Can't Be Bothered With Accuracy

Good piece from Jonathan Landay:

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. intelligence community, however, thinks that Iran halted an effort to build a nuclear warhead in mid-2003, and the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the program, has found no evidence to date of an active Iranian nuclear-weapons project.

Indeed. The IAEA has various complaints about Iranian nuclear activities, and it makes sense for the United States to vigorously pursue those complaints. It's also true that given Iranian history on this issue and the nature of the Iranian regime, it's smart strategy for the United States to seek nuclear concessions from Iran that go beyond what's strictly required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the Intelligence Community has assessed that current levels of scrutiny and pressure caused the Iranians to cease their weapons program back in 2003.

It's worth considering how the refusal of American politicians to acknowledge this must look in Teheran. In the hawk faction of the U.S. politics you have radical clerics musing about the apocalypse playing a key role in the process to determine who the GOP standard-bearer will be. And even in the more dovish faction, the lead contenders won't acknowledge our own intelligence findings about the Iranian nuclear program. Someone, someone in Iran is penning a furious blog post or article or memo about how you just can't appease the Americans, how we're irrational and our political system is dysfunctional, about how we were determined to invade Iraq irrespective of the facts and we're not invading Iran right now just because it's not logistically feasible and that restarting a crash weapons program before it does become feasible is Iran's only hope.

Comments

Someone, someone in Iran is penning a furious blog post or article or memo about how you just can't appease the Americans, how we're irrational and our political system is dysfunctional, about how we were determined to invade Iraq irrespective of the facts and we're not invading Iran right now just because it's not logistically feasible and that restarting a crash weapons program before it does become feasible is Iran's only hope.

And that someone is probably right.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | June 3, 2008 11:36 AM

AIPAC says the NIE concerning Iran's nuclear programs is a bushel basket full of lies and deceptions.

You Don't Tug On Superman's Cape
You Don't Spit Into The Wind
You Don't Pull The Mask Off The Old Lone Ranger
And You Don't Mess Around With Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Croce forgot a lyric: You don't tussle with AIPAC.

Posted by steve duncan | June 3, 2008 11:46 AM

AIPAC says the NIE concerning Iran's nuclear programs is a bushel basket full of lies and deceptions.

Well, that's good enough for me!

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, after all, said Iraq had no nuclear weapons program 5 years ago. Is their face red!

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 3, 2008 12:07 PM

Waitwaitwaitwait, this is true? Obama doesn't acknowledge the nie findings? This can't be right ...

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 3, 2008 12:14 PM

Has the intelligence community really experienced significant positive reforms since the Pakistan tests? (Which is to say, during Dubya's terms?)

No?

Then why should we more more likely to trust their accuracy when they say a country doesn't have a program now?

Posted by Jeff R. | June 3, 2008 12:23 PM

They hypocrisy is laughable and despicable.

Israel is the only entity in the world which had at one time illegally occupied territories of all its neighbours namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. So who is the invader? Who is the threat to the region? Who has the nuclear bomb? Who has the chemical and biological weapons? The entire world knows that it is Israel but the US prefers to look the other way when it comes to the Zionist regime.

Posted by Joan | June 3, 2008 12:23 PM

They hypocrisy is laughable and despicable.

Israel is the only entity in the world which had at one time illegally occupied territories of all its neighbours namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. So who is the invader? Who is the threat to the region? Who has the nuclear bomb? Who has the chemical and biological weapons? The entire world knows that it is Israel but the US prefers to look the other way when it comes to the Zionist regime.

Posted by Joan | June 3, 2008 12:25 PM

They hypocrisy is laughable and despicable.

Israel is the only entity in the world which had at one time illegally occupied territories of all its neighbours namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. So who is the invader? Who is the threat to the region? Who has the nuclear bomb? Who has the chemical and biological weapons? The entire world knows that it is Israel but the US prefers to look the other way when it comes to the Zionist regime.

Posted by Joan | June 3, 2008 12:26 PM

They hypocrisy is laughable. If Israel has nukes, then so should Iran.

Israel is the only entity in the world which had at one time illegally occupied territories of all its neighbours namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. So who is the invader? Who is the threat to the region? Who has the nuclear bomb? Who has the chemical and biological weapons? The entire world knows that it is Israel but the US prefers to look the other way when it comes to the Zionist regime.

Posted by Joan | June 3, 2008 12:27 PM

"But the Intelligence Community has assessed that current levels of scrutiny and pressure caused the Iranians to cease their weapons program back in 2003."

Was it "scrutiny and pressure," or did the Iranians accomplish their goal?

Posted by aglagla | June 3, 2008 12:28 PM

Re Joan

Lying fucktard Ms. Joan forgets to inform the readers that Israel occupied the territories she mentions because of aggression from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Apparently, Egyptian dictator Nassers' placing 100,000 troops on the border with Israel in 1967 and announcing his intention to remove that state from the map is irrelevant to her. Mr. Joan is just another Israel bashing piece of filth, the scum off the bottom of the cesspool.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 12:33 PM

It seems to me that by our believing that Iran actually has a nuclear-weapons program, it makes it a bigger bargaining chip for them to give up. This means it makes our bargaining position worse vis-a-vis Iran, even though nothing has changed in reality.

That doesn't matter to Bush or McCain, since neither of them is interested in negotiating with Iran anyway, but it would matter to Obama if he wins.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 3, 2008 12:35 PM

Things might be much worse than that.

Joschka Fischer, Germany's Foreign Minister, recently authored an article for the Project Syndicate. Fischer states flatly, per Gabriel Roubini, who spoke with him about his article, that "Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush" during his appearance in Israel for their 60th Anniversary celebrations; Fischer was in Israel at the same time.

Reports of the Bush government planning with Israel's government and military to strike Iran have been reported for over a year. Given everything now publicly known about the 'administration', there's a dark, logical progression in America's probable use of Israeli military assets as a proxy for an air strike against targets in Iran.

An Israeli strike against Iran, before the end of Bush's reign, would almost immediately lead to a wider Middle East war -- attacks aganist U.S. Forces in Iraq and the Gulf, attacks against Israel; an increase in terrorist activity worldwide. Our range of options to events in the Middle East would be limited to military ones. Oil prices would spike dramatically. Public protest against the war in America would increase, and possibly a government response to it.

A year ago, at the end of May, 2007, Bush reportedly shouted, thumping his chest, "wild-eyed", to some friends from Texas (and noted in the Dallas Morning News), "I am the president!!", that he would make certain whoever became the next President, Bush was "setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country’s destiny.' ”

That doesn't necessarily mean much; Bush is given to adolescent, macho displays of temper -- except, he is part of the clique running the government, and this isn't the only time Bush has indicated that the war he and Shooter have created must continue -- that it will continue, no matter what. The Iraq war has been the key to everything Cheney / Bush has 'accomplished'; the excuse for expansion of Executive power, for massive surveillance activity and reduction of Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. The war is the underpinning of a crumbling conservative, right-wing rule.

If the attack were conducted with enough lead time, prior to the General election in November, McCain could be touted as the logical war leader America would appear to need. If it happened too close to the election, or before January 20, 2009, the Democratic President-Elect would be unable to escape the "destiny" which Cheney / Bush would hand to them, and the rest of us.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | June 3, 2008 12:52 PM

You're forgetting to mention that our intelligence community published that report only to embarrass the Bush administration as payback for hanging them out to dry after it no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq, the Bush administration claiming that it was misled by the Intelligence community's incompetence.
So you see, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but out of spite for the Bush administration our intelligence community is hiding that fact from us. And if you had read "The Weekly Standard" or Charles Krauthammer you would have known this.

Posted by Jack | June 3, 2008 1:10 PM

SLC:

Apparently, Egyptian dictator Nassers' placing 100,000 troops on the border with Israel in 1967 and announcing his intention to remove that state from the map is irrelevant to her. Mr. Joan is just another Israel bashing piece of filth, the scum off the bottom of the cesspool.

I like old men's spittle-flecked diatribes as much as the next person, but can't SLC's children reproduce so he has something else to do with his time?

Posted by 23456 | June 3, 2008 1:20 PM

Re 23456

No.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 2:15 PM

Waitwaitwaitwait, this is true? Obama doesn't acknowledge the nie findings? This can't be right

Obama acknowledges the NIE, and has used it as a campaign issue. I suppose he could do a better job of emphasizing it in his contretemps with McCain.

Posted by southpaw | June 3, 2008 2:23 PM

So you see, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but out of spite for the Bush administration our intelligence community is hiding that fact from us. And if you had read "The Weekly Standard" or Charles Krauthammer you would have known this.

You would also have had your IQ lowered by 25%, but that's another matter entirely.

Posted by commie atheist | June 3, 2008 2:52 PM

Joan Joan Joan Joan

Learn your history history history history

You have everything bassassassassackwards

Posted by joanjoanjoanjoan | June 3, 2008 2:58 PM

Joan- Israel was created in 1948 by a majority vote in the UN as a result of the Second World War, in which 6 million Jews along with another 6 million others were brutally murdered, tortured, and starved to death over nothing! Her neighbors would not accept the existence of a Jewish state and responded by invading. Israel was invaded several times and in all instances she won. No other country in the history of the world was expected to give back land that was taken in wars started by another country! Israel has an historic, ethical, legal right to exist. If her neighbors would stop sending over rockets and suicide bombers, there would be peace and prosperity for everyone in the region.

Posted by ladybug | June 3, 2008 3:49 PM

Don't you take Oliver Kamm's point about the NIE failing to consider uranium enrichment?

Posted by M | June 3, 2008 3:55 PM

Re Jemand von Niemand

I believe that Herr von niemand is somewhat behind the times. Mr. Fischer is the former German Foreign Minister. The current foreign minister is Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 4:28 PM

Seriously, Matt. Your repeated use of imagination to try to empathize with the enemy are really counterproductive.

Keep it up, and pretty soon it will be impossible to smugly, righteously denounce those evildoers while regarding ourselves too good to talk with them. Why, the bad guys might even start to feel good about themselves, and we certainly can't have that.

Posted by Aatos | June 3, 2008 8:22 PM

@ SLC:

Yes.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | June 3, 2008 8:45 PM

thanks for writing this, I agree completely. it is known that Iran has enough spent reactor rods to reprocess into weapons, but it is also known that they haven't taken steps to do any such thing. I'm even dubious about the 2003 date, it probably represents something to do with paperwork more than anything. why would a country who's ostensible public leader changes hands every so often, but who's real leaders do not, abandon a nuke program in midstream and say 'we'll just be happy with the energy and I guess, well screw it about the missiles'? pretty silly. seems obvious to me, in a business sense. the Iranians believe in the 'don't get high on your own stash' philosophy as illustrated nicely in 'Scarface' - they want to sell oil around the world, and make as much of their own energy as they can. makes them more money. these people aren't stupid!

Posted by onceler | June 4, 2008 1:57 AM

Perhaps both McCain and Obama aren't "exaggerating Iran's nuclear program" given the efforts of Plame & Co. with Merlin.

Did the CIA, back in 2000 (think Clinton), give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb ? If so, only the gullible would believe that the lack of a weapons design program would signal peaceful intent.

Posted by Neo | June 4, 2008 7:36 AM

The US media is LYING about the actual contents of the recent Iran IAEA report, leaving out significant facts:

http://tinyurl.com/6qmtzj

And the Iranians would be right in concluding that no amount of concessions by them will satisfy the US. They have repeatedly offered to place limits on their nuclear program that EXCEED what the NPT requires -- only to have increased demands and more pre-conditions imposed on them.

This isn't about nukes -- this is about justifying regime change and war.

Posted by hass | June 5, 2008 10:47 AM

"Israel is the only entity in the world which had at one time illegally occupied territories of all its neighbours..."

How about France? Germany? Japan? When did wars start becoming 'legal' and 'illegal,' by your definition?

You have an incentive to answer my question - if you give a clever answer, you can compare Israel to the Axis powers and uh, post-revolutionary France?

Posted by DPT | June 8, 2008 8:48 PM