More info from the NYT article link above:
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”
Please share widely!
While I agree with you that hawkish posturing in face of realist estimates that in fact downgrade the Iranian threat are counter productive I would disagree with you that this is what Obama is doing.
<
p>In spite of the NIE Iran’s President continually insists that Iran does in fact want nuclear weapons, has a right to them, and will use them against long time US ally Israel. Similarly the NIE report has been attacked as premature by others in the US intel community who claim it served a political role to undercut early any efforts by the Bush administration for a last hurrah strike against Iran-again an admirable effort but one that might have twisted the facts on the ground. The truth is the NIE is just that, an estimate, and we need far more boots on the ground, snoops in the air and space, and information in general before we can be conclusive in saying Iran is not a threat.
<
p>Actions speak louder than their bellicose words, but to dismiss those words would be a miscalculation especially when some actions, such as refusing IAEA inspectors, send mixed signals from their regime to ours.
<
p>Which is all the more reason why we should talk to Iran and really get their intentions and sit down with them-something Obama wants to do and McCain does not. Similarly it is a reason not for us to be bellicose and say we will destroy Iran, sing bomb iran, or otherwise promise a military solution to a diplomatic problem. All things McCain is guilty of and Obama is not.
<
p>Obama needs to say Iran is a threat but rightly place its threat level as a regional one, he recently was attacked by McCain for downplaying Iran and Obama pinned McCain into a corner by making him say that Iran was in fact a greater threat than the Soviet Union a preposterous statement for the so called national security expert from Arizona to make. Similarly he made McCain look hypocritical by pointing out that his hero Reagan met with Gorbachev the leader of a far more menacing foe than Iran-so meeting with Mahmoud is not a bad idea.
<
p>In closing Obama is being a realist and stating that Iran could be a threat-which is true the NIE does not conclusively say there is nothing to worry about and in fact says more information is needed. Similarly their actions and words have sent mixed signals, all the more reason to negotiate which is a policy he supports. Unlike Clinton or McCain who both voted for resolutions sending us on the same road to regime change, Obama voted against them and while he reserves the right, as a President must, not to take any option off the table, he explicitly states that the military is a last resort and the problem should be solved diplomatically. We cannot alienate pro-Israel voters or voters worried about national security by being optimistic about a potential enemy disarming without US action, but we cannot also be so bellicose as to rule out proactive options that avoid long term consequences such as diplomacy, negotiation, and using international pressure to get Iran to accept our terms.
what leaves the mouth of Iran’s President (who is NOT the Supreme Leader of Iran) doesn’t have a lot to do with Iran’s actual capabilities for nuclear weapons. Conflating intentions with capabilities is bad thinking–but it’s often good to win propaganda fights, which is why the Bush team used that tactic in 2002 and 2003.
<
p>”The truth is the NIE is just that, an estimate”
Estimates aren’t mere guesswork. The NIE is the consensus view of sixteen intelligence agencies in the US. That means these are statements every agency agrees with. You need a good reason to abandon the NIE, and words from a not that popular Iranian politician’s mouth aren’t a good reason.
<
p>But this all avoids the point: Obama’s made assertions that contradict the consensus of the professionals–which is something Democrats should insist he stop doing. He doesn’t have to do a big mea culpa, just drop the easily falsifiable statements.
I know that the Ayatollah is actually in charge and that he isn’t a big fan of the Presidents posturing, but the Ayatollah could also let the inspectors in and shed light on their actual capabilities. The NIE was wrong on Iraq, and it was the consensus view of several intelligence agencies and several international ones as well that Iraq possessed WMDs-they could be just as wrong on Iran NOT possessing weapons. The only way to find out is to get inspectors in and I completely support Obama’s efforts to do so. Just as the NIE made a country that wasn’t a threat appear as such it might be doing the exact opposite this time. Iran is a fairly closed society and I doubt, especially with Iraq War related cuts to actual intelligence gathering, that we have enough boots on the ground to verify the NIE’s conclusions.
<
p>That said even the NIE admits that Iran is a threat to our allies and to the region even without an active nuclear program, moreover it advocates getting inspectors in. The only way to do that is through diplomacy.
<
p>Also I support some saber rattling if it gets inspectors in-the real disappointment with the Iraq mess was that with inspectors any threat Saddam Hussein posed was neutralized since he would not attack anyone with inspectors in his country and thats what makes the whole war sad. But I agree Obama needs to be careful, we need to be resolute in our push to get inspectors into Iran, but we need not be bellicose or hawkish and its a surprisingly fine line. The liberals who voted for the Iraq War resolution did it to give the Presidents demand teeth, sadly they should’ve known better than to trust Bush with a blank check for war. With the tragedy of that war in mind Obama should be careful to avoid overly bellicose language on Iran. I would argue saying that they are a threat to the US and regional allies is not bellicose. Saying that they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons is counteproductive, but saying that they have stated they intend to pursue them is not. I think Obama said the latter which does not contradict the NIE while McCain is saying the former which does-and leads us down a dangerously different path.
I mean, why else would they take all the sanctions over enriching their own uranium if all they wanted was a civilian nuclear energy operation? They saw what happened in Iraq, if I was them I’d pursue nukes too.
<
p>NIEs are political documents, especially when they’re immediately leaked to the press. This one was released at a time that we were trying to work with Iran to tamp down arms smuggling into Iraq and it’s a great way for them to save face while backing away from the development in the present tense “Oh, we were never doing it!” And notice the date of 2003, consistent with the Bush admin’s theory that invading Iraq would set other countries straight.
<
p>Check the NIE on Iraq in 2002 if you want a hoot đŸ™‚
http://fas.org/irp/cia/product…
<
p>Even if they’re not, which I doubt, the uranium enrichment that everyone agrees they’re doing is the hardest and most time consuming part. It takes a lot of work to get the machines running.. once they enrich to civilian grade, you just run them longer to get military grade. Building the bomb itself is 1940s technology.
<
p>None of this, of course, dictates a particular course of action WRT Iran. But we should be working with the assumption that they’ll be a nuclear power within 10 years or so.
I’m confused by your comment. Iran needs energy and they are turning to uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear energy. My understanding is that nothing about that enrichment is in violation of any international law or agreement.
<
p>Why exactly should we believe your assertion that “Iran’s def building weapons” when it contravenes expert opinion?
A leaked NIE is not an expert opinion, it’s a fundamentally political document leaked at a time that we were trying to negotiate with Iran and get them to cut off al-Sadr.
<
p>As far as why you should believe my assertion, I mean, follow the interests. Iran has a clear interest in acquiring a deterrent and a nationalist victory. Iran, were they not acquiring nuclear weapons, would have zero incentive to insist on enriching their own uranium and taking sanctions up the wazoo for it rather than accepting the much cheaper option of just getting enriched fuel from the ruskies for next to free. Lastly, there’s no difference whatsoever between what they are presently doing and what someone who was pursuing weapons would be doing.
<
p>That adds up to strong likelihood, in my nose at least.
Id agree that ultimately they seek nuclear weapons. The question here is one of intentions vs capabilities. Joel in my view was wrong to criticize Obama at the start of this post for saying Iran has intentions to build nukes. The NIE, which again is very dubious, states that Iran does not have the capabilities it says nothing of the intentions. You and I Jay both agree that Iran has the intentions, as do most intelligence analysts, the question is where are there capbilities. Id say they are in fact several years away from even remotely having the capacity to make a working bomb-but the fact that they are enriching uranium and that they have a massive breeder reactor indicates to me that they want to eventually create plutonium and build a device. They are also at least two decades away from having the delivery systems and number of bombs needed to actually deter the US and Israel.
<
p>Lastly while I agree with your basic theory that regional powers seeking detterance is not an implicitly threatening act, I would disagree that Iran is a rational actor capable of surviving the transition phase-especially with Israel and its first strike policy next door.
which has its own problems, is that Iran could build “peaceful” reactors within IAEC guidelines. However, it has instead gone far outside of those guidelines, at great political and economic cost. Nil combustibus pro fumo.
<
p>It’s not, as I said, a flawless argument, but it is a stong one and one that is not refuted by the leaked intelligence documents.
<
p>Personally–not that anyone should take my word for it–I have no doubt that Iran is readying its nuclear weapons capacity. It is the only explanation that fits.
<
p>Unfortunately George Bush graphically demonstrated to the world the value of a nuclear arsenal by invading Iraq (which had neither nukes nor Al Quada) and befriending Pakistan (which has both). Today’s saber rattling will only validate further Iran’s decision to go nuclear.
<
p>As John Kerry said in the first Bush debate four years ago, this nuclear proliferation is the gravest military threat that faces the United States.
While I have many times argued that any fixation on Ahmadinejad is a better indicator of ignorance of Iranian affairs than anything else, he is even less important than before. ‘Till now, he’d been a useful mannequin for the ruler of Iran Ayatollah Khamenei, who could deploy him to run his mouth off, then plausibly deny anything that goes too far.
<
p>Alas, now Ahmadinejad is running the fate of any stooge who doesn’t know his place…he gets bumped out of the way:
<
p>
<
p>If Obama or McCain take Ahmadenijad seriously from this point on, it means that they should not be taken seriously on the issue of Iran.