Stupid Intelligence

The recent national intelligence estimate that concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is just about the stupidest intelligence assessment I have ever read. It falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past. The tactic is obvious and well-known to all intelligence officials with an IQ above room temperature. It goes like this: There are two tracks to making nuclear weapons: One is to conduct research and develop technology directly related to military use. That is what the United States did when it developed the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project. The second track is to develop nuclear technology for civilian use and then to use the civilian technology for military purposes.

What every intelligence agency knows is that the most difficult part of developing weapons corresponds precisely to the second track, namely civilian use. In other words, it is relatively simple to move from track 2 to track 1 in a short period of time. As Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, both experts on nuclear arms control, put it in a New York Times op-ed on December 6, 2007:

"During the past year, a period when Iran's weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran's civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran's needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

"Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran's, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors -- all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

"...the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications."

Duh! What then can explain so obvious an intelligence gaffe. One explanation could lie in the old saw that "military intelligence is to intelligence as military music is to music." But I simply don't believe that our intelligence agencies are populated by the kind of nincompoops who would fall for so obvious an Iranian ploy. The more likely explanation is that there is an agenda hiding in the report. What then might that agenda be? To find a hidden agenda one should always look for the beneficiaries. Who wins from this deeply flawed report? Well, certainly Iran does, but it is unlikely that Iranian interests could drive any American agenda. Lincy and Milhollin surmise that:

"We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won't solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, '[i]f we can't fix it, it ain't broke?'"

My own view is that the authors of the report were fighting the last war. No, not the war in Iraq, but rather what they believe was Vice President Cheney's efforts to go to war with Iran. This report surely takes the wind out of those sails. But that was last year's unfought war. Nobody in Washington has seriously considered attacking Iran since Condolleezza Rice and Robert Gates replaced Cheney as the foreign policy power behind the throne.

Whatever the agenda and whatever the motive this report may well go down in history as one of the most dangerous, misguided and counterproductive intelligence assessments in history. It may well encourage the Iranians to move even more quickly in developing nuclear weapons. If the report is correct in arguing that the only way of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to maintain international pressure, then the authors of the report must surely know that they have single-handedly reduced any incentive by the international community to keep the pressure up.

If Neville Chamberlain weren't long dead I would wonder whether he had a hand in writing this "peace in our time" intelligence fiasco.

I wish the intelligence assessment were correct. So does most of the media, which accepted its naïve conclusion with uncritical enthusiasm. The world would be a far safer place if Iran had indeed ended its efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. But wishing for a desirable outcome does not make it so. Pretending that a desirable outcome is happening, when the best information indicates that it's not, only encourages the worst outcome.

The authors of this perverse report, which is influencing policy so immediately and negatively, will have much to answer for if their assessment results in a reduction of pressure on Iran -- which is the only nation actually to threaten to use nuclear weapons to attack its enemies -- to stop its obvious march toward becoming the world's most dangerous nuclear military power.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

1.Iran is our SELF-DECLARED enemy. the West didn't pick a fight with Iran. Iran picked a fight with the West. It is common to try to marginalized your enemies. Surely, even some children and Jihadists posting here realize that.

2.We don't need to go to war with Iran.
This administration couldn't manage a lemonade stand, let alone a military engagement.
We need to be more patient. For now sanctions would do.
3. NO ONE, including most Muslim countries wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So posters, please stop your usual and tiresome obsession with Israel, AIPEC fifth columnists etc.
4. No, the argument that Iran needs a nuclear weapon because Israel has one does not hold water. Isarel always was (and is) one lost war away form total destruction. Isarel is surrounded by enemies from all sides. The only reason former enemies (Jordan, Egypt) made peace is because they realized they can't defeat Israel.
So nuclear weapon was developed as a last resort option.
Iran is a giant (by ME standards) and rich nation. There's are and never have been faced with total distraction.
Even when they suffered tremendous losses in the war with Iraq.

[Horst]

The bottom line is that Iran would love to get its hand on a nuclear weapon. Europe and Russia have repeatedly offered to supply Iran with enriched Uranium for civilian reactor use. That's not good enough for the Iranians who like Israel want their own bomb.

[Harrier]

While the basic premise the author of the article makes is certainly true, it is also unfortunate his point of view must come from a religious and Israel perspective. It is also unfortunate, he doesn't mention much of the twisted intel that was manufactured was known by Israel as being flawed, but they stood by and said nothing.

It is true the claim of a nuclear threat was what put this country over the top, but when there are people who know the truth, but don't speak out, which is worse.

There were some people in the administration that did speak out, but even know the press has not asked them anything to provide perspective.

I would love to hear Powell's opinion on Dr Rice

[straightshooter]

Let's cut to the chase: Dershowitz, Podohertz, Perle, Wurmser, Gafney, Frum et al. and Israel are shocked and livid that thanks to unfettered intelligence gathering, there is now a strong possibility that the US will not do Israel's bidding and attack Iran. There is much more to this episode than is apparent. It is the first real sign that Washington is waking up to the fact that it must deal with the native Arab and Iranian peoples of the region and cannot continue with a fatally flawed policy dictated by domestic pro-Israel interests.

[peterg76]

The 'threat' of Iran is not a divine revelation that takes precedence over, you know, reality. If you are going through the stages of grieving because senseless killing and destruction has been averted, remember the process ends with acceptance.

Besides, the point is not that Iran has been suddenly revealed to be an upstanding global citizen. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq - clearly Iran is next on the list, so of course they will try for a nuclear weapon sooner or later. The point is that Iran is not an imminent threat, and that a military strike against Iran is not justified at this time.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

I applaud Professor Dershowitz's courage in standing up against those who consider Iran to be the hero in their neo-liberal hatred of Israel, Jews and all religion. Events of this week have only encouraged the sick elements in Iran's leadership to obtain a victory beyond their wildest imagination. Neo-liberals in this country should wake up and realized that an out of control Iran is a danger to America. Reading some of the commnets here, one would think that the harm that might befall America is a small price to pay in the war against Israel. So let me ask, exactly why do neo-liberals chomp at the bit to destroy Israel? Why is that so important that America's interests should be set aside in favor of cheering a bloodthirsty dictator in Iran? The answer is that this is all part of an agenda. The neo-liberals want to hurt American interests around the world, let the Republicans win in 2008, and somehow bring on a Russian style revolution in this country in which the left will finally put its commissars in place. Am I deliberately making a stretch to make a point? Yes, but it almost seems true.

[outnow]

Alan,

These issues you have raised may well be the defining issues of our times and determine the future of the race.

Under the IAEA Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. How can we verify that they are keeping to their commitment? We can never be certain as to their intentions as they can switch suddenly to weaponizing the enriched uranium. Albert Einstein pointed out the dangers of nuclear weapons to FDR.

I am of the opinion that people should not be allowed to bear arms and that all countries must be disarmed from possessing nuclear weapons. Every day we have a school shooting or a shopping mall disaster or an accidental shooting.

Israel has had a violent history with its neighbors and an ongoing dispute with Palestine. To have a nuclear armed Israel does not solve the problems in the Middle East. T

There was Iraq war which was sold to the American people on the basis of "misrepresented evidence" that would be inadmissible in a court of law. There had been the Pentagon Papers regarding Vietnam and the intentional fraud. A witness who is false in one part is to mistrusted in all other regards. Or, if you prefer, the boy who cried wolf.

The real reasons for the war in Iraq - control of oil pricing and policies, expansion of US power, establishment of US bases in the strategic middle east, defense of Israel - were kept from the American people. It was not about fighting the war on terrorism, keeping weapons out of the hands of rogue states, or bring democracy to the Middle East.

Don't blame the messenger. Iran has no nukes. But a war is ill-advised.

[bloomster]

WOW not a single comment posted!! True lack of democratic values on this blog!

[furion4865]

I certainly endorse Israel's right to exist, but if Israel is apprehensive about Iran having nuclear weapons, then Israel needs to expend its national treasure, manpower and lives to thwart Iran's nuclear aspirations. Oh that's right, they can't. Israel can't bomb Iran because if they do, they'll have every muslim in the middle east trying to destroy it. The bottom-line, America has been acting as Israel's proxy in the middle east, and I for one, wish Israel would fight their own damned battles and let the chips fall where they may. And by the way, when did Mr. Dershowitz become such a racist? Iran is a sovereign nation and it is entitled to protect itself against a nuclear strike by Israel and the only way it can do that is to develop its own nuclear weapon. Why can brown people beholden to imperialist (i.e. India and Pakistan) possess nuclear weapons, while independent brown people are considered nuclear threats? Why can't europeans just mind their own damned business and stop interfering in the middle east; OIL.

[Kane]

If the NIE doesn't fit, then you must acquit.

[zjr909]

I would ask LeoMarvin to please stick to the script and not improvise. When Prof. Dershowitz titles his article "Stupid Intelligence" and proceeds to call the NIE "just about the stupidest intelligence assessment I have ever read," that pretty much disqualifies his article as merely a warning - a gentle reminder - to remain wary. He is out and out condemning the NIE, in no uncertain terms. Therefore, as many herein have stated, he is duty bound to present proof of this report's stupidity. And remember: proof does not consist of what he or anyone else may believe Iran's actual intentions are. Rather, proof consists of what the facts on the ground are. If Prof. Dershowitz has actual knowledge of Iran's nuclear weapons program, he needs to present that information to the appropriate agency - or, at the very least, give it to Mssrs Bush and Cheney. I think the term is "put up or shut up."

[jackpinesavage]

"The more likely explanation is that there is an agenda hiding in the report. What then might that agenda be? To find a hidden agenda one should always look for the beneficiar­ies."

Careful, sir, statements like that could - and should - be used against you and your friends. But i suppose that there was no agenda in the intelligence reports waved so furiously at the American people concerning Iraq.

Mr. Dershowitz, you should consider yourself lucky that the American people have an attention span roughly equal to the lifespan of a fruit fly.

Some of us, however, are getting mighty tired of the beltway/pundit shell game. No conspiracy here, wait, look over there...a conspiracy.

[flatus]

Thanks for the laugh, Mr. D. It is so rare these days to have a lawyer, nuclear proliferation expert AND a comedian all in the same package. You, sir, have quite the resume!

[NYDamien]

First of all, it's gratifying, and somewhat unusual on this site, for a serious discussion taking place where most of the comments are respectful and well thought out, regardless of point of view. Most of the big issues confronting us today are complicated, and don't get solved because the media, and the public, demand slogans, and simple one word/sentence solutions. The Iranian situation is just one example.
A few points:
1. Of course the NIE has an agenda, as does every other institution.
2. The intelligence community under the thumb of Cheney/Rumsfeld is not the Intelligence community of today.
3. Maybe, just maybe, the Intel. Com., out of a patriotic and realistic analysis, wants to buy some time so that these life and death issues can be addressed by an administration possessing a modicum of cognitive and cogent ability. We've seen what the current bunch has done.
4. Please get off the Israel mantra. It is a unique country, in a unique place, with a unique history. It is surrounded by 20 enemy dictatorships whose proven goal is it's annihilation. (There are several who have moved toward accomodation) Having been attacked numerous times, I believe they deserve a pass in equipping itself with the ultimate weapon to prevent it's demise. We do nothing "for" Israel, like we did nothing "for" France (1944) unless it's in our national interest. If we didn't get "from" them more than we give "to" them, we'd be saying "what's an Israel?"
5. Finally, to even think of going to war with a country like Iran, which we know less about than we did about Iraq, borders on a surreal psychosis. With an acute shortage of Arabic interpreters, the Bush administration still felt compelled to fire dozens for being, or knowing, gays, democrats, or being insufficiently Christian.
God bless the NIE.

[Ashraft]

Mr. Dershowitz.

You have failed to mention that the NIE report also stated the Iran is in fact YEARS away from having weapon capabilities by any measure. Why then, not take the Iraqi example? Send inspectors all year round and the minute a threat seems likely and credible then warmongering would seem justified. After all, this plan DID work with respect to Iraq remember? Iraq had no weapons in the end!