Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
For Once, Let's Use Our Intelligence
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, so why not extend an olive branch?
It's getting harder and harder to keep track of the bad guys.
On Monday, the director of national intelligence released declassified portions of a new National Intelligence Estimate, which summarizes the collective wisdom of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies. (Yes! Because we are a great and powerful nation, we have 16 intelligence agencies.) And it turns out, according to the new NIE, the Iranians won't be starting World War III after all because, wouldn't you know it, they stopped trying to make nuclear weapons in 2003.
To quote the NIE: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. ... We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
This is confusing. In 2005, the NIE asserted, "with high confidence," that Iran was "currently determined to develop nuclear weapons." Well, whatever! One day you think the Iranians are making nuclear weapons, the next day you realize they're actually manufacturing fuzzy pink bedroom slippers.
But that's what it's like in the post-WMD-in-Iraq-fiasco intelligence community. Groupthink has now been banished in favor of a subversive, happy-go-lucky spirit, characterized by the introduction of new technical terms into the NIE, such as "we do not know" and "we do not have sufficient intelligence to judge," which is code for "we really don't have a clue."
What startling revelations will future NIEs contain? Maybe "Osama bin Laden: Just a Peaceful Shepherd," or "China: Not Actually in Asia Anymore"?
I don't mean to sound ungrateful to the intelligence community (though it has never invited me to any of its barbecues), and really, I'm thrilled to hear that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. But it would be nice to feel that the answers to our most pressing intelligence questions aren't just blowing in the wind. Remember those unfortunate pictures, back during the 2004 presidential election, of John Kerry windsurfing? Over the last six years or so, our intelligence has had a similar look and feel.
WMD in Iraq! Whoops, sorry, no WMD in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein in cahoots with Al Qaeda! No, strike that ... captured terrorists will say just about any old thing when you waterboard them.
Iran is making nuclear weapons! Uh, never mind.
But if tracking the ever-shifting intel gives you whiplash, you can always recover by contemplating the Bush administration's national security policies, which are frozen in place for all eternity. Just as the breakdown in prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq never led the administration to seriously reconsider its war plans, the intelligence community's about-face on Iran appears only to have hardened Bush's determination to proceed exactly as previously planned.
To most of humanity, the NIE contains extremely good news: If international pressure led Iran to stop trying to make nuclear weapons in 2003, it means that the Iranian regime is less dangerously crazy than it occasionally seems. As the NIE notes, it appears that "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." In other words: We can probably cut some deals with these people.
But to Bush, the NIE isn't good news, it's "a warning signal." The report shows that "they had the program. They halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it." So full speed ahead with bellicose rhetoric and punitive sanctions.
We can now say (with "high confidence") that this administration really knows how to screw up a good thing.
The latest NIE is a warning signal all right. It's a warning that sometimes what we think we know turns out to be wrong, and implicitly, it's a warning that we may have only a short time in which to take advantage of our somewhat improved understanding of reality.
Iran, U.S. Enemy No. 1, has been insisting for years that it's not trying to develop nuclear weapons, despite the Bush administration's claims to the contrary. Over the last few years, Iran has made several overtures to the U.S., which the Bush administration has rebuffed. The NIE gives us an excellent -- and fleeting -- opportunity to extend an olive branch of our own and open direct and wide-ranging talks with Iran.
Such a strategy could benefit everyone. As Iran experts Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr argue in the upcoming edition of Foreign Affairs, the U.S. and Iran have "similar objectives: Both want to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq and prevent the civil war there from engulfing the Middle East. ... If Iran enjoyed favorable security and commercial ties with the United States and was at ease in its region, it might restrain its nuclear ambitions."
Instead of cutting off our nose to spite our face, isn't it time to try cutting some deals?
-- rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times



27 Comments so far
Show Allthe poor olive branch was trampled under foot,on the march to bagdad.why has that agressive and unnecessary act seemingly been whitewashed...besides the poisonous residues left in the wake....the whole middle east has been sent backwards in time.women especially.now the saudi's step up the persecution of females.iraq was a very progressive country,under the sometimes evil saddam..and the greatest thing the middle east has lost,due to illegal agressions by the west....was a better future for the women of the middle east.the treatment of women under the regime of saddam,was miles and miles ahead of any other country in the region.iran may be going nuclear..but human rights is still a dinosaur in iran.
Of course bushie thinks it's time for some good deals, unfortunately for humanity his idea of a good deal is one where the merchants of death profit handsomely.
Devils and Gods now that's an idea
But if we believe that its They who decide
That's the ultimate detractor of crimes
'cause Devils and Gods
They are You and I
Devils and Gods
They are You and I
Devils and Gods
Safe and Inside
Tori Amos - "Devils and Gods" from the Album American Doll Posse
But we have to go by our good books, and pledge allegiance to it win the elections and then package the treasury for our best friends, family, and fellow believers.
If we put in our office people who did not have their heads up their well-oiled butts, we could occasionally call ourselves a democracy.
Love
Zero
Having been-invited to more than one Bar-B-Que thrown by our&allied Intel-communities, I can state 'with high-confidence' that anyone reading/hearing/influenced by any drivel emerging publicly from these Sweet-16 is being lied-to so egregiously that they may as well assume a "looking-glass opposite" whenever their lips-move...
[That's my 2007 NIE...and no trees were harmed due its Publication...!]
[I]t means that the Iranian regime is less dangerously crazy than it occasionally seems.
Or, more accurately, it is less dangerously crazy than it is made to appear by those with a vested interest in doing so.
Articles, like this one, that buy into the same propaganda and misinformation that they are allegedly disputing drive me bonkers. But I suppose some might say that's not such a long drive.
USA: NO Intel Inside
"Robbing and killing their `enemies' make much of the human species feel good. After all, a live man is superior to a dead one by any test you can give them. When you kill your enemy, you automatically make yourself his superior. So we should not be surprised when men go to bizarre lengths to find pretexts for attacking other groups, whether racial, religious, linguistics, or other." -from the Ape-man within
No matter how beautiful and elegant they look, or how fine the eat and drink. It is us not them who should remember "even the most sophisticated ape must urinate.
Well said, RichM. But I suppose we should by now be accustomed to the issues facing USA Incorporated (and I use that terminology advisedly) always being framed in terms of their interventionist nature and degree rather than their fundamental legitimacy.
RichM: Good post, as usual. I especially like your observation that the US has no right to threaten Iran in the first place. But I would go one step further.
Ever since WW2 the US has been threatening the world with nuclear holocost. This is not just a Bush phenominon (sp). The only difference really is that we all know in our heart of hearts that Bush would actually push the big red button. The only reason that this NIE even came to light is because General Fallon doen't want that red button pushed against Iran.
Olive branches are meaningless. The whole paradigm of US empire has to shift. The whole concept that the US has the right to dominate the entire world has to discarded. Nukes have to be taken "off the table" permanently. Wars of agression have to be "taken off the table" permanently. For the past 30 years, all major industrial nations governments have known that peak oil is coming. And they have acted accordingly to position their governments for survival. It's all about the oil folks. And survival of the most murderous. And world dominance and survival is a non-partisan issue.
Vote for peace or the extintion of the human race. That's the only choices we have at this point.
Being a fascist tool means never having to say you're sorry.
"Instead of cutting off our nose to spite our face, isn't it time to try cutting some deals?"
Sure, the deal is simple: do what we say and we'll let you live. Why is it so hard for the rest of the world to understand that the homeland executive is only following some God's direct orders? Jeeze...
There are several adages from the Cold War era that come to mind that define our country's mindset about percived enemies.
I will let you fill in the blanks. The one word that was used then: "Commie".
The only good "_______" is a dead one. OR
Kill a "_________" for Christ.
So if the Director of National Intelligence announces that based on classified information, he has high confidence that my neighbor stopped beating his wife in the fall of 2003, should we all believe this proves my neighbor in fact used to beat his wife, and did so as recently as 2002?
Bill from Saginaw
@ Bill from Saginaw: Not if you believe Russia's foreign minister as reported by the Jerusalem Post amongst others.
Presonally, I'd say that the credibility of either is somewhat questionable and, frankly, I think Iranians would be stupid not to want a few nukes under current circumstances. They seem to have served North Korea quite well.
The only olive branch Bush would be capable of offering would be one dipped in batrachotoxin.
This is why i love commondreams. After reading all of your posts, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is being trumpeted as a blow to the administration, when really it is the exact opposite. It's like Bill from Saginaw said, What this new report is really doing is proving the administration correct in assuming that Iran has persued nuclear weapons in the past, which alludes to the fact they may again in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if this report is actually used to further the arguement for war further down the line, say-after the new president takes office?
Bill from Saginaw: Well said. I was wondering what analogy to use with my friends who are too afraid to see what's really happening here. You've given it to me.
With my gratitude.
Open letter to Congress
The Bush Administration's recent refusal to accept the NIE report of findings on Iran is seriously disturbing. Given the administration's past history on Iraq, this recent stand by Mister's Bush and Chaney, offers conclusive evidence of delusional paranoia, and demonstrates a psychotic inability to engage in truth and reality. Such actions show incompetence at best, and/or pathology at worst. Either way, they define a dire situation of immense importance that must be addressed immediately. A vote of "no confidence", for a situation of this magnitude, could only appear patronizing or condescending. Mister's Bush and Chaney must be invited to step down from office or face impeachment, forthwith.
It would be understandable for Congress to be taken aback by this message, but I would site the relevance of taking action when events such as the above stand as glaring warning signals.
PrestonDigitator December 6th, 2007 7:36 pm
Open letter to Congress
".....A vote of "no confidence", for a situation of this magnitude, could only appear patronizing or condescending. Mister's Bush and Cheney must be invited to step down from office or face impeachment, forthwith."
They would have to be caught in the Oval Office with their pants down before another impeachment will take place in this corrupt and intellectually-bankrupt country.
why did it take them so long to find this out?
"Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, so why not extend an olive branch?"
Not much oil in an olive branch.
The difference is this NIE wasn't cooked by the neocon liars and spin meisters. Iran will need to be watched for...forever, but there is no nuclear weapons program at this time, and any physical assets we desroy can be replaced.
Does anyone truly believe that Bush ever believed that Iran is actually a threat? Or that Iraq ever was? How naive can people be? It's got nothing to do with nuclear arms, supporting terrorism or spreading democracy. It has everything to do with a Neo-con, imperialistic objective that is dedicated to obuscating its true intentions!
'Diplomacy' is nothing more than this administration's code for 'Potemkin Village Time'!
If you want true diplomacy between Iran and the rest of the international community please sign and circulate this petition to everyone and anyone
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/2021456/
No problem.
Israel has Cheney and Bush's back on this one.
Here's a snippet from today's Jeruselum Post on the subject:
Dec 6, 2007 23:59 | Updated Dec 7, 2007 16:22
IDF to show US nuclear data on Iran
By YAAKOV KATZ
Disappointed after failing to make their case on Iran and influence the outcome of the United States's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released this week, Military Intelligence will present its hard core evidence on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program on Sunday to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during a rare visit he will be making to Israel.
Admiral Michael Mullen will land in Israel Sunday morning for a 24-hour visit that will include a one-on-one meeting with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
According to a Time magazine article published Wednesday, Mullen is a member of the Pentagon's "anti-war [with Iran] group" that includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, current commander of the US Central Command.
In a recent press briefing in Washington, however, "Mullen took a hard-line approach, refusing to rule out the possibility that military force will be used to stop Iran's race towards nuclear power."
I like that. "Mullen refusing to rule out the possibility that military force will be used."
President Cheney, President Bush, President Mullen, President Ohlmert.
Whatever.
scaredhippie December 6th, 2007 6:40 pm
This is why i love commondreams. After reading all of your posts, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this is being trumpeted as a blow to the administration, when really it is the exact opposite. It's like Bill from Saginaw said, What this new report is really doing is proving the administration correct in assuming that Iran has persued nuclear weapons in the past, which alludes to the fact they may again in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if this report is actually used to further the arguement for war further...
What if the administration IS correct? After all, the U. S. has nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, North Korea, China. Everybody is trying to either get them or improve the ones they've got. Can't we all just get along?
This is sarcasm in part because so many on this blog think illegal immigration should be accorded anybody who decides to drop in. If that's true, then why not everybody have a nuclear device...just because they're human beings no different from us.