NIE: Iran Ended Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003

[HoyaNyr320]

The report also estimates that Iran would not be able to enrich enough uranium to continue such a program until 2010. President Bush claimed today in a news conference that this report somehow confirms his policy towards Iran. To me, this is just another example of how this Administration has botched Middle East policy. The people of Iran, especially young people, identify with Western culture and want to live in a modern, Western-like country. There are other ways of isolating their more fundamentalist leaders besides threatening the use of ground forces, calling their country a threat and the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of Iran and their support of Hamas and Hezbollah. However, I trust that our Central Intelligence Agency along with Mossad have covert operations in place to undermine these actions. Instead of letting these covert operations take their course and isolating the fundamentalist elements of the Iranian regime diplomatically, the rhetoric used for the past seven years has undermined our diplomatic position in the Middle East (and around the World).

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Agreed re: the Bush Admin's failed divisive "tough guy" rhetoric.

If the findings of the report are, in fact, true then this is objectively good news. The report also cites the apparent effectiveness of diplomatic and financial influence with Iran, something that bodes well in the whole scheme of nations playing nice with each other.

[theexorcist]

I kinda sorta doubt that Syracuse's board has this stuff.

Much of the below thinking is heavily influenced by "The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America" by Kenneth Pollack.

Also, I'm speaking only for me.

A few points:
1. The CIA has been so remarkably successful that they were gutted and the Director of National Intelligence now gives the President's Daily Brief. The CIA was positive that communism wasn't going to collapse, that India and Pakistan didn't have a nuclear bomb, and said that Iraq had nukes. Just because their work is classified means squat.

And assuming Israel activated Mossad after the Shalit abduction, they still aren't able to find three kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon, where one assumes Mossad has many informers and a solid network. And Iran is a really big country. Relying on James Bond to defuse the bomb ten seconds before it goes off is a bad idea. And if we try this and it gets exposed, then things are worse.

2. Pollack (effectively, to me) argues that covert action to topple governments really only works if the system's already destabilized and just needs a "push". Iran is in questionable straits, but their political system isn't destabilized. Even if you're not trying to crash the system but are just trying to find all of the nukes and launcher sites, you're relying on lots of people to give you the location of every single one. This doesn't seem to be a good bet.

3. Demographic trends seem to indicate that radical Islam in Iran is doomed in a decade or two. However, I loathe the "all the young people are peace-loving" argument because Iran is now run by a guy who is devoted to a radical strain of Islam that seems awfully apocalyptic and who won a vote that was at least relatively democratic. Until there's a Green Revolution and Ahmenijad is living out his days in exile in Sudan, I focus on him.

4. Most of our current policy has been to isolate the radical regime. Sanctions remain difficult in that there's little way to engage the reformists while ensuring that the people who run the country suffer for their actions.

5. Iran remains intrasingent about opening its nuclear facilities up to inspection. The NIE is clear that Iran did have a program before stopping it. Given issues regarding intelligence and Iraq on nukes, trusting the intelligence community wholeheartedly does not seem to be smart.

I really don't understand what policy you'd favor instead. The irony is that the policy you decry is apparently the one that's led Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons for the past five years.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Was that for me? In only intended to poke at the way Bush & Co. have gone about their diplomacy, not endorse what HoyaNYR said.

I doubt that very many sports talk boards have sub-boards with these kinds of topics. It's one of the things that makes me love HoyaTalk and the Gtown community.

[theexorcist]

Coast:

Nope - when I posted, it was a response to HoyaNyr. As with every other Washingtonian, I have a tendency to be long-winded and not be especially clear.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Hahahaha. Cool, just checking. Carry on with the long-windedness.

[HoyaNyr320]

exorcist, those are good points. I too admit to being long-winded and not especially clear with my first post.

I guess the part of this administration's approach that I'm most opposed to is rhetoric similar to that which occured prior to the invasion of Iraq.

I agree with you that the administration's approach in terms of unifying other countries in favor of sanctions, including France this time around, has helped to isolate the hard-liners in the regime. It was also good to see the entire Arab world, including Syria, in attendance at the Annapolis peace conference with Iran being the sole non-attendee (in terms of the important countries in the region).

My worry is that, like the invasion of Iraq, the hard-line neo-con hawks in the administration are winning the day and the President is using this tough-guy rhetoric to make a case for air-strikes of nuclear facilities and ground force incursions on the Iran-Iraq border. Moves like this would be disasterous to development of the pro-Western contingent of the Iranian people.

ON EDIT:

Also in response to the issue of finding nuclear sites in the case of a regime change- I don't believe that forced regime change is the answer - just that this regime's support of terrorist groups should be limited covertly until the Iranian people select a new regime. I also believe that the NIE estimate has eliminated the concern of nuclear launch sites, as Iran clearly does not have enough enriched uranium to create a nuclear warhead.

[theexorcist]

HoyaNyr:

Ok, I feel better now. Two more things:

1. We're not going into Iran. The NIE confirmed it. Congress had hearings and debates on Iraq and Afghanistan before authorizing the use of force (or at least not objecting to the executive branch).

You seem to adhere to a left-wing approach that I've seen that is positive that Bush/Cheney aren't just warmongers, but that they're warmongers who will ignore the Constitution. Ain't gonna happen. Congress at least gets consulted, even if they've abdicated the responsibility of officially declaring war.

I supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and felt that international approval was not needed. Domestic approval is another story. Neocon hawks don't get divisions moved overnight.

2. Once again back to the Pollack book - apparently in the mid-90s, Gingrich apparently got through legislation mandating that a covert action office in the CIA designed to overthrow Iran's government be established. Pollack makes light of it - mandating a classified program - but does both comment that it has political pull (saying that someone is acting as such a threat that we need to inestigate the ability to overthrow them) and that covert action requires at least five years to establish covers, train personnel, and place assets.

Given that Iran remains hostile to US interests, I feel that a covert action program is probably a good idea. Whether it is overt or not seems relatively immaterial - we don't like them and they know it, so why mince around it?

3. My comment about the nuclear launch sites is based on what I assume is your assumption that, if Iran restarts its offensive nuclear program, we'll be able to send in covert forces and take them down. The NIE doesn't address this, since it's not looking into the future.

I retain the position that Iran remains a state that is hostile to US interests, and that it allegedly put the brakes on its nuclear program not because they suddenly became champions of peace and freedom but because the international community squeezed and Iran cried uncle. Iran may revert to developing a nuclear program at any time if they feel that the cost-benefit analysis is worth it. If that happens, and we don't want Iran to acquire nukes, we'll have to pursue a different strategy. And in that case, relying on the Mossad or CIA seems too risky.

4. 43 seems to be taking heat for this on three fronts - the NIE is leading people to make comparisons to the Iraq intelligence fiasco, Bush has made speeches since he was initially informed in August that Iran might not be pursuing the bomb that basically ignored the point that Iran wasn't pursuing nukes, and the US administration position on Iran has been relatively aggressive.

On the second front, I find the criticism unfair - from August until now, Bush had to make speeches about Iran, and eliminating references to the nuclear issue would have been strange while he was waiting for it to be confirmed.

The third front is where I have major issues with the Iranian position. Iran remains heavily involved in Iraq and does their best to work against the US and their leader has called for the destruction of Israel (which is a red-line for US involvement) and has been remarkably aggressive in his comments to us. Treating Iran nicely and reducing his sanctions won't work. Ground forces and/or cruise missile airstrikes also aren't a good idea now because the current Iranian actions probably haven't warranted them. Current US policy, which is primarily focused on sanctions and reminding Iran not to become too aggressive or face the consequences, seems like the best idea.

P.S. On point #1, you honestly don't think that Cheney has some secret invade Iran plan that he's waiting to invoke on a slow day when Congress isn't in session, do you?

[AustinHoya03]

Robert Kagan says it's time to talk to Iran:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[EasyEd]

If I understand it correctly the NIE said, in effect, there was strong evidence to suggest Iran gave up its (existing) nuclear weapons program in 2003; but it also said it was only moderately convinced it had not restarted it.

Second point: the NIE said Iraq had WMDs; it also said, about a year ago, that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Doesn't give me any confidence in any of their NIEs.

[theexorcist]

I love the internet. www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf . Until HoyaTalk gets classified system space and we can find somewhere to talk freely about Operations Orange Crush, Remember the Alamo, and Tiger Eye, this version will have to do.

A few things (all according to the NIE) - Iran halted work, but didn't give it up and it has been working on centrifuge technology and other things that, if they decide to make a weapon, will make things easier.

[EasyEd]

Amazing how, in July, a key member that approved the NIE had a different interpretation of the data: www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp

[The Stig]

Intelligence about WMD capabilities is incredibly unreliable. We all know about the Iraq intelligence, but the CIA really got it wrong with the Soviets. Knowing the number of nuclear warheads the Soviets had was probably one of the most important questions for US intelligence during the Cold War, but after it was over they found out that the CIA estimate was off by 50% - the Soviets had twice as many warheads as we thought they did.

Intelligence about WMD's are too unreliable to use as the basis for something as serious as war.

[theexorcist]

thestig said:

Intelligence about WMD's are too unreliable to use as the basis for something as serious as war.

This part doesn't sit well with me. Should we have a policy of using force to keep rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons without concrete proof at all?

I accept the rest, but the soundbite about the proof being in the form of a mushroom cloud remains. When someone has nukes, the rules of the game are changed permanently.

[The Stig]

theexorcist said:

thestig said:

Intelligence about WMD's are too unreliable to use as the basis for something as serious as war.

This part doesn't sit well with me. Should we have a policy of using force to keep rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons without concrete proof at all?

I accept the rest, but the soundbite about the proof being in the form of a mushroom cloud remains. When someone has nukes, the rules of the game are changed permanently.

You're right that it's a tough decision. I think actively trying to prevent "unreliable" states from acquiring WMD is a good policy, provided that those actions stop short of war. Going back to and strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a place to start.

My problem is with the combo of pre-emption and weak intelligence. Pre-emption is fine as long as you're d*mn sure about what the enemy is going to do. But when it comes to intelligence about WMD, history tells us that you can almost never have the level of certainty that I think you need to have to carry out pre-emptive attacks.

[EasyEd]

Question for Stig and others. Suppose we had good intelligence, but not 100% proof, that Ben Laden had WMDs and the methods to deliver them. Or, substitute any of several rogue nations or groups, including North Korea. And this had been preceded by "actively trying to prevent 'unreliable states' from acquiring WMD". Do you think this "level of certainty" is sufficient "to warrant pre-emptive attacks"? Or, are you willing to suffer the consequences if the good intelligence proved to be correct?

[hoyarooter]

I'm with EE on this one. Perhaps it's because I'm Jewish, but I absolutely do not trust Iran.

As for the hypothetical, I don't know where I would draw the line, but it's definitely not at 100%. You have to able to rely on the reasonable accuracy of your information. What you don't want to do, though, is have information you know (or have strong reason to suspect) to be unreliable, and attempt to pass it off as reliable and therefore the basis for your actions. Sound familiar?

[The Stig]

ed said:

Question for Stig and others. Suppose we had good intelligence, but not 100% proof, that Ben Laden had WMDs and the methods to deliver them. Or, substitute any of several rogue nations or groups, including North Korea. And this had been preceded by "actively trying to prevent 'unreliable states' from acquiring WMD". Do you think this "level of certainty" is sufficient "to warrant pre-emptive attacks"? Or, are you willing to suffer the consequences if the good intelligence proved to be correct?

We have said intelligence on North Korea (although delivery methods are unreliable), and no, I don't think it constitutes an automatic case for war. I agree with the current policy of multi-party negotiations with the North Koreans, although I don't agree with some of the specific stances in the negotiations.

For the record, I thought Iraq had WMD in 2003 and I still opposed the war since I didn't think they were an imminent threat.

You also have to think about who you're dealing with. Ahmadinejad is in trouble at home. His supporters were hammered in the last council elections, and signs point to the Iranian people growing tired of his rabid anti-American and anti-Israel statements. His tern is up in 2009, and there's a good chance he'll be voted out. Taking military action against Iran would just strengthen him. A better policy would be to use diplomacy and sanctions to slow down Iran's nuclear program (the NIE report says this is working) until a more moderate government comes into power.

With North Korea the consequences of a military strike would be disastrous. Seoul would either get nuked (don't need much of a delivery system to get it there - a 10th century catapult would work) or ransacked by hordes of North Korean soldiers charging south. The US could probably come out victorious in the end (if China stayed out of it), but it would be a long and enormously bloody slog. South Korea would suffer enormously, and the conflict could raise tensions significantly in an already tense region.

Again, I don't have a problem with the idea of pre-emption. But you have to consider more than just the military issues. You've got to look at the wider consequences of your actions, and see what you leave behind is preferable to what you found there in the first place. The benefits have to outweigh the costs.

[EasyEd]

This may surprise you, Stig, but I think that was a good post even though I could argue a few points.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

ed said:

This may surprise you, Stig, but I think that was a good post even though I could argue a few points.

Completely agree, it was a very good answer. I'd argue that there's more than a utilitarian ethical analysis that goes into the use of force though.