In late 2007 the United States intelligence agencies issue a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had stopped seeking to build a nuclear weapon. In a column The myth of the Mad Mullahs, David Ignatius wrote that the most important finding of the NIE was not the stoppage of Iranian work on a nuclear weapon.
For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred.""Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be "deterrable" if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, "That is the implication." He added: "Diplomacy works. That's the message."
While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque -- a "black box," in the words of one senior official. "You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process." This official said it was "logical, but we don't have the evidence" that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003.
Of course given the opacity of the decision making process, it could also be that they stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 because they feared the United States, and that as fear of the Americans dissipated they started their program up again.
Now it's being reported that, whoops, the Iranians are indeed pursuing nuclear weapons (via memeorandum)
Obama's nominee to serve as CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, left little doubt about his view last week when he testified on Capitol Hill. "From all the information I've seen," Panetta said, "I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 that was instrumental in derailing U.S. and European efforts to pressure Iran to shut down its nuclear program.
So if the NIE was wrong doesn't that mean that mullahs are mad after all?
As the administration moves toward talks with Iran, Obama appears to be sending a signal that the United States will not be drawn into a debate over Iran's intent."When you're talking about negotiations in Iran, it is dangerous to appear weak or naive," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund, an anti-proliferation organization based in Washington.
Cirincione said the unequivocal language also worked to Obama's political advantage. "It guards against criticism from the right that the administration is underestimating Iran," he said.
So this new information doesn't change the Obama administration's initiative at all? It just protects it form the "right?"
More from Hot Air, Israel Matzav, Mere Rhetoric and Jules Crittenden who writes:
My big question is still how Obama avoids appearing weak or naive. On the second part, I'd be inclined to say that by seeking to give the mullahs equal standing with the Great Satan in direct talks, sure, there is an underestimation of their deviousness and unreliability, but there is also a gross overestimation of their goodwill.
Emanuele Ottolenghi at Contentions sums it up:
Future historians will have a field day with those hapless intelligence experts who drafted the NIE in such a way as to wipe out any residual credibility of a U.S. military strike against Iran in the last year of George W. Bush's presidency, thereby also undermining sanctions efforts by the rest of the international community -- especially if it turns out that the NIE helped push Iranian scientists to the finish line this year.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at February 13, 2009 5:58 AMSome food for thought: I don't believe that Iran would be so confrontational and adversarial if they didn't already have a nuclear device.
I believe the show we are witnessing is contrived, designed to show that Iran is capable of 'outsmarting' or 'standing up' to America and the west and producing nuclear weapons capability.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at February 13, 2009 12:38 PM