Where did the new Iran nukes info come from?
(From this week's newsletter)
Here鈥檚 a little test for you. Question 1: Do you think the US intelligence agencies got it right about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? Question 2: Do you think the US intelligence agencies have got it right now about Iran having suspended its nuclear weapons programme four years ago?
My guess is you answered No to Question 1. (It鈥檚 not too difficult, as the agencies themselves have admitted they got it wrong.) But what did you answer to Question 2?
First, a reminder of what the new US National Intelligence Estimate said on Monday: 鈥淲e judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.鈥
Compare that with what was being said two years ago: 鈥淸We] assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.鈥
Were they right then, or are they right now? If you accept that they got it wrong about Iraq, are you more likely to accept that they鈥檙e right about Iran? I don鈥檛 know about you, but this kind of stuff makes my head hurt.
So, always anxious to be of service, I have been trying to discover why the spooks and spies have changed their minds. Here鈥檚 what the reported yesterday: 鈥淎merican intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran鈥檚 nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program 鈥
鈥淭he notes included conversations and deliberations in which some of the military officials complained bitterly about what they termed a decision by their superiors in late 2003 to shut down a complex engineering effort to design nuclear weapons, including a warhead that could fit atop Iranian missiles.鈥
Which immediately raises another question: Where might they have obtained these all-important notes? Well, there鈥檚 an intriguing theory (and it is, as far as I know, no more than that) that a man named may have something to do with it. He鈥檚 a retired general in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards, a former deputy defence minister who was cold-shouldered after President Ahmadinejad came to power and who disappeared (defected?) in Turkey last February.
The Michigan-based Middle East analyst describes him as 鈥渟omeone who knows where all the bodies are buried with regard to Iranian covert operations鈥 鈥 and recalls that at the time of Asghari鈥檚 disappearance, a Turkish newspaper reported that 鈥淭urkish intelligence and police had discovered that Asghari was opposed to the Iranian government and that he holds information regarding its nuclear plan.鈥
All of which may, or may not, help you make up your mind. My point is simply this: intelligence estimates are, as their name suggests, estimates. They are only as good as their source material and the analysis of that material. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. Unfortunately, we often don鈥檛 find out which is which until long after the decisions based on the estimates have been made. But given what you鈥檝e just read, if you had to make a decision now about how to approach Iran, what would you decide?
The USSR was a master of disinformation. Their leaders led the West to beleive many things which simply weren't even remotely true. Iran can play that game with equal facility. So did Saddam Hussein. I still believe the original assessment about Iraq having WMDs was probably correct. There is good evidence to suggest that it was entirely possible. For one thing, much of what was known to exist could not be accounted for except on the word of the Iraqis that they destroyed it without any records. Now who could believe that? Recent revelations about an Iraqi chemical engineer code named "curveball" whom only the Germans had direct access to does throw new doubts on what was believed at the time. There was no reason for the Amreicans not to believe the dodgy dossier British intelligence prepared for Tony Blair. It all fit together in a consistent tapestry including the shell game Iraq played with the inspectors. The delay from September 2002 to March 2003 gave Saddam Hussein's regime plenty of time to hide his WMDs possibly in Syria. At the time, Israeli intelligence reported large convoys of trucks headed from Iraq to Syria. Had he not had any and cooperated, he might still be ruling Iraq and Uday and Cusay still torturing athletes who did not win gold medals.
There is a consistent tapestry related to Iran as well. It is woven with threads which say the world should exist without America (the great satan), that Israel should be wiped off the map (the little satan), support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and interference in neighboring countries like Lebanon. There is also a huge arms program including lots of missiles. Then there is the secrecy surrounding Iran's nuclear program and the fact that it is burried deep underground. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? I don't think most rational thinking Americans would risk America's security by letting its guard down on this one scrap of information which may be deliberately false and planted. December 7 is a particularly appropriate day for Americans to remember what can happen when they delude themselves into a false sense of security. I don't think Britain, France, Israel, or the Arab neighbors of Iran are buying this story yet either. It needs far more corroboration and if false, we are wasting precious time as the threat increases. It's time for the US to issue ultimatums for complete unfettered openness on Iran's part and if not met then the US should assume the worst and attack Iran as planned.
Complain about this postPersonally, I find it difficult to understand why it is ok for people like Mark to wish to effectively remove the government of iran from the map -while it is apparently unforgivably evil if an iranian government official feels the same way about Israel or America.
I seem to remember reading in Chaim Potok's book "The Rabbi" the central figure in the title hears of the birth of israel and claims that the Jews may well have gained a country but have lost their souls. Apparently, other orthodox Jews also oppose the existance of Israel on religious grounds -but we now know that a powerful Jewish lobby in the US is more interested in pushing its own interests -even at the cost of Israel or others. Perhaps Mark is part of this lobby.
Indeed, many non-Americans can also see a consistant but undesirable pattern in US behaviour -which Mark would presumably rather ignore:
For example, Irangate -in which the US government sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Sandinista rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua (see Wikipedia and other sources). Or the Iranian Air Airbus, shot down by the USS Vincennes while on a scheduled flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai with almost 300 passengers, including 66 children, on board. Although the US later fingered Libyia for the Lockerbie bombing, other reports suggest that Iran was responsible as revenge for the Airbus.
In my view, moderate Muslims cannot, and should not, be asked to speak out against their extremists if moderate westerners do not equally firmly speak out against such inaccurate and stupidly prejudiced remarks as those published anonymously above.
The more dangerous the world becomes -the more responsible everybody needs to be -if we are to avoid even bigger global disasters than we are now facing. Personally, I too believe that the world would be a better place without America. I see this as a call for those addicted to the American lifestyle to intelligently reconcider the consequences of their actions: My deeply felt disgust at American bullying, their selective support for terrorism -and the global damage this is causing, is surely not an excuse for such paranoid people as Mark to come and assasinate me. If people like Mark believes it is, then they are surely encouraging people like bin Ladin and others who resort to violence in order to solve complex global problems which are partly caused by their own actions..
Complain about this postTo clarify the issue somewhat, "high confidence" means there are multiple corroborating sources for a particular point in the assessment.
A public source anybody can look for are IAEA reports, which have been saying the same thing, that Iran is not running a nuclear weapons program.
Why the assessment from 2005 would say with "high confidence" that Iran was still running a program is not a mystery. Credible evidence to the contrary (that has been leaked or made public) appear to carry a date of 2006 and later.
To wit, if the intelligence agencies had strong evidence by 2005 that there was an active program as late as 2003, and no credible evidence showed it had ended, then naturally the spooks were going to presume it was still running.
Complain about this postThe history of nuclear programes always relates to questions and answers;except where strong evidence of malice and determination of distruction is evedent on the lips.
Complain about this postThe most recent epiode of "spooks" is an important clu to calm-nerves-down.
History has shown successive U.S. administrations have changed their views on nuclear programmes to suit political strategy at the time - look at Pakistan's nuclear programme for instance.
What isn't talked about anywhere near as much is who sold Iran (and other states) the technology in the first place, and who knew it was going on....
Complain about this post