British Intelligence Is Smarter Than Ours -- and Than Gary Hart

Anyone who doubts that Iran is determined to develop deliverable nuclear weapons should not be in a position of decision making or influence. The evidence is as clear as can be, despite the "fog of peace" artificially constructed by the recent National Intelligence Estimate issued by our government's collective intelligence agencies. It may be true, as the estimate concludes, that in 2003 the Iranian shifted from a single track approach to a duel track approach--from taking direct steps toward building the bomb to taking indirect steps that have both civilian and military applications. But it does not follow that either the goal of the program, or even its schedule, has changed significantly.

As I demonstrated in a blog posting on the Huffington Post, nothing has really changed with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat since 2003 except that Iran is closer today than it was then to developing a nuclear bomb.

Yet our intelligence community seems to have fallen for Iran's version of two-card monte. Either that, or they are deliberately trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public in order to discourage what they believed was a drum-beat for a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

One prominent public figure who seems entirely willing to pull the wool over his own eyes, and those of his readers, is former senator and former presidential hopeful Gary Hart.

Hart defends the National Intelligence Estimate and castigates me for questioning its Poliana-ish conclusion. He compares those who are concerned about Iran with old-time cold warriors who are trying to fight "the Cold War all over again." He went so far as to call my concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions "not only hysterical but almost catatonic" (He must mean "paranoid" since catatonics manifest their illness by immobility and inaction.)

Well, now my concerns about Iran have been echoed by the British Parliaments' Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Chief United Nations nuclear inspector.

Here is how the British Committee's chairman put it, following a visit to Iran and based on the extensive evidence received by the group:

"There is a strong possibility that Iran could establish a "breakout" nuclear weapons capability by 2015." A "breakout capability" is the ability to manufacture a nuclear device within a short period of time by virtue of its nonmilitary nuclear technical capabilities and assets."

Precisely what I, and other critics of the National Intelligence Estimate have been saying! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, seems to agree. Last Friday he boasted that Iran "will have the final victory in the nuclear arena." This doesn't sound he's talking about a peaceful nuclear alternative energy source in his oil-soaked nation.

Last week the chief United Nations nuclear inspection provided new evidence, including video from Iran's own military laboratories, showing work "not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon." The Iranian representative shouted out that the new evidence consisted of "baseless fabrications." No one believed him.

No one except Gary Hart, who has a clear conflict of interest when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. For years now, Hart has been a mouthpiece for the former Soviet Union, especially in the area of alternative energy. He is a founder of the United States-Russia investment fund. It is Russia which exports much of the material necessary for Iran's nuclear program. If Iran were forced to end its nuclear program, Russia would suffer and so would Gary Hart.

Despite this obvious conflict of interest, which Hart failed to disclose, he has the temerity to accuse others of harboring hidden agendas. This is what he wrote:

The real question is this: What is Professor Dershowitz's agenda here? Many bloggers automatically assumed is has to do with Israel. But Professor Dershowitz does not say so and, having known and respected him for many years, I presume if he is angry because the intelligence report undermines his broader purpose, he would have the courage to simply say so.

Until he does, one must shake one's head in sadness at a fine mind longing for the Cold War, or for a new villain to justify a wrong-headed empirial militancy in the Middle East, or who knows what.

Perhaps now is the time for everyone to put their cards on the table.

Well my cards are on the table. Yes, I worry that an Iran with nuclear weapons, that it has already threatened to use against Israel, would become the first nation in the mid-East to use its nuclear arsenal, not only against Israel but against American interests. I worry that if Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other mid-East nations will feel it necessary to go nuclear as well. I worry that Iran may hand off nuclear material to its surrogates, including Hezbollah. I worry that the deeply flawed and misleading National Intelligence Agency will make a preemptive attack against Iran more, not less likely, because it will weaken the case for sanctions, as it already has, and embolden Iran to move even more quickly toward developing nuclear weapons. I strongly prefer diplomacy and sanctions to a preemptive military strike. That too is why I am so critical of the highly politicized and misleading National Intelligence Estimate. I am certainly not a cold warrior, that too is why I don't want to see a nuclear Iran. A cold war with a nuclear Iran would be even more dangerous than the one we had with the Soviet Union, because of Iran's suicidal and apocalyptic leadership.

So Gary Hart, my cards are on the table. Now let's see yours!

Comments

[Marlyn]

"our intelligence community seems to have fallen for Iran's version"

but not you, they don't fool you. You are on to them. You you you ...

[Stirner]

Alan, after your despicable dealings with DePaul University in the case of Norman Finkelstein, you have lost your credibility in anything whatsoever.

[runswithscissors]

You left one card hidden underneath the table. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons of its own and the advanced delivery systems needed to attack any nation in the Middle East. I know you feel that Israel gets to play by different rules than everyone else...the majority of the world, however, knows that this is pure BS. NO CASE WHATSOEVER can be made for opposing an Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise, as long as Israel has these weapons.

I have serious doubts about Iran's intenions to build nuclear arms to begin with. This is the same British Intelligence that said Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Their government wants war as badly as ours does. Their agenda, just like yours, is blantently obvious.

As for conflicts of interest, look no further than a war-mongering "President" with family connections to the weapons giant Carlyle Group.

[Desiderata]

Rivers of blood. Hundreds of thousands of innocents killed and maimed.

After all this horror, have you no shame, at last, Mr. Dershowitz?

[SamSedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

Mr. Dershowitz,

The likes of you, David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz have gotten in such a habit of desperately trying to proof whether Iran is or isn't developing nuclear weapons that you have assumed that you don't have to explain why Americans should care to begin with.

You say that "has already threatened to use against Israel, would become the first nation in the mid-East to use its nuclear arsenal, not only against Israel but against American interests.­" This is of course a flat-out lie. I don't know about you, but I speak Farsi fluently; I was born in Iran and lived there for 17 years. And not once have I heard anything that would suggest that Iran intends to attack Israel with any kind of weapons. And I think it's nice try on your part to stick "American interests" at the end of that sentence to make Americans feel like they should care. What are those American interests, Mr. Dershowitz?

Israel has maintained a four-decade-long illegal military occupation all the while the United States has sent one-fifth of our entire foreign aid to it and vetoed every UN Security Council resolution that has been passed against Israel. In the meantime, we have allowed Israel to have nuclear weapons without joining the NPT and thought that we have any legitimacy to tell Iran - an NPT member - that it cannot enrich uranium.

Mr. Hart gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that your previous post wasn't about Israel. I'm not going to; every single writing of yours on this topic shows that you clearly care more about the only Apartheid and military occupier in the Middle East than the interests of Americans.

Throughout the years, Iran has repeatedly tried to establish relations with the United States, but Israel and AIPAC have constantly prevented any such relations to get established. Israel doesn't want the United States to talk to Iran because it knows that such a conversation may lead to a conversation about Israel's atrocities in the West Bank and Gaza. And part of the reason why the American people haven't been outraged about the situation is because "professors" such as you have gotten in the habit of posing allegations about Iran that are unfounded, such as the idea that Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel, which is again a complete lie.

And in the last paragraph, you hint at your worry of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Well, I have news for you. Israel – the only state in the Mid East with nuclear weapons – has already started the nuclear arms race! So EVEN IF Iran were to eventually acquire nuclear weapons – and that's a BIG IF – then that's a response to Israel that has already acquired nuclear weapons.

And finally, calling Iran's leadership "suicidal and apocalyptic" is borderline ridiculous. You make this argument to counter the argument of those who say that even if Iran acquires a weapon, they wouldn't dare use it out of the fear of being annihilated. You conveniently remove that argument by arguing that the Iranian leadership is irrational. Well, there are MANY things that are wrong with the leadership in Iran. But not once over the 30-year history of the republic has the regime done anything that a rational state with a rational leadership would not do, and you have not pointed to any as an example either. You know why? Because that example doesn’t exist. Iran is a self-interested and rational actor just like any other state in the region.

So it's fine if you are going to attempt to mislead the public by making up so many things and manage to get all of them in such a short article. But Mr. Dershowitz, when you make things up, be ready to be called out on them. We can no longer afford to sit back and watch people who care more about Israel than the United States to determine our policy in the Middle East. When it comes to our foreign policy, our interests should come first, and that’s the bottom line.

[Lon]

So the intelligence agency that told us Iraq was trying to get nuclear material at a time when they weren't now says that Iran is pursing its nuclear program in a way that our intelligence agencies doubt. Why exactly should we trust the people who got it more wrong last time around?

Of course it is plausible enough that Iran would be secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Israel did under similar circumstances. We would if we were in their shoes. But so far the cards that you put on the table look pretty much like the cards that were on the table before the invasion of Iraq. And they turned out to be the wrong cards.

[fourex]

Yes, we worry about a nuclear Iran. I'm sure millions want a world without these weapons. How many people were and are worried that GW Bush has the nuclear suitcase, or that the unstable countries of North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear arms.? Why do you think armed conflict and military strikes are the preferred solution? We need greater minds than those present to find solutions without conflict.

[Malkintent]

Alan, you excepted (and promoted) all the lies that got us into Iraq, now you ignore the truth that will keep us out of Iran?

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Iran doesn't need to develop these weapons, they can simply BUY them if they want them. If you don't believe Iran has allies who would willing sell them nuclear weaponry, you must be delusional.

Dr. Mohammed Khan, who developed the Pakistani nuclear program, has been running a virtual K-Mart of nuclear technology for years. http://www.mugshots.com/Terrorists/Dr.+Mohammed+Khan.htm

[HeevenSteven]

Highly politicized intelligence estimate!?? If it was politicized in your favor the way we got into Iraq you'd call it sane and professional. You're too transparent Alan.

The Nuke genie is out of the bottle. All you can do with the military is delay the inevitable. Diplomacy is the only thing that has a chance for the long term. Air strikes will only convince them they need it more; and it will only make us more enemies and harden the positions of the one we already have.

[desmirl]

Let's see. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of people of good will, high intelligence, and access to information who have created the NIE. Then, there's good ol' Al Dershowitz who thinks he's both brighter and better informed than all those people, combined. Who am I gonna believe? Sorry, Al. No one believes lawyers, anyway.

[HeevenSteven]

Good point! Alan has credibility because??

[Fairfloss]

He has as much credibility as you or me, because he is a free thinking American. Why do you think only your idea's matter and why are you so very afraid to allow any one with different points of view to swim in your pool of denial?
When others are refused their own points of view, will you than be happy?