That Iran NIE? Oh, We All Just Ignore It

By Cernig

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, when finally released after months of the Bush administration trying to get it changed without success, said that "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Since then every major Western media outlet and political leader, especially including Barack Obama, has done their level best to ignore that finding - well, after the wingnuts got over crowing about how it proved Bush's invasion of Iraq was a good thing, at least - yet there's not a shred of real evidence for doing so.

Much of the narrative which allows the consensus view of the entire US intelligence community to be ignorable centers around the infamous "laptop of death" and around statements last year at a private briefing by the IAEA's Oli Heinonen. However, the documents contained upon the laptop are of questionable provenance, probably at least in part forged by their provider - the MeK terrorist group - and in any case refer to programs from before 2003. Heinonen’s briefing likewise referred to programs from before 2003 - as it would, since it was based on those laptop documents, given to the IAEA by George Schulte so that Hoinonen would brief members and Schulte could then leak his notes of that briefing to the media establishing a stage of plausiblity between him and the information. However, the information given at that briefing was public knowledge even in 2005, something not even mentioned by David "Judy in Drag" Sanger at the NYT when he recycled his 2005 report on the laptop's information for his widely cited 2008 report on the briefing. By this weekend, Sanger had entirely dismissed the NIE and was willing to bend the IAEA's findings and briefings all out of shape in service of the narrative. David Sanger may be the finest stenographer for his "unofficially official" sources at the White House in the history of journalism.

The IAEA's assessment to date is in full agreement with the NIE: that there "is no evidence that the weapons program continued after 2004" but you'd be forgiven if you hadn't realized that, as much reporting on the subject has deliberately played games with tense. Given that's there's no evidence that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program, warmongers have been reduced to arguing that there's no proof positive that it doesn't. The inability to prove a negative, to prove "evidence of absence" was what got us into Iraq too, so they hope it serves again.

Unfortunately, Obama's recent statements would indicate that it will serve again. On Sunday he told George Stephanoupolis that "they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race". The convesration continued:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you have to do something about it in your first year.

OBAMA: Andwe are going to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran.

And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves, is…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But a new emphasis on respect.

OBAMA: Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we're going to have to move swiftly in that area.

That sounds nice but if Dennis "walks with neocons" Ross is really to be given the Iran brief, as rumors indicate then it's simply more of the same pretence at engagement while actually being as obstructive as possible - playing the negotiation game as part of a campaign to pressure Iran alongside constant threat of attack.

"This may be the best example in recent times of highly coordinated threat of force against a country to bring about diplomatic solution...I'm not sure," said Ret. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of CENTCOM, the military command responsible for the whole of the Middle East. "[...F]or people that think this is serious, I would put it in the utter folly department."

Comments

[Andy]

Cernig,

As usual, there are several errors in your analyis. First of all, the latest IAEA reports clearly show that Iran's weaponization efforts aren't solely based on the laptop of death. From GOV2008-15 para 16:

This information, which was provided to the Agency by several Member States, appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content, and appears to be generally consistent.

So it's not just the laptop, and it's not just from the US and Israel.

Secondly, stating the NIE is in agreement with the IAEA reports is stretching things at best. To begin with, the IAEA has never found direct evidence of a weapons program (except for one document), even prior to 2004. So the obvious question for you is: Was there or wasn't there a program weaponization effort prior to 2004? If there wasn't, then the NIE is wrong or is a "warmonger" deception, and if there was a program, then the IAEA failed to detect the program. Talking about NIE/IAEA agreement only since 2004 ignores this inconvenient point and brings up all sorts of issues, the most pertinent one being: If there WAS a program and the IAEA failed to detect it, how are they going to discover if Iran opts to "unhalt" the weaponization effort? The NIE said, after all, that Iran only "halted" the weaponization effort. What happens when they decide to pull the tarps off?

Then there is the irony that you and so many others constantly rail on about the failed intelligence on Iraq, yet turn around and buttress your arguments about Iran with the NIE! A cynical person might conclude that, like Doug Feith, you are favorably disposed to intelligence which supports the policy you like and are extremely hostile to intelligence that supports the policy you don't.

[Steve Hynd]

Andy,

I'll quote the whole of Para 16 of GOV2008-15 with my notes in [brackets] and bold emphasis.

At follow up meetings in Tehran on 28–30 April and 13–14 May 2008, the Agency presented, for review by Iran, information related to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle project [These are all items from the laptop] (See Annex, Section A). This included information which Iran had declined to review in February 2008 (GOV/2008/4, paras 35, 37–39 and 42). This information, which was provided to the Agency by several Member States [i.e. the US shared the laptop's contents with israel, the UK and France], appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content, and appears to be generally consistent. [Yes, the information on the laptop appears to come from various sources, all gathered together on the laptop. Some of it's internal consistencies are questionable, including a signed or unsigned letter see the Gareth Porter/Raw Story link in the post - and unusual digital signatures.] The Agency received much of this information only in electronic form and was not authorised to provide copies to Iran. [i.e. the laptop, which the US wasn't sure enough about to allow the Iranians a real attempt to debunk.]

Yes, I believe that the Iranians had a very small and early-stages program before 2003. It's hardly surprising the IAEA missed it, it was so small and undeveloped. Argentina under the Junta had a program for a while too, and probably went further, yet no-one suggested bombing its facilities. Of course, the US had an advantage in that it had "turned" a Swiss member of Khan's network and was feeding misinformation to Iran, so it knew what stage the program was at.

"What happens when they decide to pull the tarps off?" What happens if they never do, but the US and its allies attacks them anyway? There's an implicit argument you're making which is: I would want a nuke and if Iran leaders are anything like me then they do too". Yet Iranian leaders have often said they don't want a nuke.

As to the Iraq intel, it was stovepiped and cherry-picked to "fix the intelligence around the policy". In the case of the Iran NIE, a consensus report - after months of White House trying the intel community had still refused to change it and demanded its release. That's a good reason to trust it, imho.

I'll ask you another in return - why do you believe Iran's leaders are a threat when they threatening rhetoric that Israel will disappear from the map but don't believe them when they say they don't want a nuke? Reports that Iranian leaders have said otherwise have been proven false. You're at least as guilty of cherry-picking what you want to believe and complicate that via an implicit assumption that Iran's leaders are just as bellicose as you are. That might be true, but you haven't even come close to proving it.

Regards, C

[Steve Hynd]

Actually, Andy - do you have any evidence at all of an Iranian weapons program after 2004 or of Iran's intention to re-open that program? If not, you're just another "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" troll, asking Iran (and me) to do the impossible by proving a negative.

Regards, C

[Andy]

Cernig,

So you are saying the US shared the laptop info with a bunch of countries and then those countries passed that same info to the IAEA making it appear to be from multiple countries but in fact it was only from one? Any evidence for that? Didn't think so. And, if you do a bit of research, you'll find that one of the countries that has given some corroborating intel to the IAEA is China. Do you believe they're recycling the laptop of death as well and do you believe the IAEA is too stupid to realize it?

Yes, I believe that the Iranians had a very small and early-stages program before 2003. It's hardly surprising the IAEA missed it, it was so small and undeveloped.

Evidence? How do you know it was "so small and undeveloped?"

"What happens when they decide to pull the tarps off?" What happens if they never do, but the US and its allies attacks them anyway? There's an implicit argument you're making which is: I would want a nuke and if Iran leaders are anything like me then they do too". Yet Iranian leaders have often said they don't want a nuke.

No, that is not my implicit argument. As is typical, you've assumed that I hold positions and belief's I do not hold. I actually think there's a real basis for Iran wanting a nuke very badly prior to 2003 and wanting one quite a bit less badly (or not at all) after that - it's a reason very few talk about, and that's the Iraqi invasion. Iran knew Iraq was working on the bomb and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy and biggest threat. It only makes sense that Iran would work on one too (and that mutual distrust and hostility was behind the programs in both Brazil and Argentina). Now that Saddam is gone, the strategic rational for an Iranian nuke program lessens considerably, particularly when major parts of that program are no longer clandestine. So no, I do not assume that Iran's strategic calculus has remained constant because their biggest threat is now gone. At the same time, I do not assume that Iran has no desire for nukes either. What I want is to ensure that if they do, they don't get them.

As to the Iraq intel, it was stovepiped and cherry-picked to "fix the intelligence around the policy". In the case of the Iran NIE, a consensus report - after months of White House trying the intel community had still refused to change it and demanded its release. That's a good reason to trust it, imho.

There was an Iraqi NIE too you know. Actually, there were several Iraqi NIE's over the years (including under Clinton) and they were, for the most part, consistent, especially on the question of chemical weapons.

I'll ask you another in return - why do you believe Iran's leaders are a threat when they threatening rhetoric that Israel will disappear from the map but don't believe them when they say they don't want a nuke? Reports that Iranian leaders have said otherwise have been proven false. You're at least as guilty of cherry-picking what you want to believe and complicate that via an implicit assumption that Iran's leaders are just as bellicose as you are. That might be true, but you haven't even come close to proving it.

Again you make false assumptions, presumably on the basis that I disagreed with you on a few things. For the record, I've never supported an attack on Iran. Nor do I buy into the "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric that is more aimed at their wacky President's domestic political base. The thing is, I don't need to contort my arguments on the facts like a game of twister to support those positions. The thing is, many on the left are willing to do what Feith did and spin or fix the intel in order to prevent an attack on Iran. Juan Cole and some other prominent leftist bloggers are particularly bad on this point. They don't get the irony that they're trying to do exactly what Feith did, only toward a different end. Even though their (and presumably your) end is a better one, that doesn't justify making dishonest or self-serving arguments.

do you have any evidence at all of an Iranian weapons program after 2004 or of Iran's intention to re-open that program? If not, you're just another "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" troll, asking Iran (and me) to do the impossible by proving a negative.

No, there is no evidence, but my point (which I guess you missed) is that the IAEA cannot currently verify it one way or another. I see that as a problem, do you? My point is that if Iran decides to restart its weaponization effort that it should stand a good chance of being discovered. The threat of discovery is the best deterrent. So, like it or not "absence of evidence" is a problem because the "absence of evidence" is the result of an inadequate verification regime.

[Peter G.]

A nuclear weapon does not a nuclear power make. In it's early stages a nuclear program would not be terribly hard to conceal but when it comes to configuration testing that is not the case. I have to think that Cernig is right on this one. There simply is not any great evidence that Iran is proceeding with a weapons program. Even if I were wrong about that and some day they managed to "throw off the tarps" most spectacularly by running a successful test there would still be plenty of time for a little intense diplomacy. A small inventory of nuclear weapons without a credible delivery system would put Iran in everyone's cross hairs without really providing a credible deterrent effect. It wouldn't be a happy situation but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. The situation requires vigilance and surveillance by the IAEA and by the various intelligence services but not much more than that.Any preemptive action is going to be very counter productive.

[Steve Hynd]

Andy, I would happily agree with you on a part of what you write and wouldn't be so likely to argue if your tone from word one (I won't say "as usual" because I don't know if that's true) wasn't so condescendingly bumptious. If I have made false assumptions about your motives based upon that then I apologise, and can only beg that you understand in turn that I don't look to twist anything either. I'm giving the facts, analysis and synthesis as honestly as I can based upon what i have read to date just as you are.

But in all the detail you don't twist, I believe you're losing sight of an important point. There is no such thing as a verification regime that can provide evidence of absence. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. So what ends up happening is that while the world is focussed, at bush's urging, on ensuring that "if they do, they don't get them", Iran is being sanctioned and threatened with attack for what it is currently doing, which it is allowed to do by treaty. There's no way to uphold the rule of law by being so hypocritical about its application.

As to nitty-gritty detail of your reply:

Yes, I believe the Clinton administration politically pressured to hype the Iraq WMD intel too. I'm not a Dem and have no reflexive need to defend Clinton, who was a terrible FP president imho.

The laptop contains all the issues still outstanding, and several that have been cleared up to the IAEA's satisfaction. No other extant source for this information has been described that I know of. The laptop looks to me to be the primary source and it is in my opinion highly suspect.

Anonymous diplomats claimed China passed information to the IAEA without specifying what. China has denied it, saying "The report is made of nothing and has originated from those with ulterior motives". I believe that to be correct because of what the IAEA says is a track record of "unofficially official" falsehoods and exaggerations where Iran's nuclear endevours are concerned.

So do I think the IAEA is too stupid to realise it is being pressured, both politically and by mirroring of claims, to accept the laptop's information? No. But I believe the IAEA is run by a committee of diplomats who all answer to and further their own nation's agenda. I believe, too, that the US's favorite, Hoinenen, will be the next director.

Regards, C

[Steve Hynd]

Peter, I've often thought about the massive crow I'll have to eat if I'm wrong about Iran not having a weapons program and proven so by an unexpected test. But then again, I believe that to argue otherwise is the easy way out. As those who boosted the Iraq invasion realised, demanding that someone prove a negative may be illogical, but since if they choose they can always say it hasn't been proven yet no matter what evidence comes out (look at the diehards who insist iraq's WMDs were moved to Syria), being illogical in this circumstance has less chance of a personal bad outcome for them than simply arguing for what the evidence at present shows.

Regards, C

[Peter G.]

Cernig, I may have mentioned in the past that I have several fine recipes for preparing crow. I have eaten my share I assure you. I will be happy to share in the repast if Iran ever does an actual test. I'm quite certain they have the technological ability since it is not hard to make a uranium bomb but I think now that it is more likely a vague bogeyman. Most likely just a bargaining chip. It could all disappear with a regime change in Iran and that is best achieved by leaving them alone.

[Iran Affairs]

The US tried hard to back up its pathetic "laptop of death" evidence by getting other countries to back it up. Is there evidence for that? No, but the burden of proof is not on us because we are still not privy to the contents of the laptop. The US has never ever made the actual laptop of death available in full to the IAEA for analysis, and instead has peddled bits and pieces of alleged evidence from it to the media (and at last resort, to the IAEA) so the burden of proof remains squarely on the US.