Source: Arms Control Association, Volume 1, Number 18, August 12, 2010
Comments by senior U.S. officials in 2010 have continued to endorse the principal conclusions of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities." This may come as a surprise for those accustomed to seeing that earlier document described by pundits and journalists as "flawed," or "erroneous." In fact, from the moment the NIE's sanitized Key Judgments were released in late November 2007, the estimate has been subject to virulent criticism, particularly by those who regret that it did not provide justification for a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear program.
Many critics have impugned the motives of its authors. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has called the NIE "deceptive."1 Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Minority Member (and former Chairman) of the House Intelligence Committee has called it "a piece of trash."2 There is some considerable irony in hearing such criticism from those intimately familiar with the inner workings of the intelligence community, who seemed to have sleep-walked through the serious professional lapses of the 2002 NIE on Iraq WMD.
It is time to take another close look at the claims made by the Iran Nuclear NIE in light of the critical choices now confronting policy makers.
The most important conclusions from the fall of 2007 still obtain:
There has been no retreat from the key historical judgment that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and no advance to a conclusion that Iran had decided to develop nuclear weapons. According to open source information, foreign intelligence services have suggested that some level of nuclear weapons program activity has been underway since 2003. (See, for example, Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, June 28, 2010). It is reasonable to conclude that Iran wants at least to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons.
Yet Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Jr., Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, said in early 2010 that: "The bottom line assessments of
the NIE still hold true. We have not seen indication that the (Iranian)
government has made the decision to move ahead with the program."3 The
State Department's July 2010 Compliance Report stated flatly that: "Iran had a
comprehensive nuclear weapons development program that was ordered halted in
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reached a similar conclusion in his Annual 2010 Threat Assessment: "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."5
If a decision is made to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, CIA Director Leon Panetta claims that it would probably take a year for Iran to enrich sufficient uranium from its current stockpile of LEU (following the expulsion of IAEA inspectors) "and another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."6
It would appear then that the long-anticipated "Memorandum to Holders," which is expected to update the 2007 NIE, is likely to revise it rather than revoke it by acknowledging that some kind of ongoing research on nuclear weapons is occurring, without questioning the validity of the 2003 halt that was detected or concluding that Iran has definitively decided to build a bomb. Iran's secret construction of a uranium enrichment facility near Qom, exposed and effectively neutralized in September 2009, deepened suspicions that Iran was interested in developing at least a breakout capability for clandestinely producing fissile material for weapons, independent of its existing LEU stockpiles, which are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, if there were shocking discoveries of unambiguous nuclear weapons intent in the revelations of defectors like Asgari and Amiri, one would have expected to see an alteration in the phraseology used by senior U.S. intelligence officials to describe Iran's nuclear program. This has not happened.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has decided to withhold from the American people even the bottom line judgment of the next estimate on this critical issue for U.S. security policy. This means that we will have to do our best to divine what our government thinks it knows and when it is making an educated guess. This also means that the public and the press will continue to be vulnerable to careless or deliberate misinterpretations of estimates by pundits with an axe to grind. - GREG THIELMANN
About the author: Greg Thielmann most recently served as a senior professional staffer of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Prior to joining the SSCI in 2005, he was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer for 25 years, last serving as Director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (read more)
1-R. James Woosley, "Too Much Mr. Nice Guy," New York Times, May 6, 2010.
2-Eli Lake, "Review: Iran never halted nuke work in '03," Washington Times, January 19, 2010.
3-Gary Thomas, "US Defense Spy Chief: Iran Undecided on Nuclear Bomb," VOANews.com, January 12, 2010.
4-State Department, "Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments," July 2010, p. 66.
5-Dennis C. Blair, "Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence," February 2, 2010.
6-Leon Panetta, Interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News: This Week, June 27, 2010.
Related Articles:Neocon War Plans Undermine Iranians' Quest for Democracy - The "Bomb Iran" crowd, fresh off their historic blunder in Iraq, is now at it again with Iran. -Shawn Amoei, Huffington Post 8/14/10
Israeli Generals and Intel Officials Oppose Attack on Iran - Pro-Israeli journalist Jeffrey Goldberg's article in "The Atlantic" magazine was evidently aimed at showing why the Barack Obama administration should worry that it risks an attack by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran in the coming months unless it takes a much more menacing line toward Iran's nuclear programme. -Gareth Porter, IPS 8/14/10A campaign for war with Iran begins - Obama administration officials, as well as U.S. lawmakers and European diplomats passionately made the argument this spring that tough sanctions on Iran were necessary to avoid war. But contrary to their predictions, the drumbeat for war -- particularly from Israel -- has only increased since the UN Security Council adopted a new resolution against Tehran in June. -Trita Parsi, Salon 8/13/10
U.S. Magazine Says Israel Likely To Bomb Iran In Next 12 Months- The odds of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities within the next year have risen to above 50 percent, according to a report in a leading U.S. magazine. -RFE 8/13/10
ISRAEL'S PILLARS OF SAMSON- NOT QUITE ARMAGEDDON, BUT.... - As the US edges toward an unprovoked and utterly needless war with Iran, some remarks by an eminent and experienced observer of that part of the world caught my attention. First, he noted that "Israel and the US realize that the next war will burn much of the Middle East and may well spell the end of Israel." - Dr. Alan Sabrosky
The War Party: Who are they? What are they?
I often make reference to "the War Party" in this space: it's a convenient shorthand, one that evokes an image of something sinister, even Satanic, and this serves my rhetorical purposes well. But if we unpack the concept, and look for examples in real life, what we find is a little more prosaic than Satan with a sword. -Justin Raimondo, Antiwar
Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran - MEMORANDUM FOR: The President -- We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel's leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. -consortiumnews
Bomb Iran?: Neocon Nutballs Ramp Up Campaign - Reuel Marc Gerecht's screed in the Weekly Standard seeking to justify an Israeli bombing attack on Iran coincides with the opening of the new Israel lobby campaign marked by the introduction of House resolution 1553 expressing full support for such an Israeli attack. -Gareth Porter, Counterpunch
Who Voted for War With Iran, Mr. Obama? - House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates. -American Conservative
Iran's Nuclear Program
... Payvand News - 08/14/10 ... --