Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[Sean Osborne]

I've now read the pdf three times and cannot understand why the 2009 date is even remotely significant.

Stan,

It has to do with what our unclassifed NIE specifically states about that year and what the Israeli intel assessment says about that year regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Maybe I should also bring to this 'table' what the French, British and Italian intel folks have to say on the matter of this NIE.

(Hmmmm, that sounds like a great idea to me at this point... broaden the scope of this thread to include other foreign intelligence assessments on the same Iranian nuclear weapons program as referenced in this current NIE!)

I can see and appreciate why Israel would have a differing view, as they sit on the border.

Actually Israel lies a significant number of miles west-southwest of the Iranian border with Iraq, and come to think of it, west of Jordan and southwest of Syria. The distance is nothing a theater ballistic missile like the Shahab-3/4, BM-25 or Kh-55 cruise missile can't handle though.

I have no doubt they have some serious concerns, but that should not influence hard intel.

There is NOTHING relating to "hard intel" with respect to the unclassified NIE. Sources and methods are thoroughly protected/sageguarded through the declassification process of the estimate by DNI, et al. More to the point, there's nothing about the words "estimate" or "assessment" or "judgement" or "assumption" even remotely related to "hard intelligence". Hard intelligence is what vetted, viable HUMINT is supposed to provide.

Yes, it is probably high time and logical at this point to bring into this discussion what the somewhat divergent intelligence assessments of our NATO allies on the Iranian nuclear weapons program have to say in order to add some distance from the politically charged nature of purely American opinion.

[JeffC]

There is NOTHING relating to "hard intel" with respect to the unclassified NIE. Sources and methods are thoroughly protected/sageguarded through the declassification process of the estimate by DNI, et al. More to the point, there's nothing about the words "estimate" or "assessment" or "judgement" or "assumption" even remotely related to "hard intelligence". Hard intelligence is what vetted, viable HUMINT is supposed to provide.

Do I understand you to say that no HUMINT intelligence contributes to any of the sources used to write an NIE, Sean? That really isn't what you mean't to say, is it?

[Ken White]

. . .
Yes, it is probably high time and logical at this point to bring into this discussion what the somewhat divergent intelligence assessments of our NATO allies on the Iranian nuclear weapons program have to say in order to add some distance from the politically charged nature of purely American opinion.

Why do that-- it's broadly irrelevant in any case. Sure. the Unclas version of NIE was tailored for a purpose; so what? It's been released, the good and bad intended has been done and isn't going to be undone and all that's being accomplished here, it seems to me is the flaying of a dead Jackass for no good reason.

I don't think it's near big enough to rise to Horse status.

We've been playing silly games with Iran since 1979 and are likely to continue to do so for a good many years. They don't mean us well (some of them, not all) and they do odd things on occasion but they aren't stupid.

Much ado about nothing.

[Stan]

Stan,

It has to do with what our unclassifed NIE specifically states about that year and what the Israeli intel assessment says about that year regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Maybe I should also bring to this 'table' what the French, British and Italian intel folks have to say on the matter of this NIE.

(Hmmmm, that sounds like a great idea to me at this point... broaden the scope of this thread to include other foreign intelligence assessments on the same Iranian nuclear weapons program as referenced in this current NIE!)

Sean,
While I understand that the NIE utilizes many sources when developing their products, I didn't draw the same conclusion (that Israel's contribution was the overall impetus). I'll assume you're going to invite these fine folks to join the SWC and participate.

Actually Israel lies a significant number of miles west-southwest of the Iranian border with Iraq, and come to think of it, west of Jordan and southwest of Syria...

Thanks for the geography lesson. I think you know what I was saying

Yes, it is probably high time and logical at this point to bring into this discussion what the somewhat divergent intelligence assessments of our NATO allies on the Iranian nuclear weapons program have to say in order to add some distance from the politically charged nature of purely American opinion.

We already have many distinguised SWC members from every corner of the world (including NATO members), and some have in fact posted on this very thread.

[Sean Osborne]

Roy Gutman's OpEd in yesterdays Post-Bulletin (Rochester, Minnesota) had a rather unique conclusion regarding the NIE, Iran and HUMINT.

U.S. intelligence can be spectacularly right -- or wrong

This brings us to Iran. The Bush administration could have deduced months ago that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency reached that conclusion by talking with Iranian officials, sending in inspectors and verifying the facts.

Under the mullahs, Iran is a notoriously difficult country for recruiting top-level spies. True, there are phone intercepts, satellite images and walk-in defectors. But human, on-the-ground contact is best facilitated by having an embassy, full diplomatic relations and a program of exchanges and visits. The IAEA did that. While an IAEA inspection regime is not infallible, it is, when supplemented by intelligence (and journalism), the most plausible way to monitor any threat from Iran.

Reporters and the public ought to view intelligence findings and National Intelligence Estimates as a starting point for an investigation rather than the conclusion to it. Until we can examine the sources and methods on which such findings are based and understand the context in which those sources are operating, we should treat such pronouncements with caution.

[bourbon]

No More Slam Dunks: A reality-based assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability, by Philip Giraldi. The American Conservative, January 14, 2008.

[Ron Humphrey]

This whole acting rationally thing is really confuses me.

" By demonstrating that Iran has acted as a rational player, the report gives advocates of negotiations without preconditions a stronger hand."

Since when and in whose mind would such things as the following fall in the category of rational thinking:

1: Taking Hostages at Embassy (Sure if you want to take a wholistic view that their guiding light in this action was to accomplish what was better in the long turn; you would have to however illustrate that it was, and good luck with that)

2: Having a nuclear weapons program in the first place if you haven't even gotten to the place where you could use it without nefarious actions to obtain the materials /which in turn would point to nefarious intent

3: Using all governmental assets to keep the entire populous under restrictions which discourage any uprising or even simple disagreement with government.

4: The need for review of historic happenings to which there is no doubt and mainly because right now so many who actually lived it are still alive to tell about it. ( Wouldn't it have been more rational to wait until the witnesses are gone before trying to rewrite history?)

5: Anything that comes out of the mouth of the current leadership such as-
We dont have any vs We eliminate any ( If i'll blow smoke in your face on TV about something so notably identifiable as the existence of those with alternative lifestyles, are you really sure you want to take my word on something like nuclear power?)

Just a few things which make it really hard for me to buy the rationality argument.

That being said there is still nothing wrong with negotiating as long as we remember:

The quote from JFK that rings true

" Let us never fear to negotiate , but let us never negotiate from fear "

[bourbon]

This whole acting rationally thing is really confuses me.

" By demonstrating that Iran has acted as a rational player, the report gives advocates of negotiations without preconditions a stronger hand."

Since when and in whose mind would such things as the following fall in the category of rational thinking:

1: Taking Hostages at Embassy (Sure if you want to take a wholistic view that their guiding light in this action was to accomplish what was better in the long turn; you would have to however illustrate that it was, and good luck with that)

See post #48 by Rex Brynen:

US Embassy, Tehran.

Largely fueled by the standard hyper-enthusiasm of the early revolutionary stage, this helped to undermine the government of then (relatively moderate) Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, and helped to strengthen and ultimately consolidate the power of the hardline revolutionaries in the new regime—thus paving the way for the establishment of the Islamic Republic in its present form. In terms of domestic politics, therefore, it paid off well. Also encouraged other Islamist radicals in the region.

2: Having a nuclear weapons program in the first place if you haven't even gotten to the place where you could use it without nefarious actions to obtain the materials /which in turn would point to nefarious intent

Nefarious activities to obtain materials? Lets substitute 'nefarious' for 'illegal', what have they done illegally?
How did Israel obtain its nuclear program? The terms 'nefarious' and 'illegal' come to mind. Actually there are some great stories there; massive hijackings, extortion, and more black bag jobs then a John le Carré novel. Needless to say, did their nefarious proliferation activities imply nefarious intent?

3: Using all governmental assets to keep the entire populous under restrictions which discourage any uprising or even simple disagreement with government.

Dictatorships are not irrational, it is a fallacy of liberals and neoconservatives to think they are inherently irrational. Further it is a moot point on a realpolitik matter such as this.

4: The need for review of historic happenings to which there is no doubt and mainly because right now so many who actually lived it are still alive to tell about it. ( Wouldn't it have been more rational to wait until the witnesses are gone before trying to rewrite history?)

I assume you are referring to the whole Holocaust denial thing. Thats a complicated topic, beyond the scope of this thread, listen to Ahmadinejad though, he says it for a reason. Its not just Holocaust denial at face value, he uses it in a nuanced argument against Zionism.

5: Anything that comes out of the mouth of the current leadership such as-
We dont have any vs We eliminate any ( If i'll blow smoke in your face on TV about something so notably identifiable as the existence of those with alternative lifestyles, are you really sure you want to take my word on something like nuclear power?)

This is a moot point.