RSS
Using PayPal
More on Why Bush Won't Bomb Iran
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Monday, Dec 03, 3:25PM
For the "bomb Iran now hawks", the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- just released -- has probably ruined their holiday season. (here is the pdf)
The report documents the high likelihood that Iran is no where near nuclear weapons capacity -- and probably not pointed (at this time) in that direction.
The implications, however, of this NIE on Iran are nuanced, complex and important.
These findings reinforce the importance of getting a political resolution to Iran's "power pretensions" in the region. While Iran may not have the nuclear weapons program in place that many neocons have argued that it has, Iran could move in a weapons direction and may be inclined to do so if the international environment in which it is operating does not improve Iran's situation. But this report suggests that diplomacy and the posture of the international order towards Iran has mattered. Joe Klein agrees.
The other key factor in this report is that it removes from the neocon hawks the nuclear weapons excuse as a casus belli for a regime change-oriented attack. This may have been anticipated by some of the Iran hawks who have shifted their rhetoric on why an attack against Iran might be justified.
From the report:
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.~ We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.~ We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
~ We 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.
~ We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
~ Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad -- or will acquire in the future -- a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously -- which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.
C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
~ We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of roducing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.~ We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications -- some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
~ Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might -- if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible -- prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.~ We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran's considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, 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.
F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities -- rather than its declared nuclear sites -- for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
I am sure that this will come up at the Israel Policy Forum dinner I am attending tonight in New York.
I am also pretty sure that Vice President Cheney won't be affected at all about this report and will obstinately ignore its findings when offering Christmas cheer to all, while under his breath muttering "bomb Iran. . .bomb Iran."
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
It will be fun to watch Cheney and the neocons run with this one.
"The intelligence community got it terribly wrong on Iraq, so obviously they're getting it all wrong again."
"But they only have moderate confidence that... Our inside source tell us differently."
"Mohammed el Baradei (who got the lack of Iraqi WMDs right and downplays Iranian nukes) could not be trusted on Iraq and he can't be trusted on Iran either."
"We need to bring Karl Rove back as DNR. He knows how to assess intelligence accurately and provide the support the WH needs."
"God told us that the Iranian infidels are developing nukes."
Whatever ridiculous claims Cheney and the neocons come up with, the corporate media will give them plenty of air time.
Don't hold your breath.
Iraq was never about WMD, just like Iran has never been about nuclear weapons. There are powerful interests determined to continue moving forward (Oil / Military Industrial Complex / Israel). The PNAC agenda is well on track, as evidenced by continued infestation in this administration of their criminal agents (think Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, etc., etc.). Can't imagine that this crowd will just roll over and stop. No doubt the OSP has morphed into another entity which will cook up the needed recipe for military attack on Iran. I'm sure their private contractor colleagues would be more than happy to facilitate a false flag incident.
Just waiting for the other shoe to drop by Nov. '08.
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 report 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?
"Joe Klein agrees."
Don't you mean that Joe Klein's lying wingnut sources agree, Steve?
I mean, if you gotta cite someone who agrees with you, try finding someone with an ounce of credibility -- not someone who has consistently lied about the origins, content and implications of the RESTORE Act. (Or is this just a reflection of how things work in your business -- it doesn't matter how much of a lying scumbag someone is, as long as they still have access to something like Time Magazine, you have to suck up to them.)
********
As to the NIE itself -- for all intents and purposes there is no evidence that Iran was ever actively pursuing nukes in the first place. It was keeping its efforts to develop CIVILIAN nuclear power because Israel has a rather nasty habit of bombing anyone who aspires to use nuclear power.
The whole "Iran is developing nukes" story is probably just more of the same, racist inspired fever-dream that "Iraq has WMDs" was. Of course, since your "serious" wingnut welfare buddies were pushing that story, you had to take it seriously.... just because they are on the payroll of AIPAC and/or the oil companies doesn't mean that your buddies at AEI and other "conservative think tanks" are corrupt....much.
Huummm...in light of this report, if Israel attacks Iran without a US o.k....what do suppose will happen?
Steve, I have visited your blog faithfully, enjoyed it for the most part, and actually recommended it to others. Of late, I think your blog has become more and more a vehicle that celebrates and promotes whatever you happen to be doing--at the expense of the overall issues, views, and controversies this country is faced with.
Frankly, I am not interested in with whom you travel, dine, talk, or organize panels with--sometimes--no, most of the time, a little detachment carries you a long, long way.
Gee Brigette, you don't find the tinkle of ice cubes tittilating, even when its the background music for a million or so Iraqi deaths, the complete and utter dismantling of our Constitution, and this term's parade of posturing oportunist elitist assholes masquerading as patriots and vying for a chance to hold themselves in contempt of the law while squatting in the Oval Office??????
This is being spun as a "success" for Monkey Boy and his satanic herd of wolverines.
Anyone following the rhetoric on Iraq? Same thing. The fact that we are now spending huge sums of money bribing the Sunni militias equates to "success" for the surge. Remember when "former Baathists", "Saddam loyalists", and "Sunni insurgents" were the "enemy" in Iraq"? So, now we have allied ourselves with the self same enitities that have been responsible for the vast majority of our soldier's deaths, in order to counter the power we handed to the Shiites in elections that were touted as this Administration's goals.
Azzfugginastonishing.
"Success" at last.
(Do these bastards REALLY think we are so stupid our here in Peonsville?)
Heres AIPAC's reaction, from its website. Gee, I wonder if someone can please tell me what is "illicit" about Iran's enrichment efforts?
Iran Refuses to Stop Its Nuclear Work
The Islamic Republic on Thursday pledged to press ahead with its illicit nuclear program and said that the Untied States had “lost” in its attempts to stop Tehran’s atomic work, Reuters reported. “The Iranian nation will never return from the path that they have chosen and they are determined... to continue this path [to obtain nuclear technology],” Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. “America has lost in its nuclear challenge with Iran.” Iran has rebuffed multiple binding U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it end its efforts to enrich uranium – a key step toward developing nuclear weapons – and faces more stringent sanctions as a result of its non-compliance. Click here to learn more about efforts to sanction Iran.
Brigitte. I agree. Most of the substance for the last month has come from the comments.
Last month I took a trip to a Latin American neighbor, where I was amazed to find that USA's importance had diminished to the point where newspapers there barely gave any coverage to events here. (Of course, American newspapers don't cover events there, either.) When I got back and checked this blog, I was surprised to learn that I had in fact missed nothing.
Sorry to disappoint you JohnH, Brigitte, others... I have a real job, a real relationship, a real Mom and others who need attention. I value your role here....but your notes irritate me. There is not a single blog in the blogosphere that got the David Wurmser story out -- and to many of you, that's just another day...well, it isn't. It takes very hard work -- volunteer/hobby work -- not my job. If you need that kind of stimulation every day, this is not going to provide it to you.
And frankly Brigitte, I like your note -- it's kind. But I HAVE ALWAYS WRITTEN ABOUT WHAT I'M DOING. That's part of the schtick here.
Blogs are natural marketplaces. If you don't like it, I really do encourage you to leave. I write this blog for myself -- and for key readers in the political and journalist community.
The comments section is OK, but not critical to me -- and some of you have so taken over the commentary that it has produced a situation in whcih I receive far greater email than I do comments because of the fear that some have that what they write will be jumped on by one of you.
So JohnH, if you don't like what I write here -- geez, leave! I find that so hard to believe when I just scroll over what I've posted over the last month.
You've moved me to the edge of doing what Josh Marshall advised me long ago to do -- and that is just turn off the comments.
I may experiment with that for a while -- as I just don't appreciate the naysayers who have lots of appetite and little understanding for the kind of blog this is, why I write it, and how difficult it is to balance this kind of blog commentary with a normal work and personal life.
If you want to knock me down, you've done it....I'm sure the Cheney crowd is thrilled.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure chatting with a lot of you here....but I think comments are going to be shut off for a while.
-- Steve Clemons
Reader Comments (11) - post a comment