So the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Iran's nuclear program is going to be revised to reach a difference conclusion, according to a new article from the Wall Street Journal. And the article tries to bolster its case by reasserting a false claim about how German intelligence agencies supposedly also disagree with the previous NIE conclusions - despite the fact that the same organization had refuted this allegation.
So just as in the buildup to the Iraq war, the spinning of intelligence continues.. and proves that you just can't rely on any of it.
If you remember, in the 2007 NIE, US intelligence agencies had concluded "with high confidence" that Iran had given up a nuclear weapons program in 2003. This was a contradiction of their 2005 NIE report, which had concluded that Iran had an on-going nuclear weapons program. I wrote about this previously:
The 2005 NIE claimed with a "high degree of confidence" that Iran had an on-going nuclear weapons program. The following year, the NIE does a radical 180-degree turn and says that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. What does that tell you about the NIEs?
So, according to the WSJ at least, now the NIE is going to complete the 180 degree turn into a full 360 degree turn! Iran is making nukes -- no wait, they're not -- oh yes, they are.
So I think my question still stands: What does that tell you about the reliability of NIEs? Of course, the intelligence agencies will swear up and down that they're not politicizing the intelligence and their conclusions are the result of only totally objective analysis of the full facts...I mean, after all, if you can't trust an intelligence agency, who can you trust, right?
The truth of the matter is that:
1- THE NIE IS THE SUBJECT OF EXTREME POLITICAL PRESSURES
The Israelis and the NeoCons were offended by the 2007 NIE's inconvenient conclusions that Iran had stopped a nuclear weapons program, and since them have been desperately trying to bring political pressure to have that conclusion changed. So much so that Bush himself had to run off to Israel and reassure the Israelis that he didn't believe the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, and the US spy chief was obligated dance and pivot on the report by emphasizing his belief that regardless of what the NIE said, Iran's continued enrichment program was reason enough for suspicion (which it isn't, since the program is under IAEA safeguards.)
2- THE IAEA HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM AT ALL
Regardless of what NIEs say, there's still no actual evidence that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program -- not now, not in 2005, not in 2003, not ever. That's according to the IAEA inspectors. The same IAEA inspectors who said they found no secret WMDs in IRaq, quite contrary to the 2002 Iraq NIE -- which everyone admits was politicized baloney. And if the US did have any actual evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, they would be crowing from rooftops with it. But instead, all they have done was shop around a questionable "Laptop of Death" which has never been verified.
3- CLAIMS THAT GERMAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES DISAGREE WITH THE 2007 NIE ARE NOT RELIABLE, NOR MEANINGFUL: Finally, note that the new WSJ article (in an attempt to bolster doubts about the 2007 NIE) claim that "European" intelligence agencies that had supposedly disagreed with the 2007 NIE too - eventhoug this has been disproven as hype:
Germany's intelligence service, the BND, publicly challenged the U.S. NIE by disclosing information during a court case this year that pointed to ongoing Iranian nuclear-weapons work. The BND gave specifics on Iranian purchases of high-speed cameras and radiation detectors that could be used in testing atomic detonations.
That's a reference to another, earlier article by the same Wall Street Journal which had reported that the BND had gathered evidence to refute the National Intelligence Estimate. But what the WSJ didn't tell you then, and doesn't tell you now, is that the BND itself denied the reports that Iran was supposedly continuing its nuclear weapons program and would be able to make nukes soon:
But there appears to be conflicting reports from BND officials. A BND spokesman told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that "we are not talking about months, but years." He said a six-month threshold is a "shortened" period that does not correspond with the BND's assessment of Teheran's atomic bomb program.
And the as TheMajlis.org previously reported, court case mentioned by the WSJ article was dismissed -- another detail the WSJ leaves out. (though the case was reinstated on appeal and continues to drag out.)
But in any case, who cares what the BND says either way? It is not as if the BND has proven itself totally objective and immune to political pressure either - quite the contrary. If the consensus opinion of 16 American intelligence agencies is so politicized as to be totally unreliable -- as proven previously in the case of the 2002 Iraq NIE as well as this case -- then why assume that the BND is any more objective? You do remember the "key conclusions" of the 2002 Iraq NIE, right?
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade...
LOL!!!
Recent Comments