the sense of alarm. Speculation has since grown that America might take matters into its own hands and bomb Iran. George Bush said in a recent speech that an Iranian bomb could contribute to ?world war three?. Dick Cheney, the hawkish vice-president, gave warning of ?serious consequences? if Iran did not suspend uranium enrichment.

Yet on Monday December 3rd the intelligence agencies revamped their view of Iran's nuclear-weapons programme. In a new official estimate released that day, the National Intelligence Council states frankly that ?We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its weapons programme.? A few sentences later it states with ?moderate confidence? that ?Tehran had not restarted its nuclear-weapons programme as of mid-2007.? The weapons programme is defined as relating to weapons design, weaponisation work and covert uranium work. It also concludes that Iran is susceptible to outside diplomatic pressure and scrutiny, which together were responsible for the halt in the weapons programme in 2003. The Democrats have promptly called for a ?surge of diplomacy? towards Iran.

No explanation has been given for the agencies? about turn. But there is speculation aplenty. One analyst notes that the defection to the West of an Iranian general in 2007 may have produced better intelligence from inside Iran. The spies may also have concluded that earlier assessments were overly alarming, perhaps as a result of pressure from Mr Cheney, who may have sought an intelligence document to bolster any case for bombing Iran. Mr Bush?s administration has been accused of stretching official intelligence on Iraq?s arms capability in making the case for invasion of that country in 2003. The spies, by publishing this report, have made it harder for military action in Iran.

The timing of the report?s release is intriguing. It coincides with suggestions that China may be willing to support a third, tougher, round of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic, after a long period of stonewalling. (This would mean new financial sanctions and more stringent travel bans for Iranian leaders, although China remains loth to imperil its business interests in Iran.) America has also said that the number of explosively formed projectiles used against its troops in Iraq has declined markedly in recent months. America has stated that such sophisticated weapons are probably provided by Iran (a charge that Iran denies). Such a drop might indicate that Iran, despite its president?s bluster, is keen to avoid military confrontation, as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) now suggests.

None of this, however, suggests that Iran?s nuclear programme is no longer a threat. America's national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, argues that the new NIE only shows that ?the international community has to turn up the pressure [on Iran]?. The NIE itself says that Iran ?at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.? Even if Iran is not currently working on warheads or missiles to make a nuclear weapon (as it has been saying for years), it is publicly enriching uranium. Getting the right kind of fissile material is the hardest part of making a bomb.

Iran says it has 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium; according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, if they have mastered the technical challenges of making the centrifuges work together properly, this could produce material for a bomb in about a year. The NIE seems to discount this, saying that Iran may have enough fissile material by late 2009, but probably not until sometime between 2010 and 2015 because of technical problems. America's spies may think that Iran's enrichers are having trouble doing their job, but they still expect the Iranians to get there eventually.

Iran has welcomed the new NIE, repeating claims that its nuclear programme is not intended for weapons use. Israel, Britain and France have all called for continued pressure to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. The NIE strongly suggests that there may be a political way out of confrontation with Iran, saying that the country's nuclear programme is guided by ?a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.? Thus it may be amenable to a combination of threats, diplomatic pressure and ?opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence.? The NIE admits that it is difficult to know what sort of grand bargain might work, but that is a matter for diplomats not intelligence agents to ponder.

-----My thoughts on this: North Korea also "stopped" their nuclear activities in the 90's but somehow pulled a nuclear bomb out of their asses magically in 2003...this is a major setback for unity against this rogue country.

And as for Clinton supporting calling the Revolutionary Guards "terrorists", that is correct - they are supporting terrorists inside Iraq who attack civilians...with or without a nuclear program, the stance that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization is accurate and right.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
eldnah       12/4/2007 10:44:28 AM
In June of 1942 the US Army initiated the Manhattan Project and in thirty eight months exploded a bomb over Hiroshima. That was sixty five years ago when they were not even positive a bomb could be built. Given today's technology and the advances in our knowledge of nuclear physics since then it would seem reasonable that any second world country like Iran could develop a weapon in two years. I'd suspect Germany or Japan with an all out commitment could do it in six months. Since when did everybody begin again taking the NIEs as gospel? I guess if it supports your political agenda.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Does This Pass the Smell Test?    12/4/2007 11:25:07 AM
From Michael Ledeen, national review:
 
 
I?m Not a Believer
If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply.

By Michael Ledeen

Those lively minds over at the (always capitalized) Intelligence Community have given us yet another of their entertaining Estimates, this time about the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. You know, the one the Iranians stoutly deny exists, the one they refuse to let inspectors examine, and the one they sometimes acknowledge when on or another of their leaders has a slip of the tongue. They now favor us with slightly more than two pages of ?Key Judgments? on this important subject.

Two years ago, the IC ? the same IC that claimed to have detailed information about Saddam?s weapons of mass destruction, that famously missed the boat on al-Qaeda, and that has had at least two spy networks inside Iran rolled up in the past couple of decades ? told us it was all but certain that Iran was ?determined to develop nuclear weapons.?

Yesterday it reversed field. It said that in fact, two years before the 2005 report, the Iranians had ?halted its (covert) nuclear weapons program,? and that the ?halt lasted at least several years? and (although the IC is less certain about this) is still in force. There is some disagreement within the IC on this point, however. The Energy Department and the National Intelligence Council apparently agree that something was stopped, but have at least some doubt as to whether the ?halt? encompasses Iran?s ?entire nuclear weapons program.?

In short, some IC analysts think there is no covert nuclear-arms program at all, while others aren?t so sure. In a moment of candor at a briefing Monday, these gentlemen stressed that Iran has a ?latent goal? to develop a nuclear weapon, that ?gaps remain? in our information, and that Iran is ?probably the hardest intelligence target there is.? And they warn us, in one of their Key Judgments, that the odds are that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Parse this: ?only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons ? and such a decision is inherently reversible.? This seems to imply that the ?halt? was a tactical move, not a strategic decision.

You certainly can?t criticize them for failing to cover their derrieres.

Nonetheless, despite the ?gaps in intelligence,? and despite the Islamic Republic?s well-earned reputation for being one of the most deceptive on earth, the IC goes right ahead and predicts that Iran is quite a long way away from being able to field nukes. The earliest possible ? albeit ?highly unlikely? ? date at which Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but it?s more reasonable to look to the 2010-2015 timeframe. Interestingly enough, this pretty much corresponds to their 2005 forecast, when they said that if Iran?s technical progress increased, they might have enough weapons-grade uranium ?by the end of this decade.? And the IC stresses that Iran has ?the scientific, technical and industrial capacity...to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

All this deals with the Iranians? ability to enrich uranium on their own. Of course, they could have obtained some from abroad, and the IC admits that they cannot rule out the possibility that Iran has obtained an actual weapon ?or enough fissile material for a weapon.?

More derriere protection. And there is still more. After all, the Iranians excel at deception, and we?ve been fooled about the nuclear programs of countries from the Soviet Union to India and Pakistan. Maybe we?ve been fooled again. The IC doesn?t think so, although, in its usual ?on the one hand yes, on the other hand maybe? routine, the officials responded to the question in yesterday?s press briefing by reassuring the press that ?We gamed more than half a dozen such scenarios,? ...But the analysts reached the conclusion such a scenario was ?plausible but not likely.?

Tom Joscelyn has wisely warned us to be skeptical about anything that comes from the IC, and he rightly asks about the sources for the new conclusion. There is no point guessing about this, and without such knowledge it?s very difficult to assess the quality of the analysis. But whatever the spooks think they know has to be evaluated in the light of common sense, the views of other countries, and the history of nuclear proliferation. WMD programs are easier to hide than one imagines. After the First Gulf War we were astonished to discover how far Saddam?s Iraq had advanced, for example. To claim we ?know? that Iran no longer has a covert nuclear-weapons program is quite a statement. (Remember how we used to say that you can?t prove a negative? The IC seems to know better.)

Moreover, there?s the old smell test. We went from zero to bomb in four years leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at a time when nobody even knew if the thing was doable. On the IC?s account, the Iranians have been at this since ?at least the late 1980?s.? (I actually think it didn?t get into gear until 1991, but let?s not quibble.) During that time, almost everything was for sale (and Iran has lots of money), A.Q. Khan was running his bazaar, Soviet nuclear physicists were hired by Tehran, and the Iranians themselves are very smart. Is it likely, that Iran hasn?t been able to build nukes in two decades? No way.

If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply. These are the same guys who have been telling us for years that Sunnis and Shiites can?t work together, when they should have known that Iranian Revolutionary Guards (Shiites) were trained in the early 1970s by Yasser Arafat?s al Fatah (Sunnis).

Color me an unbeliever.

? Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
 

 
swhitebull -  others have said essentially the same thing.  I would look to the authors of the NIE, their backgrounds, and their political agendas before drawing any conclusions. And military historian Victor Davis Hanson says this at National Review: If Iran shut its program down in the fall of 2003 MIGHT, MIGHT, MIGHT it have anything to do with it noticing that the US militarily took out its neighbor (another enemy of the U.S.) earlier that year for, among other things, having a concealed WMD program?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Talk about Political Expediency!   12/4/2007 11:43:23 AM
If you are in the White House and In the Congressional Leadership and you don't want to face the problems in Iran head on what is a political spin-meister to do? Change the NIE and make the problem go away. The Iranians have had the opportunity to have the Russians import low grade reactor type material and run the unranium supply end of the operation since 2005. If Iran had accepted that deal they would be operating their reactors today. They instead have 3,000 centrifuges operating inside hardened, buried, processing facilities with interlocking SAM coverage. International inspections are not allowed to check enrichment levels to determine if they are making bomb grade.
 
There is no logic in this other than it is time to let Iran have their bomb and to hell with the consequences. This will bite US in the ass!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Iran not a threat   12/4/2007 2:49:38 PM
All this proves is that deterrence works.  Deterrence worked against Iraq in 1991, and worked against it during the sanctions, and lo and behold deterrence works against the rational leadership of Iran. Iran's decision had nothing to do with Iraq, but because of  pressure directed at it, which the US can do at anytime or from anywhere in the world.  Iraq was never a threat, and now it appears Iran is fast becoming a non-threat to the US.  The facts on the ground in Iraq never suited the neo-cons so they equivocated, and now on Iran it appears they will do the same thing..  My assessment is that Iran is not a threat, or at least not a threat in the way Ledeen or VDH see Iran.  A regional power maybe, but one that could have been balanced by a Baathist Iraq.  So much for that, now we need to stay in Iraq, spending hundreds of billions of  dollars to guard against a phantom enemy. Believe what you want, there are commentators out there who will swear that Iran is the next Nazi Germany (Norman Podhoretz), and the faithful can find succor in their writings,  I certainly won't change anyone's mind.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    I'm pissed off!   12/4/2007 3:14:10 PM
I just entered a thread on all this on the Israel board. You guys care to waltz over?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Already did.   12/4/2007 3:50:44 PM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Already did.   12/4/2007 3:50:50 PM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/4/2007 4:05:59 PM
Apparently there is a "\" error in Israeli forum.
 
I feel your pain, Shirrush.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Appeasement and War - 5 Questions and Post-NIE Options   12/4/2007 4:06:04 PM

All this proves is that deterrence works.  Deterrence worked against Iraq in 1991, and worked against it during the sanctions, and lo and behold deterrence works against the rational leadership of Iran. Iran's decision had nothing to do with Iraq, but because of  pressure directed at it, which the US can do at anytime or from anywhere in the world.  Iraq was never a threat, and now it appears Iran is fast becoming a non-threat to the US.  The facts on the ground in Iraq never suited the neo-cons so they equivocated, and now on Iran it appears they will do the same thing..  My assessment is that Iran is not a threat, or at least not a threat in the way Ledeen or VDH see Iran.  A regional power maybe, but one that could have been balanced by a Baathist Iraq.  So much for that, now we need to stay in Iraq, spending hundreds of billions of  dollars to guard against a phantom enemy. Believe what you want, there are commentators out there who will swear that Iran is the next Nazi Germany (Norman Podhoretz), and the faithful can find succor in their writings,  I certainly won't change anyone's mind.

It proves NOTHING.  It Does say that the myriad redactors of the NIE are good at playing CYA, and that the process is thoroughly and corruptedly politicized. Your attempt at revisionism for 1991 (geez,  it worked so well,  we shall forget that little flareup called GW1 and call it an irritant,  Saddam; and the subsequent sanctions worked as well as a 4 inch diameter sieve punched with 2 inch holes). You offer opinions, not evidence, that the sanctions and deterrence have worked. And by what standards do you judge the Iranian leadership "rationale?"  Ours?  They fail miserably. Theirs? Perhaps.  Have a talk with Achamdnutjob for a discussion on rationality based upon our standards, and see if you feel more secure. Deterrence and sanctions ONLY work if you back it up with the political will to enforce them.
 
Again, I wouldnt want to place MY security in YOUR threat-assessment hands. But we DO agree on one thing -  you wont be changing anyone's minds.
 
 
From Military analyst Steven Shippert, The Tank, NRO's military blog:
 
 

Appeasement and War - Options Post-NIE?   [Steve Schippert]

A good friend sent over today's editorial from the New York Sun at around 2am. Aptly titled The Van Diepen Demarche, it excoriates significant swaths of the intelligence community for the political battle being waged against the current administration as evidenced in the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

I haven't been able to write on the NIE yet, as I had then explained to my friend, but found the editorial spot on save for one item in it's conclusion. The e-mail response as I had sent it.

I'll leave you with one thought.
What it means is that when the historians look back on this period, they will see that by sabotaging our diplomacy, our intelligence analysts have clarified the choice before the free world - appeasement or war.
Correction: Appeasement and war. For appeasement of the aggressive and ambitious has never averted war. It has only foregone any alternative and surrendered the initiative to the aggressor.

It doesn't mean we have lost or will lose, but the price sure as hell gets exponentially higher.

Appeasement and war. Those appear the options now. China's off the hook and ElBaradei must be letting out an audible exhale.

You know Dr. ElBaradei, the IAEA chief whose primary tasking is not to uncover and understand the Iranian nuclear program. Rather, said the UN's chief nuclear inspector in June, "I have no brief other than to make sure we don't go into another war or that we go crazy into killing each other. You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran.'" So should we question his reports? What if what he finds runs counter to what he believes his only "brief" is? Silly us for thinking he was a technical inspector.

But it doesn't matter, as he - along with China and Russia - are now armed with an American narrative in the form of an ill-advised NIE.

Interestingly, Eli Lake concluded his article on the NIE with an absolutely critical piece of the Estimate.

One explanation for the change in the estimate is the recent disclosure from Iran of some of the documents related to its weapons program to the IAEA. Between September 2003 and September 2007, Iran had stonewalled inspectors and the U.N. agency on inquiries into the history of its previously undeclared nuclear facilities.

On this point, the National Intelligence Estimate says: "We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons."

Yes, of course it's the Key Judgment of the Key Judgments. But the 'critical' aspect beyond the obvious is how stunningly little else in this NIE is "assess[ed] with high confidence." Yet that part, of all parts, is.

So many that are championing this NIE have also dismissed or ignored the nuclear weapons development threat, primarily out of mindless political opposition. The same NIE just affirmed "with confidence" that nuclear weapons were being developed, information the critics did not have during their long objections.

Once Iran finally fields nuclear weapons (they will not announce just one like North Korea), many of the current critics will simply transition their arguments to a position that insists Iran only wants nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes.

That bit "with confidence," in the eyes of critics, just doesn't matter anymore. After all, Van Diepen hath spoken.

Anyone care to explain why the apparently nuclear weapons averse Iranians sent a contingent of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers to observe North Korea's nuclear weapons test in October 2006? Seems a valid question.

Be sure to read The Van Diepen Demarche this morning. When done, take the time to ask these Five Questions Concerning the Latest NIE.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Yup, good you did!   12/4/2007 4:21:51 PM
DLL.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    We Add some More Op-Eds on the NIE   12/4/2007 4:23:25 PM
from the Weekly Standard:
 
 
More on the NIE
Just to add to Tom Joscelyn's excellent post on the National Intelligence Estimate, Cliff May offers this note from a former CIA insider:
 
[While this NIE] does confirm Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in 2002 and 2003, its conclusions that as to why it may have stopped the program and why this halt may have continued are debatable [sic] and speculation. These KJs [Key Judgments] have too much political spin. This assessment was strongly influenced by two hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials who oversaw it, both former State officials who fought tooth and nail against Bush WMD policies, especially Iran.
 
I've heard similar rumblings from similar people, though less specific.
While I do agree that the NIE was somewhat less grounded than previous estimates, I don't agree with what is becoming a popular conservative talking point: Iran dropped their program in 2003 because OIF showed the world that America meant business. I think that it's far more likely that the Iranians--if they really did drop their program--had a North Korea (rather than Libya) style epiphany, realizing that the technological hurdle in constructing a bomb, shrinking it, and mating it to an effective delivery system was just too complicated of an endeavor. Had Iran truly been scared into submission by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I doubt we would have heard four years of blustering about "Iran's right to nuclear research and development" and boasting about "thousands of operational centrifuges."
But that doesn't mean that liberals are being any more rational. It's amusing to watch the transformation of the most ignorant left wing bloggers into defense experts every time an ideologically satisfying Pentagon/CIA press release appears, but any discussion about how the NIE is a blow to the Bush administration's plan to attack Iran is just silly. For one, the NIE's confirmation of Iran's nuclear intentions prior to 2003 completely justified the White House's relatively measured "all options are the table" rhetoric, and second, the White House has never deviated--nor threatened to deviate--from its commitment to a diplomatic resolution. And to clarify, no... acknowledging that military options exist is not a deviation from diplomacy. Executing a military option is a deviation from diplomacy.

 
Cliff May, National Review:
 
 
Iranian Nukes   [Cliff May]

Jonah, the purpose of this NIE is to prevent Bush from using military force during the remainder of his term  to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program.

A friend, formerly at the CIA, tells me that while this NIE


does confirm Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in 2002 and 2003, its conclusions that as to why it may have stopped the program and why this halt may have continued are debateable and speculation.  These KJs [Key Judgments] have too much political spin. This assessment was strongly influenced by two hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials who oversaw it, both former State officials who fought tooth and nail against Bush WMD policies, especially Iran. 

 
 
swhitebull - as usual, bureacrats playing politics with national security.
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       12/4/2007 6:35:32 PM
Iran is not a threat
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       12/4/2007 7:25:56 PM
DISINFORMATION.

 
Quote    Reply

Bob       12/4/2007 7:28:42 PM

Iran is not a threat
Wow. So let me see if I got this right...

NIE: "We kinda think Iran may have halted its nuclear weapons program."
MSM: "IRAN HAS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM."
You: "Iran is not a threat."

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       12/4/2007 7:41:17 PM
To that, Xylene, I post the same question I do to you, Plutarch, and PaulG.
 
What if you're wrong?
 
This isn't something where we can go, "Well, if we're wrong, we'll just send a few B-2s over and that'll be that."  If we're wrong, possibly the first warning we'll get is that sudden, monochromatic flash.  If that doesn't bother you, do what I did the other night and Google the Hiroshima Peace Park.  They have some rather interesting photos over there of melted bottles, fused tiles, and fried human beings.  That was 15 kt, a firecracker compared to what we're capable of today.
 
Taking the NIE at face value, it is good news if they're right.  It means that Ahmadinejad is running a bluff.  Given that his political position is by no means secure--he's even got the Death to America Mullah Cheering Section torqued off--it would explain the bluster.  It means we can back off on military options with Iran--I agree that those options will start a war, not end one--and concentrate on economic sanctions and assisting dissident groups.  I should hope that even Xylene, Plutarch, and PaulG would agree that Iran's human rights record is abysmal, and the world will be a better place when the mullahs are gone.  If we can do that without a war, that would be great.
 
We must keep our eyes open, along with our options.  Even the NIE says that the Iranians can restart a dormant program very quickly.  Let's not be lured into complacency.  The IAEA couldn't find their tallywhacker with a six-man search party, and the CIA has shown time and time again that it is no friend of the Bush administration and desperately needs an overhaul.
 
The other option is that the Iranians are farming out their nuclear program.  If so, the Israelis may have done us all a huge favor by knocking hell out of the Syrians two months ago.  Wouldn't be the first time.
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy