1/19/10

Last week, Newsweek reported that the U.S. intelligence community would be revising the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran.  The previous estimate found that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons activities in 2003, and had not resumed as of November 2007.  According to Newsweek, the new NIE will contain language conveying greater uncertainty as to whether the Iran's nuclear weapons program has resumed.  At the same time, U.S. military and intelligence officials have not confirmed the resumption of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and have continued to question whether Iran has either decided to resume its program or even has the ability to build a weapon. Moreover, because the Obama administration has always considered the possibility that Iran was covertly developing a nuclear weapon, the results of this NIE will do little to disrupt the administration's sound, comprehensive approach for dealing with Iran.

Reports on the content of this revised intelligence estimate on Iran have coincided with broader efforts by some neoconservatives to politicize intelligence gathering, raising the possibility of neoconservative intelligence manipulation to beat the war-drum on Iran.  Since the Cold War, neoconservatives have exhibited a pattern of politicizing intelligence to suit their flawed agenda, often hyping threats despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Not only was this the case in the run-up to the Iraq war, but following the release of the 2007  NIE on Iran, which dealt a severe setback to war talk against Iran, several prominent neoconservatives attacked the intelligence community for a releasing an estimate that failed to advance their dangerous arguments for military action.

Reports of update to National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, while military and intelligence officials remain skeptical of Iran's nuclear abilities. Last Friday, Newsweek Magazine's blog reported that: "Three U.S. and two foreign counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK that, as soon as next month, the intel agencies are expected to complete an ‘update' to their controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Tehran ‘halted its nuclear weapons program' in 2003 and ‘had not restarted' it as of mid-2007."  Similarly the Washington Times writes that some "U.S. intelligence agencies now suspect that Iran never halted work on its nuclear arms program in 2003, as stated in a national intelligence estimate made public three years ago, U.S. officials said.  Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country's supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons."  Yet, intelligence and military officials remain skeptical of Iran's nuclear capabilities:

Newsweek notes, "two of the U.S. sources caution the new assessment will likely be ‘Talmudic' in its parsing," saying that "U.S. analysts now believe that Iran may well have resumed ‘research' on nuclear weapons--theoretical work on how to design and construct a bomb--but that Tehran is not engaged in ‘development'--actually trying to build a weapon." 

Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) the  Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Jr. said in a recent interview with Voice of America that "The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true... We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know." 

The Washington Times story quotes an anonymous senior military official, who assessed that not only had Iran's leadership not made the decision to build a weapon, but that they lacked the ability to do so in the first place. "There is a debate being held about whether the final decision has been made. It is fair to argue that the supreme leader has not said, ‘Build a nuclear weapon.' That actually does not matter, because they are not at the point where they could do that anyway," said the official. 

[Newsweek, 1/15/10. Washington Times, 1/19/10 Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, VOA, 1/12/10]

Obama administration continues to appropriately pursue comprehensive approach based on both dialogue and economic pressure. Regardless of any changes to the NIE, the Obama administration is likely to continue to pursue diplomacy with Iran while concurrently pursuing economic sanctions that target the military components of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. As the Newsweek piece explained, "While the update will cause a stir in Washington, it's unlikely to have an immediate impact on the White House's Iran policy. The administration already bases its cautious diplomatic approach on the assumption that Iran has, in fact, been pursuing a bomb, despite intel agencies' reservations.

The dual track approach of diplomacy and sanctions will allow the international community to coordinate efforts and work towards a lasting solution. In a statement obtained by Politico, officials agreed at the United Nations on Saturday that "Iran's response was inadequate and that they had failed to seize the opportunity that our ministers set out in September. We are united and remain committed to our dual track approach. That implies that we continue to seek a negotiated solution. Consideration of the appropriate further measures has begun." Despite China's reservations to take immediate punitive measures, "some Western diplomats said the New York meeting showed a shared commitment to a ‘dual track' of dialogue and sanctions in dealing with Iran," the Washington Post noted. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced on Monday, "'Germany has made clear that if Iran's reaction does not change, we will be working on a comprehensive package of sanctions,' Merkel said at a joint news conference in Berlin with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ‘Of course we would prefer it if these (sanctions) could be agreed within the framework of the United Nations Security Council,' she said, adding that officials would be working to that end in the coming weeks. ‘But Germany will take part in sanctions with other countries that are pursuing the same goal,'" she told Reuters.

"Washington favors sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard, seen as the economic and military backbone of the Iranian regime in a bid to minimize the impact on the Iranian people and avoid an adverse effect on the very people protesting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardline regime. ‘Our goal is to pressure the Iranian government, particularly the Revolutionary Guard elements, without contributing to the suffering of ordinary (Iranians) who deserve better than what they are currently receiving,'" Clinton told AFP earlier this month. The Washington Times also noted that "Clinton said the administration's thinking on approaches to more effective sanctions against Iran has been developed after consultations with a wide range of other countries. ‘We've been very actively involved in soliciting ideas from a broad range of other countries, looking at what will work, what won't work, what would have the biggest impact on perhaps changing the strategic calculation inside Iran of the current leadership,' she said. Clinton also said the U.S. remains interested in engaging with Iran, even as it considers ways to pressure Tehran through sanctions." [Newsweek, 1/15/10. Politico, 1/16/10. Washington Post, 1/19/10. Reuters, 1/18/10. AFP, 1/16/10. Washington Times, 1/11/10]

Neoconservative efforts to politicize intelligence spell trouble on Iran.  There are emerging signs that neoconservatives are once again attempting to recklessly politicize the intelligence community's activities in order to pave the way for their militant policies. Last week, Josh Marshall noted Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney's "argument that Obama needs to appoint a 'Team B' to come in and analyze the threat of Islamic fundamentalism," to ensure that the U.S. intelligence community is taking the threat seriously enough.  Such efforts to politicize intelligence are especially troubling, given the reports that the intelligence community is updating its analysis of Iran's nuclear program.  As Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress observed, among neoconservatives, there is a "highly organized movement afoot to pretend that none of this matters, that ‘the mullahs' have always intended to get their hands on a nuke," and that the only solution is a military strike. 

In the past, neoconservatives have turned intelligence estimates into political footballs, most recently on the 2007 Iran NIE.  When the NIE was released and its conclusions did not support their hawkish world view, neocons went on the attack.  Gaffney accused U.S. intelligence officials of "buy[ing] our enemies time to prepare their onslaught," and AEI's Danielle Pletka said intelligence officers were intending to "deceive and to redirect foreign policy."  This is despite the fact that the assessment was vetted meticulously by the intelligence community, vetting that included a "‘red team' counter-intelligence operation" designed to "make sure that the U.S. wasn't falling for Iranian disinformation."  Their efforts were so diligent that the assessment was supported without reservation by the White House, including vice-President Cheney who said "I don't have any reason to question the - what the community has produced, with respect to the NIE on Iran." 

Over the years, neoconservative hawks have amassed quite a track record of politicizing intelligence to support their foreign policy objectives.  In 2003, Fareed Zakaria wrote: "It all started with the now famous "Team B" exercise. During the early 1970s, hard-line conservatives pilloried the CIA for being soft on the Soviets. As a result, CIA Director George Bush agreed to allow a team of outside experts to look at the intelligence and come to their own conclusions. Team B--which included Paul Wolfowitz--produced a scathing report, claiming that the Soviet threat had been badly underestimated... In retrospect, Team B's conclusions were wildly off the mark."  According to Zakaria, some of the same neoconservatives were involved with the Cox Commission Report on Chinese military spending, which Zakaria called, "replete with speculation, loose assumptions and errors of fact." [TPM, 1/12/10. Frank Gaffney, via the National Review, 12/4/07.  Matt Duss, 1/17/10. Danielle Pletka, via the Washington Post, 12/07/07. Dick Cheney, via Fox News, 12/06/07. Fareed Zakaria, 6/13/03]

What We're Reading

Security and logistical concerns continue to hamper the flow of aid throughout Haiti as Haitians escape from the capital to other cities seeking relief.

The high volume of NATO traffic is creating a chokehold in a key road from Pakistani into Afghanistan as the military continues to implement President Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, a major Taliban coordinated attack in the heart of Kabul was repelled by Afghanistan Security Forces, but not without loss of life.

As parliamentary elections loom in Iraqi, Sunnis feel disenfranchised as a significant number of Sunni politicians have been barred from campaigning.

The al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen issued fresh threats against the U.S. and its Mideast allies, promising to retaliate against a surge of strikes launched in the past month against its leaders and havens.

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or by simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews.

Somali pirates released a Greek oil tanker after receiving what they said was a $5.5 million ransom, believed to be the largest sum paid to free a hijacked ship.

The United Kingdom and Argentina continue to spar over the Falkland Islands, where they fought a war over in 1982.

The number of infrastructure projects in Cambodia continues to grow exponentially in a country that saw major civil strife in the 1990's.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times warns that the world's richer nations must be ready to aid their economically unstable neighbors-not just Dubai, but also Greece and Ireland-if they want to stop the global financial crisis from happening again.

The Economist believes that, while Obama had a good first year, the challenges he faces in 2010 will be a lot more difficult, and he must toughen up to deal with them successfully. 

The Washington Post criticizes the McCain and Graham proposal to stop all Guantanamo detainee transfers to countries "all of which are on the Administration's list of countries subject to heightened airport security", saying that policy is too broad and that the Administration should consider detainee transfers on a case-by-case basis.