The latest bombshell National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's weapons capabilities, which established with "high confidence" that the Islamic Republic of Iran put to bed its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, came only weeks after the U.S. Treasury Department declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a "proliferator" of weapons of mass destruction.
Expectedly, the Bush administration has spun the NIE and chosen to focus on Iran's continued uranium enrichment program, a process that could lead to weapons later down the line. Israel, with an apparent itch for confrontation, has even charged that the NIE's findings could lead to a surprise attack on the Jewish state. What the findings of the NIE won't tell us, however, is that U.S.-Iranian relations and stability in the Middle East need not be tied to Iran's nuclear program. Instead of sweating over what Iran has or does not have, we should be engaged in a broader discussion over Iran's long-term interests and intentions.
As a nation, we are well acquainted with the pitfalls of focusing our policies strictly on military capabilities. During the run-up to the Iraq War, the public debate revolved almost exclusively around Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of "weapons of mass destruction." The White House claimed that Saddam had WMDs, while administration critics fought to disprove such assertions. Few, however, asked how a WMD arsenal in Iraq would actually affect our national security, or whether its elimination warranted the abandonment of the relative balance of power that existed in the Persian Gulf at the time.
Today, with Iran seeking to maintain not only the survival of Afghanistan's friendly regime, but also that of Iraq's fellow Shia government, there are ample reasons to reevaluate our perceptions of Iran on the basis of interests, rather than on a narrow count of isotopes or enrichment cycles. As I've stated before, Iran shares many of our interests, and we should be taking note.
To be sure, those who perceive Iran's intentions as apocalyptic and inherently self-destructive will insist on stifling Iran's nuclear program at any cost in blood and treasure. Sadly, this translates to a worse deal for our troops, who now stand within range of Iranian missiles, and are fighting to stabilize a country that is in large part under Iranian political influence.
With obvious indifference, Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute conceded that Iran would stir things up in Iraq in the event of a U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic: "[Iranians] will try to engage in terrorism. They'll try to get proxies. They'll try to hit supply lines, all those things. Now, can the United States weather that in Iraq? I suspect so."
Perhaps it's not callousness on the part of neocons, but sheer optimism. Gerecht told us in 2002 that an invasion of Iraq "might not shake up the Middle East much at all."
The perception that Iran's interests are capriciously destructive also flies in the face of observed behavior by other so-called "rogue" states. Progress on North Korea's disarmament, under American auspices, has been so promising that President Bush recently sent a letter to the notorious Kim Jong Il, a member of the concocted "axis of evil." Had this administration viewed North Korea's illicit weapons program as a do-or-die proposition, a bloody and needless war would have already been raging in East Asia. Our message to Iran has been crystal clear: "We'll sit down and talk only if you have nuclear weapons. We'll attack if you don't." Cynics will take it a step further, connecting the dots of U.S. military action to the oil reserves of a country or its proximity to Israel. Who can blame them?
By moving away from our obsession with weapons capabilities and dealing in the realm of clearly defined interests, we find that our current approach toward Iran is not only misguided, but dangerously counter-productive. With every war drumbeat, we give Iran yet another reason to speed up a nuclear program that was started in the 1960s, and has had a shoddy track record at best.
At the end of the day, what the NIE says about Iran's weapons programs should be largely irrelevant. Instead, we should ask professionals in the intelligence community to tell us more about their analysis of Iran's long-term interests, and what they could mean for our country. An honest response would surely surprise the American people, and further embarrass the neoconservatives.
Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran
That Iran is a friend to this country;
that Iran assisted us significantly in taking down the Taliban after 9/11 by allowing us unrestricted fly-overs through their airspace;
that the Iranian people themselves like Western culture immensely;
that the Iranian govt has made ongoing overtures to us that any Whitehouse with a shred of statesmanship could turn into a lasting relationship for years to come.
It's time for Bush to put 'the agenda' aside and make a friend of this country once and for all.
You sir, seem to be the same apologetic, pathetic track as the other mental midget named Gonzalez, who finally resigned and slithered out of Washington. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS A BUNCH OF LYING, PERVERTED JACKASSES.
The only reason I'm even slightly concerned about Iran is because of the hornets nests Bushco has stuck sticks into.
Why are we picking fights with others nations neighbors on the block. Maybe the Saudi's can lead this 'crisis' in Iran. Oh that's right they already are, wouldn't hurt the Isreali's feeling either...We're just the 'Blackwater' for them. Noticing a trend toward 'security' companies - they don't have constitutions barring any actions,no allegiences to hamper prospective clients, add the 'clients' willingness to turn a blind eye and paronia or arrogance- and you got it made.
Rudy needs to give up his client list and the Blackwaters need to be held accountable. Strict guidelines must be adapted to regulate the use of such companies and organizations. If our military cannot handle th ejob- perhaps the rhetoric should be less inflamatory.
Without the credible threat of a US invasion it is impossible to enage in robust dilplomacy with Tehran, especially when they see themselves as beating America in the Middle East. As John Kerry said in a recent foreign policy speech: "A responsible reployment from Iraq would allow us to refocus our energies on regional diplomacy from a position of strength." Until this is done diplomacy would achieve absolutely nothing with a resurgent, growing soon-to-be-nuclear Iran.
Which ME country has nukes - hundreds of them?
Check this out..
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1321
Of course Iran doesn't have a death wish, which is exactly what would need to be the case before we would have to worry about the status of their nuclear program. As a matter of straight fact and logic the usability of nuclear weapons was determined to be non-existent after we passed through the "mutually assured destruction" phase. Neither side really wanted to tell their citizens exactly how much money was being spent on worthless "weapons" but everyone in any position of importance on both sides knew that a hostile exchange was completely unsurvivable.
So whether Iran gets one "BOMB" or as many as we have, it is still sitting in a fixed and ascertained physical location. Even if it was not absolutely dependent upon the developed world buying its oil, which it is, it is still just a plain old sitting duck if it were ever to raise the stakes by committing the ultimate provocation. And the answer is the same even if it gave some terrorist group a warhead and looked away while it created the greatest single incident of slaughter in history. If it tracked back to Iran that would still be the end of that nation being habitable by humans, and you can bet that it would obliterated by a mulit-national smorgasbord.
So let's grow up and get real about this shit. Which, of course we're not going to be able to do until we get a whole new crew in the Whitehouse. The one that's in their now is heavily invested in oil. We need to understand that the true future threat to harmony on the planet stems from the fact that the policies followed to date by BUSHCO have increased their net worth by a number of trillions of dollars.
Which author? Do you mean "Nathan Gonzalez", whose name appears prominently at the top of the article? Presuming that you are just lazy, and also since there is no other clear antecedent for "the author", I address the question as if written "Why would Gonzolez state as truth, 'The White House claimed that Saddam had WMDs..." tompoe, Gonzolez stated it that way because it was true: The "White House", or rather Bush and Company, DID, in fact, and repeatedly assert that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Remember this? "We know where the weapons are."
And it's also true that BushCo critics sought to disprove the assertions, mainly by insisting that the WMD Inspectors be allowed to complete their work, and by the work of Joe Wilson and others. Obviously, they were ignored (at best) or booted off the stage by various nefarious tactics.
But I agree with you that the prime responsibility for proving the veracity of an assertion lies with the party making the assertion, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Bush and Company were too incompetent to provide even the barest whiff of proof (even while the vehicle, the WMD Inspectors) were readily available, and so they relied on yellow journalism and yellow cake lies.