December 03, 2007
Iran Watch: Over Before It Even Began?
Just when we thought war with Iran was inevitable, along comes a new National Intelligence Estimate telling us: Never mind!
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," the declassified version of the report [PDF] reads. But then: "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."
What to make of all this?
The U.S. intelligence community believes "with moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran currently does not possess nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we know North Korea has as many as 10 bombs; it tested one last year. So why has the Bush administration been pointing all of its guns at Iran? Because of the neighborhood it's in. A potentially nuclear-armed Iran spells more immediate trouble for U.S. interests than a definitely nuclear-armed North Korea -- 28,000 U.S. troops on the peninsula notwithstanding.
Democrats and conservatives alike are highly critical of the different policy tracks President Bush has taken on these two problems. While the NIE indicates that the White House will have to lay off a bit on its rhetoric toward Iran, it seems that total transparency (with regard to IAEA inspectors, etc.) is still the baseline.
"Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons," National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said earlier today. Maybe he just needed a better editor there, but the statement indicates that the overall attitude toward Iran hasn't changed. Clearly, it's good news that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't have any nukes at his disposal, but the objective now is to keep it that way.
So while the sluggish inspection agreement with the IAEA plays out, Washington will probably continue to try to squeeze Tehran via sanctions in an effort to get it to stop enriching uranium and disclose all of its nuclear facilities. How do France and Germany respond to the NIE? Just weeks ago, they seemed pretty on board with Washington on this issue. Do they now start pressuring the White House to begin engaging more directly with Iran? If France and Germany start pulling away from the U.S. in future sanctions debates, then Washington truly will be all alone on the Security Council when it comes to Iran.
We've seen indications that Ahmadinejad's flamboyant bluster has been in defiance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly because the regime -- the real power in Iran -- isn't happy with all the attention the nuclear issue is drawing to it. Now that the intel community is fairly confident Iran has no nukes, it begs the question of why Ahmadinejad was so bent on convincing the world otherwise.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs," the report reads. "This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might -- if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible -- prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."
In other words, Iran appears to have rationalized against pursuing a nuclear program for the same reasons Libya did. So why the act? That is far from clear. Analysts now believe Saddam Hussein risked invasion of his country because he did not want to let on to rival Iran that he actually didn't have WMD. With Iraq barely held together, Iran can pretty much rule the roost in that region if it wants. The false front in this instance might be attributable to Israel, which is widely believed to possess nukes and views Iran as a major threat to its existence. The Muslim world has long viewed the West as hypocritical on this issue. So do Israel's nukes go on the table?
We were supposed to hear more from the administration on the NIE this afternoon. Will update when/if that happens.
Graphic: Reuben Dalke
Posted at 4:05 PM
Posted to:
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons, President Bush, Terrorism
Share via
