Left I on the News

News you're unlikely to read in the corporate media:

From the beginning Iranian nuclear program had been civilian and Iran honors religious prohibition of nuclear arms, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said on Wednesday.

He welcomed the report on civilian nature of Iranian nuclear program by the US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), but, at the same time strongly rejected allegations in the report that Iran had weapons program before 2003.

"Iran had never had weapons program to stop it in 2003," he said.

Hosseini said that Iranian nuclear activities had always been in line with Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the International Atomic Energy has verified non-diversion of Iranian nuclear program several times so far.

"The Supreme Leader has already made it clear that Iran respects the religious prohibition of nuclear arms and the international conventions consistent with the nuclear program." Hosseini said.

Just as a point of comparison, here's what liberal Robert Scheer wrote yesterday at CommonDreams, in an article entitled "It Turns Out Ahmadinejad Was the Truthful One":

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office as Iran’s president in August of 2005, two years after Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended, has now been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the weaponization program.

In truth, neither Ahmadinejad nor any other member of the Iranian leadership has ever made any such claim since, as Hosseini makes clear above, "Iran had never had weapons program to stop it in 2003."

Now, you can take the position they're still lying. But at the least, an acknowledgment that the claim that Iran abandoned a nuclear weapons program in 2003 is just that, a claim (by the oft-wrong, oft-mendacious U.S. government), would be nice. An acknowledgment that has been all too quickly forgotten in the rush to embrace the new, more "user-friendly" NIE of 2007.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that much of this "conclusion" (that Iran had a nuclear weapons program) is based on alleged "intercepts." I remind readers of the role that intercepts played in the infamous Colin Powell speech to the United Nations that helped lead to the invasion of Iraq. If you remember listening to those intercepts, they were basically worthless, yet were presented to the world as a "smoking gun." And that's even assuming they were real and not total fabrications of the CIA. I realize spying is a tricky business, and "absolute proof" may not always be available, but relying on U.S. government claims that they have intercepts (which none of us have even heard) which "prove" something is a fool's game.

And, just because I haven't said this in a while, I'm going to say it again, because all of this discussion of the NIE can make us forget one essential point - Iran has the right to defend itself. Iran is being constantly threatened (and attacked economically) by the mightiest country in the world. They say they don't have a nuclear weapons program, and I believe them (and have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise). And they are signatories to the NPT which bars them from developing nuclear weapons. But, should they decide that their national interest requires them to withdraw from the NPT and develop nuclear weapons, they have every right to do so, especially since the nuclear nations have never lived up to their end of the NPT bargain - get rid of your own nuclear weapons, and don't threaten non-nuclear nations with nuclear attack ("all options are on the table").

Labels: National Intelligence Estimate

I've had lots to say about the new NIE. But now, not wanting to sound like someone from the Bush Administration, I would like to say a few words about the media, which all sound pretty much like this article from the New York Times:

How could American intelligence agencies have overstated Iran’s intentions in 2005 so soon after being reprimanded for making similar errors involving Iraq?

But a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was issued two months later said Iran’s leaders were working tirelessly to acquire a nuclear weapon — a finding that, like the prewar intelligence on Iraq, has now been acknowledged to have been wrong in one of its chief conclusions.

What's wrong with all this? Simple - it assumes that the current report is correct and that the previous report was incorrect. How the hell do we know that? Personally, I believe as I've written below that they are both incorrect. But given that we know that these NIEs can be grossly wrong (cf Iraq), how on earth could you claim to know that either the 2005 or the 2007 NIE on Iran is correct? Answer - you can't.

Labels: National Intelligence Estimate

One of the successes of the new NIE is that virtually everyone in the "mainstream" (pundits, candidates, corporate media) now accepts as simple fact that Iran had a nuclear weapons program which it abandoned in 2003. Actually that's wrong on two counts. First, although I don't have access to the 2005 NIE, here's what the 2007 NIE says about the 2005 conclusion:

Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.

If that's all the 2005 report said, then claims that it said that Iran "had" a "nuclear weapons program" are simply wrong; being "determined to develop nuclear weapons," even if it were true, is not the same as "having a nuclear weapons program."

And second, of course, is that any "conclusion" with "high confidence" that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program is simply unsupported by the facts. Here's what FAIR wrote about the subject in 2005. Here's just one statement they quote from a Washington Post article about the NIE:

The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran’s military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program.

But none of this will stand in the way of what you're hearing today. It is now, as I said, "conventional wisdumb" that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. The truth is otherwise.

Labels: National Intelligence Estimate

Some may have thought I was completely off-base when I wrote this yesterday:

Or perhaps its impetus is Bush himself, realizing that there's no way the U.S. can go ahead with an attack on Iran so he might as well salvage some credit by claiming that his "diplomacy" made Iran abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program.

What I didn't write yesterday here, but did on comments on other blogs, was to elaborate on this thought - not only might it be that Bush wanted to credit his "diplomacy," but in fact might use this to strengthen his push for more sanctions, based not only on the questionable continuing assertion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, but on the all-important and factually-challenged assertion (see my post) that Iran's leaders really want nuclear weapons, whether they have a currently active program or not.

And sure enough, here comes Bush to say precisely that:

President George W. Bush said the international community must keep up pressure on Iran because the government there could restart development of a nuclear weapon at any time.

Now I still don't claim to know whether this is a post-facto exploitation by Bush of the report, or a "pre-facto" motivation for the release of the report. But you have to admit that the latter is certainly a distinct possibility, given that the report was released and made public in the first place, something that Bush almost certainly could have prevented if he didn't realize he could use the report to advance his goals. Since (in my opinion) the U.S. realizes it cannot attack Iran at this time, increasing the economic warfare is really their only option, so anything that allows them to do that is right in line with their goals.

Labels: National Intelligence Estimate

The big news today is about the National Intelligence Estimate (PDF link) which asserts with "high confidence" that Iran abandoned a nuclear weapons program in 2003. The "intelligence" value of this "confidence" can be judged in light of the fact that in 2005, two years ago and two years after 2003, the same NIE claimed that Iran "was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb." Of course this "intelligence" estimate is almost entirely political, and you can speculate all you like about what's behind the latest report. Was its impetus those in the administration and intelligence community who think an attack on Iran would be folly, and want to demonstrate that "diplomacy" (sanctions and threats of war are what passes for "diplomacy" in the United States) is all that's needed? Or perhaps its impetus is Bush himself, realizing that there's no way the U.S. can go ahead with an attack on Iran so he might as well salvage some credit by claiming that his "diplomacy" made Iran abandon its alleged nuclear weapons program. Who knows? I don't, nor do you, and it's pretty much pointless to worry about it.

It is interesting to look at the estimate itself (link above), only nine pages long and that includes pages of definitions of things like what "high confidence" means; the actual "estimate" is only a few pages long. I found this paragraph perhaps the most interesting of all, and telling about the kind of "intelligence" that makes up this report:

We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

At the heart of this "intelligence" assessment is the assertion that Iran's leadership has to be "convinced" to "forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons" and that "many within the leadership probably see [a linkage] between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives." Right now there are two poles of leadership in Iran. One is its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here's what he has to say on the subject:

"We have declared many times, and we declare again, that our nuclear technology is in the service of peaceful goals. We declare that mass destruction weapons are sought by those who still think in the mode of 50 years ago. Those who think that political equations and cultural and economic equations can be solved to their benefit by relying on arsenals of mass destruction weapons. Our nation is a civilized nation, a cultured nation, that relies on the faith and will of its young nationals. Our nation, in order to achieve its aspiration, relies on the thoughts and beliefs and enhanced values that lie in the Islamic culture and Iranian culture. Our nation does not elicit its power from nuclear weapons. The power of our nation is rooted in the justice of its beliefs."

Then there's the second pole, the "real" power, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Here's a statement about his opinion (and Ahmadinejad's as well) that was read at the IAEA meeting in 2005:

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain."

Now, pray tell, which part of the leadership is it exactly that "sees [a linkage] between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives"?

The only other thing in the NIE I think worth commenting on was this curious statement:

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

Really? Only "moderate-to-high" confidence? For goodness' sake, even Dick Cheney hasn't made that preposterous claim (yet, anyway).

Labels: National Intelligence Estimate