Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

What is more interesting about this is the sudden reversal of the US on the question of whether or not Iran is pursuing weaponization. At the beginning of the year, everyone was convinced they were doing it. Now, all of a sudden, an NIE comes out that they haven't been since 2003? Did the Iranian defector Asgari have information that we didn't? And if he did, why is our intel so bad that we didn't know this for 4 years? (or, was politics pushing intel to find the "right answer"?)

Dr Barnett,we know when the Bush bunch got to white house,they
had confrontation in mind with China,and as recently as the offical visit of the president of china to US, it remained the same,because
the way they insualted him on that trip.since a big portion of the policy toward Iran,has to do with overall policy toward China,do you
sence a shift in direction in the way you have been advicating regarding Iran & China,which treats them as friends,not enemy. or do you see this as a tactical change,and perhaps Bush throwing the
ball in Israel's hand?

If you can trust that the threat from Iran has ceased to be immediate, what now is the next step toward engaging them? In other words, how fast can the rhetoric and sanctions be reversed to take the wind out of the radicals sails while beginning a campaign to increase overall security and stability behind the scenes? Is that even politically and diplomatically possible?

Do you want to take a breath first and consider the validity of the NIE report before making conjectures that assume it is completely true?

What's interesting to me is that the initiative to make the NIE public came from the president. My guess is that dad talked to son and they decided that a good way to assure diplomacy would win out over the VP's predilection for war would be to release the NIE. After all, the father in particular must have been horrified at the thought that son might wage war in the waning months of his presidency, thus forever tarnishing his legacy.

I also wonder if someone in the White House entourage may have looked for--and found--a receptive ear at the intelligence consortium for supporting the new findings. In other words, this outcome pleases everyone but Dick Cheney, and I cannot see it as simply an accident of fate.

I like your thought process on this issue. No need to use force, but it needs to be a real threat waiting in the neighborhood.

Oh... and "[don't] trust but verify".

Otherwise, it NoKo all over again.

This administration has not been a "warm and fuzzy" one. Dissenters have been quickly dealt with. As the President likes to say "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Our problem with intel since 911 is that it was only valued if it fit the administrations plans and policy. Policy should be shaped by intelligence, not the other way around. We have the the proof in the failure to find the WMDs in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation. We killed thousands of it's soldiers, we destroyed much of it's infrastructure. We did it because our President said that there were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" there. That turned out to be not true. American soldiers and marines have died, the national treasury has been sorely depleted and we have nothing to show for it except rising gasoline prices and a very angry and I might add, frightened Arab world.

It took a lot of courage to go against Bush and Cheney. A hell of a lot of courage. I think the people who had to sign off wanted to be sure that they were right. I believe this report is the right information at the right time. My hats off to the folks at Langley and the Pentagon.

I'm waiting for Fox News to air a show about how Bush was right to wage war, irregardless of how ill-prepared for Phase IV or without a 'second-half' team, since it clearly had some influence in Iran and Libya on backing off their programs.

After the White House fell in love with Chalabi and lines, I have to wonder if Iranian intelligence isn't playing catering to their tendencies (one guy with all these answers) in order to bide their time.

A question struck me this morning and that is "Are the US and Iran actually beginning to engage in substantive discussions?" Note the following:
1. Iran's rhetoric has cooled somewhat. Note their muted reaction to the change in the NIE.
2. China's response was somewhat muted.
3. I know of no comments by Russia.
4. The violence in Iraq has cooled somewhat, possibly because Iran's agents are not formenting so much violence.

I just wonder? Remember that often what is said in public does not really reflect what's happening in the background.

According an old Persian proverb one can get more ants with sugar than salt. And our good professor Barnett recommands the..."need to begin the conversation and slowly manage this relationship for the better over time." Who knows? It seems like his prediction with another Clinton in the Oval Office might come true.
That is why I love all these guys graduated from Harvard or do I? Oh, yes I do, with a few minor mistakes like Salinas and you guessed it right, Bush.

It is becoming more and more obvious that perceptions of Iran as an irrational and fundamentalist regime are flawed. Iran has always acted rationally, and with great strategic vision. In fact, more rationally and with more "strategery" than the US.

The Mullahs are not the Taliban. They are too big to be the Taliban. Hell, if the Taliban were as powerful as the Mullahs they wouldn't be the Taliban either. Individuals with power seek to retain that power, in this case exemplified by the Mullahs acting rationally and seeking to protect their hold on power in Iran. They are building infrastructure and safeguarding their future against US incursion.

The question is how do we engage them now? As Dr. Barnett pointed out, "Only Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could go to the US." After all his rhetoric, is it now possible for Bush to converse with Iran? He doesn't seem like the type. Or will we have to wait for the next administration to begin a dialog?

- A hopeful Army ROTC Cadet

dang, Ian! that's a lot of sense from a college student! ;-)

if anything, this episode has reinforced that most people interpret based on presuppositions. those who presupposed Iranian rationality see Iranian reason. those who presupposed American rationality see American reason.

Now may be the time when the future looks amazingly secure. Without question the Bush administration is suing for peace: Annapolis, the NIE report on Iran and now a direct contact with North Korea. There is also a shift in France and Germany with leaders there closer to the US positions. Chavez got knocked down a peg. Some people in the USG are doing the right thing and getting good resutls..

Iraq may even straighten out as a dialog with Iran may open the door for Shiite leadership. If the net result is that the average Joe can make a decent living in both Iraq and Iran, the war on terror is over.

The fly the ointment is Israel. When will they chose the peace route? How can they be convinced that there only real lasting security will come about only after they sue for peace with their neighbors and non-Jewish citizens.

Yet another example of Dr. Barnett's (big bad Tom's) ability to see further than most of the people in the current administration, and elsewhere. As was evidenced in the recent little blog war, Tom is often light years ahead of many of us, who sometimes find ourselves scrambling to catch up. Wait-up Tom, we'll get there eventually, you just need to drop a few more bread crumbs, because mere mortals need a bit more informational sustenance if we are to keep from losing you over the horizon.

Now you just need to corner the presidential candidates, one by one and give them the straight poop on how it's all going to go down in the Middle East and with China. And don't let them leave the room until they get it.

And if I may say, I find the political backlash to this report, coming from Senate Republicans and among conservative commentators in the media, to be rather contemptible. They apparently have no problem throwing our intelligence people under the bus whenever it suits their purposes, and have all but accused them of attempting to undermine current administration policy, simply because the information which has been delivered in this NIE doesn't jive with their entrenched view of the strategic situation.

Apparently some people will never get it, because they allow their political positions to warp their perceptions and judgment. This is a dangerous trap that we all must avoid if we are to retain the ability to make objective and informed decisions when dealing with our enemies and allies. Otherwise we run the risk of blind ourselves to the point of losing the capacity to choose the most advisable course of action which best serve our national interests.

And for the record, I have no problem putting my faith in the conclusions of this NIE on Iran, and the final assessment of the Director of National Intelligence, retired Vice Admiral John Michael McConnell (a friend and associate of Dick Cheney who was hand-picked by the Bush administration just this year for his position), because I have little doubt that this data was compiled objectively and based on scrupulously verified fact, that was subject to rigorous evaluation before the final estimate was approved and published by the ODNI. Perhaps this will usher in a new age of pursuing policy that is fashioned around and supported by facts, sounds like an enlightened concept to me. :-)

NIE, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities