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

[Sean Osborne]

A more salient point would be to note what GlobalSecurity.org has to say, with the acknowledgement that this NIE confirmed the existence of Iranian WMD of the nuclear variety.

The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent.

With respect to the role of the upcoming election, and the barometer of public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat, I submit the poll posted above is most germane to this issue. To quote one of my favorite columnists:

I think the election results will turn as much on perceptions as reality, and political campaigns are all about creating perceptions, so the campaigning will be highly relevant. Don't get me wrong, there is not always a major disconnect between perception and reality. The electorate will often perceive things as they objectively exist.

From the same link as above:

4 November 2008
The US presidential election of 2008 is scheduled to occur on November 4, 2008. If the White House judges that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party, it would argue for timing strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.

This might be the bottom line if the current NIE was in fact politically motivated.

[Stan]

I just plain give up herein

My Intelligence Estimate

Dang... there goes my coveted HUMINT. POOF!

Rasmussen conducted "National Survey of 800 Likely Voters" on 5/6 December 2007. Here is the report on the results of that poll (emphasis added) which reflects the mindset of the American citizen with a high degree of confidence (95%).

Sounds to me like the most recent NIE accomplished zip with respect to the voting American public (i.e.: was a big time failure).

A more salient point would be to note what GlobalSecurity.org has to say, with the acknowledgement that this NIE confirmed the existence of Iranian WMD of the nuclear variety.

Are we to conclude that your HUMINT is based on a 800-Joe-Delta-Everyday-Civilian's opinion and top that with Global Security ?

How 'bout addressing the issue. What's your fix, Sean ?

[Sean Osborne]

Stan,

Regarding HUMINT as pertains to this topic I wrote:

We need covert HUMINT in almost every area of intelligence collection. As evidenced by the 2005 and 2007 NIE we desperately need covert HUMINT assets in Iran reporting on core capabilities. No more estimations, assessments, judgements or assumptions - just good solid intelligence data.

In the very next post to this thread Jedburgh had quoted some text from an LATimes article.

.....The program has had limited success. Officials said that fewer than six well-placed Iranians have defected, and that none has been in a position to provide comprehensive information on Tehran's nuclear program.....

I re-submit my response:

Dang, there goes the coveted HUMINT. POOF!

How 'bout addressing the issue. What's your fix, Sean ?

My fix is tied to the necessity of getting well-placed HUMINT to determine the real status of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and go from there.

I'm not sure what the relelvance of this post is.

Bottom line: The enfranchised American public will elect the next chief executive decisionmaker and those who control the funding of the national policy the IC attempts to guide through their product.

[wm]

Already posted my own in-a-nutshell "fix" on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons development, from the Shah to the present. Here it is again.

I think Stan wanted a solution not some other opinion about the current state of play vis-a-vis Iranian nuke weapons development, which is what you have now posted twice.

Bottom line: The enfranchised American public will elect the next chief executive decisionmaker and those who control the funding of the national policy the IC attempts to guide through their product.

I doubt very seriously that the majority of the American electorate will have sufficient longevity of memory to harken back to this NIE as a major issue when they step into the voting booth next November. I suspect that votes will be cast primarily for that Presidential candidate who makes the "biggest and bestest" promises to improve average citizens' creature comforts by allowing them to have as much discretionary use of their paychecks as possible.
As to the election of those who control the budget (the Congress)--the incumbents will generally get re-elected unless they happen to do something viewed as particularly heinous by their constituents. Congressional elections are not won and lost over intel estimates--Tip O'Neil' saying that all politics are local is particularly right when it come to Congressional elections. Incumbency and bringing home the bacon, AKA pork, of government funded activities are generally pretty huge. (How about that $1Million earmark for a Woodstock museum?) What else explains the continuance in office of folks like Ted Kennedy? Now, if the case could be made that this NIE causes a lot of Congressional districts to lose a lot of Federal money, voters might have something to consider. I wish you good luck making that argument stick.

By the way, in my experience the IC does not try to guide national policy with its products. When asked to do so, it tries to provide advice and information to those who create and implement national policy. Please do not confuse intelligence dilettantes who worked in cabinet positions with the true intelligence professionals of the IC.

[Sean Osborne]

I think Stan wanted a solution not some other opinion about the current state of play vis-a-vis Iranian nuke weapons development, which is what you have now posted twice.

Sorry wm. I fixed it.

I doubt very seriously that the majority of the American electorate will have sufficient longevity of memory to harken back to this NIE as a major issue when they step into the voting booth next November. I suspect that votes will be cast primarily for that Presidential candidate who makes the "biggest and bestest" promises to improve average citizens' creature comforts by allowing them to have as much discretionary use of their paychecks as possible.

I think you are correct. We'll have to wait and see what real-world event(s) occur between now and then which might bring this NIE back into the spotlight it now has.

By the way, in my experience the IC does not try to guide national policy with its products. When asked to do so, it tries to provide advice and information to those who create and implement national policy.

I was attempting to nut-shell in a sentence what is stated in the NIE:

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the Intelligence Community’s (IC) most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and designed to help US civilian and military leaders develop policies to protect US national security interests.

NIE says "help" and I wrote "guide". The Intelligence Community product is a guiding light for national policy.