The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz

Throughout most of the Cold War any challenge to the proposition that "the Russians are coming and they're 30 feet tall" was met with derision and outrage by the Right. As a veteran of both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, I saw repeated rejection of any intelligence estimate that questioned that mantra or placed Soviet military capabilities or intent to use them in any realistic light. The most notorious, but not the only, instance was the appointment of a "Team B" to challenge the view of intelligence experts that the Soviet economy was a mess and its military not much better.

Of course, as we now know, the intelligence community, especially the CIA, was right and the Right was wrong.

Now comes Professor Dershowitz, in a rant that is not only hysterical but almost catatonic, presuming to know more about what is, or is not, going on in Iran than the sum total of sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies combining hundreds of thousands of the nation's most expert intelligence collectors and analysts who annually consume forty or fifty billion American tax dollars.

One did not hear much from Professor Dershowitz when those same intelligence agencies held to the position that Iran was on track to develop nuclear weapons, or at least when President Bush made that claim while suppressing any questions to the contrary. So, by collecting new intelligence and placing it under more intense scrutiny, and, one hears, by threatening to release this report if the White House continued to suppress it, these same intelligence experts suddenly become incompetents and "nincompoops" pursuing, according to Professor Dershowitz, some nefarious agenda of their own. It is never clear what that agenda is supposed to be.

Sounds like the Cold War all over again. Intelligence is good when it tells you what you want to hear. Otherwise, it is dangerously flawed if not sinister.

Experience and common sense tells me that these sixteen agencies with hundreds of thousands of employees pursuing a secret agenda doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

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.

What has undermined public support for the war in Iraq is the suspicion that other agendas, not least oil among them, were at work but not being disclosed by our leaders. It is a sure guarantee that the American people will turn against any foreign enterprise when they come to suspect that they are not being told the truth.

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

Comments

[Mariofaz]

Mr. Hart: Dershowitz is right! Don't build arguments to convince yourself of what you want because you have hiden purposes. I remember that the military intelligence declared that Castro's regime was not a threat to the US and just a few days after 9/11 Ms. Ana Belen Montes working for the Pentagon and in charge to do the reports on Cuba was in fact spying for Cuba! She was tried, convicted and sentenced to 20 years. You know what this is: diversion tactics sir. either on purpose or driven by the hate indirectly yo feel for the US and the selfguilt for living in a world power.Get a grip, hold tight, close your eyes and THINK!

[BillZBubb]

Dershowitz has become a sorry spectacle. His obvious, overzealous support for Israel has destroyed his judgment. It is a sad thing to see someone lose it so completely.

[Evelyn]

The NIE bases its conclusion on the classified information of 16 intelligence agencies. Alan Dershowitz bases his on a careful reading of a NY Times op-ed piece. Who ya gonna believe?

It looks like the plan agreed to by Israel to let the US attack Iraq first, provided we promised to get back to Iran later, is falling apart, and Mr. Dershowitz is very unhappy.

[Kane]

A major problem with the National Intelligence Estimate on pre-war Iraq is that it was written in stone despite being overwhelmingly vague and riddled with caveats. It easily allowed the individual reader to cherry-pick information and to paint their own interpretation. One person's "slam dunk" was another person's faulty evidence.

This recent assessment on Iran may prove to be a shifting of realities in Washington and in the intelligence agencies in how information is gathered, read, and shared within the entire intelligence community. To be sure, reports that the NIE was delayed at least three times by Dick Cheney is proof that necessary improvements to repair the system remain. However, this recent report provides some hope that the intelligence community is moving in the right direction.

[outnow]

Thanks for setting the record straight. What the Professor argued is that the "ends justify the means." He includes the issue of torture.
That's not what he argued in court and taught his law students at Harvard. The police were abusive interrogators and the constitution was subject to no exceptions

So just what is his agenda? I think it is to "support" Israel's most right-wing agenda (not shared by all Israelis), and that includes an immediate attack on Iran - without regard to whether or not there are WMDs in Iran or just a nuclear enrichment program that Iran has a right to pursue.

I'm just the messenger, so don't get upset. We just disagree. I used to say, "and it's a free country," but after 9-11, that just isn't the case, unfortunately.

[Doofus]

While I'm rarely/never in agreement with Alan
Dershowitz, an aversion to Political Correctness
demands that it should be noted that just because
A.D. says 'They're wrong!' doesn't mean 'They're right!'

If the IAEA doubts the accuracy of the NIE, then
one should take notice.

NY Times - December 5, 2007
Monitoring Agency Praises U.S. Report, but Keeps Wary Eye on Iran
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.

“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”

The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising­.”

That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.

But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions. ...

(Please don't say that because this item appeared
in the NYT, that it must be bogus, because that just isn't so.)

[jacknab]

Professor Dershowitz has been off the rails since he came out supporting torture with his spurious arguement about the terrorist who has a nearby nuclear weapon ready to go off. I use to think he knew something about the Constitution, now I serious doubt he knows much about anything. He is certainly no intelligence expert. Perhaps he is in the early stages of alzheimer.

Have been reading the new Nixon Kissinger bio and it is frightening reading about the advice regarding Vietnam, (a war he knew could not be won militarily), in light of the recent revelation of his advice to Bush and the war in Iraq. It sends a chill up the spine.

[Kajur]

I came with: "Hypocritical liar"
Can anybody come with better description for Alan,
please?

[EspressoAtNoon]

I think it is obvious what Alan's agenda is and I'm glad you're putting a spotlight on it.

I get so sick of "Israel Firsters" in American news and politics disingenuously misinforming Americans for the good of Israel.

I hope more like you, who have access to the MSM start to expose them or at least confront them about their agenda.

[cognate]

empirial ?

[JonathanDS2U]

The issue with Iran has to do with how easily they could arm themselves. I don't care if the bullets are in the gun chamber or on the table next to the person with the gun, if that person has declared a desire for Israel to be wiped off the map. The only issue should be the time frame estimate regarding how quickly the experts believe Iran could have the ability to make a nuclear weapon. Everything else is sensationalized minutia for people in need of an excuse to release their inner ostrich.

[JohnCitizen]

THE ISRAELI LOBBY WANTS WAR WITH IRAN

ANTI-SEMITISM IS EVIL, just as is anti-any-e­thic-group­. But what about ANTI-ISRAEL, based on the behavior of that nation?

We Americans need to stop playing word games. For example, if we apply the Webster definition of "TERRORISM" to the already-forgotten recent Middle East war between Israel and Hezbollah, and use OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS, then Israel and not Hezbollah was the biggest terrorist in this tragedy, with 50 to 1 non-combatant deaths for Lebanon vs. Israel (2/3 of Israeli dead were soldiers), and an even greater disparity in terms of infrastructure and the long-term suffering of people. Israel could have fought Hezbollah up close and personal, but instead involved over a million innocent Lebanonese in an asymmetrical war using United States-supplied warplanes and smart bombs.

Of course, the word terrorism is reserved for our enemies, and not part of our terms of endearment with Israel. However, before we consign what happened to Lebanon and its people to "collateral damage" and it completely fades from our short attention span, perhaps we can find a more appropriate term to describe ravaged Lebanon, such as "collateral devastatio­n." As the pendulum of action and reaction/cause and effect swings our way, we won't just sit and wonder why these terrible terrorists hate us and want to kill us (they do 9-11, we do Lebanon, and so on).

Human beings think and rationalize in words. For this reason, words decide issues. Many people use words imprecisely or for advantage, and not for truth. The prime example here, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are not the same thing. If they were the same, then the Israeli government would be infallible. Israeli tough-guy terror (seen often, even on American TV) is about half the reason the United States is hated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have to go along too because no one can speak the truth of words and reality. Our one-sided policy in the Middle East is a disaster.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Careful, friend.

The next thing that you know, you'll be accused of being anti-Semitic.

[lentinelia]

Dershowitz, among his many accomplishments, recommends torture such as putting needles under fingernails.

This is somebody whose opinion we should seek out and celebrate.

Another plus for Harvard University - whose progeny gave us the Vietnam war.

[cynara]

Excellent analysis of a illogical blog by a hypocritical man.