It seems that every intelligence report issued over Iraq or Iran has created a rush of conclusion as if the DJ just put on a favorite on the dance floor while the others just wait for the next report that fits their agenda. According to this article in the LA Times this morning, the music is still playing over the PARTIAL NIE report that was just released this week regarding Iran and their nuclear program.
Doves find fault with Iran report too
Some experts fear the intelligence estimate will sap international pressure to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons.
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The new U.S. intelligence report that says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is suddenly raising concerns among the political center and left, as well as conservatives who have long called for a hard line against the Islamic Republic.
Moderate and liberal foreign policy experts said that U.S. intelligence agencies, possibly eager to demonstrate independence from White House political pressure, may have produced a National Intelligence Estimate that is more reassuring than it should be on the potential risks of the Iranian nuclear program.
[...]
Iran expert Ray Takeyh, a former professor at the National War College and National Defense University, said that although his own politics are left of the president’s, he agrees with Bush that Iran’s nuclear program is a continuing threat.
“The position I take is that President Bush is right on this,” said Takeyh, now at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Takeyh, who has long argued for engaging Iran in diplomacy, said the intelligence report was too easy on Tehran by not objecting to the uranium enrichment program, which many Western governments have alleged is meant to build the knowledge base to eventually develop nuclear weapons. The American intelligence agencies, in effect, accepted Iran’s contention that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes, Takeyh said.
[...]
Sharon Squassoni, a former government nuclear safeguards expert now with the generally liberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, noted that the intelligence report said Iran suspended its enrichment program in 2003 and later signed an agreement allowing U.N. inspections.
But, she said, the portion of the report made public was silent on the fact that the Iranians reversed both actions in 2006. (more…)
Now what is going to be interesting to watch is the response of some presidential candidates who have already concluded that this latest report was the complete gospel truth.
Sphere: Related Content
6 Comments
Permalink
I’m curious to know why you consider this a PARTIAL report? I don’t think you would be saying that if the findings were reversed. From what I’ve read this is the most thoroughly written/researched/reviewed NIE in recent memory because of the mistakes of the IRAQ NIE. They changed and reinforced the entire process. And this is the consensus of 16 different agencies… So what is not right about it?
And what exactly do you think we need to be doing against Iran? I hope you are not one of the “ATTACK NOW!” types…
Permalink
I’m curious to know why you consider this a PARTIAL report? I don’t think you would be saying that if the findings were reversed.
What most Americans have been heard being echoed in the media is a general conclusion of the study. It does not include some of the classified parts of the report that may include what these individuals in the article are suggesting (this was acknowledged by a Democratic congresswoman on the news [her name escapes me] who also echoed what the individuals in this article are saying) . As to your assertion that I would have responded “differently” if the findings were reversed, I typically do not draw any solid conclusions until most, if not all the study/report is released to the general public. I hope you do the same.
And what exactly do you think we need to be doing against Iran? I hope you are not one of the “ATTACK NOW!” types…
Just as I hope you are not one of those “Let’s sit down at the table of brotherhood types” all while Iran has been sending foot soldiers and weapons into Iraq to kill innocent civilians and our troops. But based on your position with Obama whose only recommendation so far with that fact in mind is “talk to them”, I have no doubts on that assertion on my part.
Our current fight in Iraq has already turned into a proxy war with Iran (I would also argue that we are also fighting Russia as well) and at some point it has to be dealt with. Should we start dropping bombs on Iran over their nuclear program? I personally do not think so. Should our ships be moved our of the Gulf? No, as long as they (Iran) continues to fight this proxy war in Iraq, the US should be prepared to escalate if Iran continues to make matters worse in Iraq.
The fact of the matter is, we are there NOW. An immediate withdrawal will be just as damaging as it was when they called for the same action in Nam. And just like our immediate withdrawal then and what happened afterwards, the Left will blame the whole thing on somebody else instead of taking any form of responsibility for THEIR piece in the action.
My basic problem with this war is that it has been managed by beltway politics instead of letting the commanders and solders on the field do what they do best: Completely destroy the enemy instead of toying around with him like we did in Fallujah.
For now, I would be more for getting into a fight with Iran over their goings on in Iraq than over their nuke program.
Permalink
As to your assertion that I would have responded “differently” if the findings were reversed, I typically do not draw any solid conclusions until most, if not all the study/report is released to the general public.
If that section is classified then you will probably never know. That would not be released until MANY years later.
An immediate withdrawal will be just as damaging as it was when they called for the same action in Nam.
Really? You mean the Nam in which we have absolutely NO problems with? The Nam that is a trading partner of ours… THAT Nam? For some reason we don’t have a problem TALKING with them now.
For now, I would be more for getting into a fight with Iran over their goings on in Iraq than over their nuke program.
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence…. Where is it? As a matter of fact most of the insurgents from outside of Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia… How about we start bombing them instead… The fact that all the 9/11 hijackers were there too makes it an even better idea. What do you think?
Permalink
If that section is classified then you will probably never know. That would not be released until MANY years later.
Then why make an assumption that this report is some sort of silver bullet to Bush’s current policy over Iran by trumpeting its “thoroughness”?
Really? You mean the Nam in which we have absolutely NO problems with? The Nam that is a trading partner of ours… THAT Nam? For some reason we don’t have a problem TALKING with them now.
Actually the Nam I am referring to is the one where once the US pulled out, close to 2.3 million civilians were slaughtered –more than the body count of civilians when we were there.
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence…. Where is it?
I was going to give you a bunch of links on this one starting from your favorite news channel CNN. Then I decided not to list them because bottom line, if you really wanted to know, you would not have asked the question in the first place and google’d it instead.
Permalink
Then why make an assumption that this report is some sort of silver bullet to Bush’s current policy over Iran by trumpeting its “thoroughness”?
Just because it has sections that I can’t read does not mean it is not thorough. It also does not mean that the conclusion that Iran is not actively developing nuclear weapons is incorrect. They could have easily said the opposite just like they did in 2005 when they said they were SURE IRAN was working on Nukes.
Actually the Nam I am referring to is the one where once the US pulled out, close to 2.3 million civilians were slaughtered
Then why are we doing business with these savages!.. We should still be bombing THEM too!
I was going to give you a bunch of links on this one starting from your favorite news channel CNN.
Because you know I would give you a bunch of links saying the exact opposite. Like this one:
Gen. Pace: No evidence Iran arming Iraqis – Conflict in Iraq …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/
Permalink
Because you know I would give you a bunch of links saying the exact opposite. Like this one:
Now produce one that says Iran IS arming Iraqis then try to draw on a conclusion based on that instead of the tit-for-tat. I’m not over there neither are you. All we can do here is make good guesses based on reports and commentaries that are oftentimes politically-driven.