« The Washington Post Discredits NAFTA | Main | Liars and the Lying Promoters Who Help Them »
December 03, 2007
Iran's Non-Existant Nuclear Program
I've got some thoughts on the National Intelligence Estimate disproving the hype over the Iranian nuclear program over at Tapped. Short version: There is no political official in America who will now be able to claim "they didn't know" that the program was overhyped, and folks should take seriously the report's conclusion that any nuclear enrichment would be done "covertly" and thus not be vulnerable to a fly-by bombing campaign. So not only is the program's very existence unlikely, but destroying it would require that we either flattened the country or invaded it.
The Other Klein has a bit more, including the important point that this isn't just one agency's conclusion: The "high certainty" ranking means it's coming from multiple information streams. Matt and Kevin recount our many opportunities to end Iran's nuclear program through negotiations -- opportunities we didn't only miss, but actively, and hubristically, rejected.
Update: Fuck Howie Kurtz. Anyone can be wrong. The first page of the estimate explains the various probabilities attached to the various predictions, and all of them leave open a window (or a door, or a planet) of doubt. Does Kurtz have any reason to think that the NIE is wrong?
December 3, 2007 in Iran | Permalink
Comments
The Bush administration's penchant for secrecy has always been intended to provide cover for a multitude of sins.
Posted by: David W. | Dec 3, 2007 4:15:38 PM
I'm not surprised to see people take shots at the CIA's supposed mistakes. That the CIA said Saddam didn't have WMDs, was criticized at the time for "bad intelligence," was proven right and still widely blamed for the Iraq War is one of the more astonishing things I've ever witnessed.
So if Bush wants to attack Iran, then he will, citing some other "intelligence" that Cheney made up a few minutes before. Then later, when the CIA's assessment is proven without a doubt to have been correct, he'll blame "intelligence agencies" for giving him bad information, wait a few months and change that to "the CIA gave me bad intelligence again" and no one will call him on it.
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 3, 2007 4:24:03 PM
Howard Kurtz: I would just make a note about the attribution in the lead: "senior intelligence officials said Monday." They may well be right. But some intelligence officials were obviously flat wrong about Saddam's WMD.
So let me get this straight ... Mr. Kurtz thinks that the people who were dead wrong last time may be correct this time around? And his assertion to back it up is that the same people who were wrong could be a ... meh ... head ... spinning!
Posted by: Clayton | Dec 3, 2007 4:54:59 PM
From IranAffairs.com:
Iran NIE report - Are you lying now, or were you lying then?If the 2005 NIE report was wrong, why should the 2007 NIE claims be any more credible? If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new NIE says, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it?
Posted by: hass | Dec 3, 2007 5:05:32 PM
Good point.
Same organization that comes out with two different assessments two different times, but only one report is heralded.
Wonder why?
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 3, 2007 5:55:16 PM
Representative David Vitter (R-LA) recently introduced the Realistic Tests for Realistic Threats National Security Act of 1999 (H.R. 2596) to reverse this policy, which is based on a 1995 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Third World countries like North Korea would not be able to launch rockets similar to the Taepo Dong-1 for at least another decade. North Korea defied this estimate in just three years.
NEI guessed 10 years N Korea did it in 3. How much faith do you want to place in them?
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol07/71/circ71.pdf
For example, the 1993 NIE (“Prospects for the Worldwide
Development of Ballistic Missile Threats to the
Continental United States,” NIE 93-17) said:
Only China and the CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States] strategic forces in several
states of the former Soviet Union currently
have the capability to strike the continental
United States (CONUS) with land-based ballistic
missiles. Analysis of available information
shows the probability is low that any other
country will acquire this capability during the
next 15 years.5
With the three altered measurement standards and in
the wake of the Rumsfeld Commission report, the new
1999 NIE finds that over the next 15 years the United
States “…most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia,
China and North Korea, probably from Iran, and
possibly from Iraq,
It seems the NEI is always right, before it issues another report contradicting the last one. Why are Dems considered weak on National defence again?
Posted by: Nate O | Dec 3, 2007 6:25:10 PM
Fuck Howie Kurtz.
I am interested in your product and I would like to hear more about it.
Posted by: Steve Balboni | Dec 3, 2007 6:36:27 PM
First, not only "there is no political official in America who will now be able to claim "they didn't know" that the program was overhyped", the Bush administration knew all along that these charges were bullshit. Also Clinton looks increasingly like a fool being played by Bush and the right wing loonies (specifically her vote on Kyl-Lieberman ramping up the Iran war hysteria), but I guess that is where she carefully calibrated the center of the political spectrum was...she is a very precise calibrationist.
Posted by: della Rovere | Dec 3, 2007 7:07:36 PM
If we're not going to believe our intelligence agencies when they say things we don't want to hear, why bother having intelligence agencies?
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 3, 2007 9:24:23 PM
Steve Balboni,
that's funny. you're funny
Posted by: john hadley | Dec 3, 2007 10:29:30 PM
Fuck Howie Kurtz.
Damn, getting rough and tumble around here.
Aren't you worried that Jonah Goldberg won't think you're reasonable?
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 3, 2007 11:58:15 PM
Why are Dems considered weak on National defence again?
Hey ... are you some kind of dirty foreigner?
YOU BETTER HAVE YOUR PAPERS
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 4, 2007 2:11:32 AM
Iran has at least 3,000 centrifuges whirling around that we know of enriching uranium that they claim they need and will only be used for energy production.
Doesn't it stike you as kinda curious that Iran is a huge producer of petroleum and yet they embark on a new and expensive technology, one that even with the money they have trouble buying, all for the energy that is in their back yard at a fraction of the cost, both financially, technologically and politically??
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 4, 2007 11:47:12 AM
Doesn't it stike you as kinda curious that Iran is a huge producer of petroleum and yet they embark on a new and expensive technology, one that even with the money they have trouble buying, all for the energy that is in their back yard at a fraction of the cost, both financially, technologically and politically??
Just because we refuse to look ten years into the future doesn't mean everybody else does.
When oil production peaks, you know what would be a great situation for a country to be in? Sitting on a big shitload of oil that you don't need anymore because you developed alternative energy technology, but everybody else does need because they didn't. Talk about a seller's market.
On the other hand, there's probably a good chance you'd get nuked.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 4, 2007 1:21:44 PM
I had the distinct impression that the reason much of the intelligence on Iraq was wrong was because the Iraq Study Group changed it and cherry picked it to suit their purposes. The CIA knew Curveball was a liar. They knew that Iraq was not obtaining uranium from Niger. It was not that the intelligence was wrong. It was that it was ignored and rewritten by adminitration war mongers.
I think that there has been a concerted effort over the last year to do that again, but for some reason, Cheney was overruled. So, Kurtz needs to remember that yes, this might be wrong, but it is more likely that it is correct and this time Cheney has not had the mojo left to get it rewritten to suit his agenda.
Posted by: apishapa | Dec 4, 2007 1:30:56 PM
When oil production peaks, you know what would be a great situation for a country to be in? Sitting on a big shitload of oil...
First of all, there are seious disagreement amongst those who should be in the know about when that will happen. Some say soon, and others say not so soon. Secondly, the US is like the Saudis of coal and coal technology is getting surprisingly clean.
We would be sitting on a shitload of coal
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 4, 2007 4:45:26 PM
Just because we refuse to look ten years into the future doesn't mean everybody else does.
What a load of succotash!
Iran has energy to burn for the next two hundred years. Good God, they're FIXED for energy. This argument is bogus.
The sad truth is Iran has all the energy it needs and yet seeks nukular energy. It's all bullshit and it will be apparent when, in the future, they announce that they are a nuklular power. North Korea was able to bullshit it's way to nukular power when Clinton was prez. Same thing is happening now only Bush isn't buying it.
Good for him.
Posted by: El viajero | Dec 4, 2007 6:11:34 PM
apishapa, would you happen to have any reference to Bush or anyone at the white house saying they where trying to get it from Niger? If your going to accuse them of rewritting facts should you maybe not do the exact same thing in the same sentenance?
Posted by: NateO | Dec 4, 2007 9:47:17 PM
Iran has a valid economic case for developing nuclear power - which is why the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place. Read up at IranAffairs.com and checkout the links
Posted by: hass | Dec 4, 2007 10:01:32 PM
First of all, there are seious disagreement amongst those who should be in the know about when that will happen. Some say soon, and others say not so soon.
Absolutely. It will happen, however.
Secondly, the US is like the Saudis of coal and coal technology is getting surprisingly clean.
We would be sitting on a shitload of coal
Sweet.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 4, 2007 10:10:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
