Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Wow. Great point. I wonder if/when the press does (should!) call Bush out on knowing all this yet pushing (as recent as yesterday) the WW3 rhetoric.

A very interesting turn of events. Looks to me like some folks decided that silence was not an option this time. Perhaps the collective conscience of the Intel community was still bothered by the WMD fiasco in Iraq. If so, kudos to the men (and women) who had the guts to stand up this time. I know that Israel is screaming foul over this, but I just do not trust their assessment. It seems that they are the only ones who would benefit from an American attack on Iran.

Stratfor's George Friedman thinks that this is a political document signaling greater American willingness to work with Tehran. I hope so.

Dr Barnett ,politics don't have mother or father.I truly believe it has
never been about nuclear weapon,or attacking another country or
Israel for that matter.iran has not invaded another country,perhaps,
since 13th century.so what is it that make iran so dangerous in the
eyes of Bush & Cheny,or mybe other pervious admins.if you look at
past 100 years, we see at every junctions,that people either stablish or strive for a democratic change,the external interfiernce of
foriegn countries mainly british and US,has derailed this process.why
is it these countries that had thier own political and industrial revolutions are so much against the same things for other countries.
contrary to Bush and others that claim they want democracy(a greek
word; demo mean people,ocracy means govning)for middle east,in fact,the main reason why they are scared, is if these people are able
to increase thier knowldge and technologies and become economicly
and industerly self-suffiecnt.they only want a one way "free trade" or a free movement of money,but not the free movement of technology.

I agreed with dan above that this was a political document, but I thought it was likely the intelligence community giving the war faction a little preemptive medicine.

I'm waiting for the Seymour Hersh story.

This would be from the same agencies that produced the October 2002 NIE stating

"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.

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs."

What makes this one any more accurate than that one?

I'm only posing this as a theory, but is there a chance that this "downgrading" of the Iran threat was done as a little "reward" we're tossing Iran for allowing the surge/"change in tactics" to work? I've been reading for about the last year about small talks between Iranian officials and US military in Iraq. Perhaps another side of the Iranian strategy was to show us how miserable they could make Iraq so that we'd show a little gratitude when they kept their nose out...

Iran doesn't need to fuel an insurgency to have influence in Iraq. They have enough allies in the Iraqi government to do that. Fueling the insurgency was solely to bloody the nose of the US and educate us on what a big player they can be.... Insurgency gives them leverage. They back off. We back off. Any takers on this theory or am I looking through the rose colored glasses on this one?

My total guess is that everybody is wrong on this. More than likely back in 2003, someone like Richard Armitage, went to Iran and told them to abandon the project or go back the Stone Age. I say this recalling the alleged conversation between Armitage and Musharraf in 2002. From there, Iran did as they were told, but kept up its bluster to keep its local political hold on the Iranian population. The Bush administration kept up the bluster as in addition playing to its political base here, it kept the billions rolling to the cronies, and, as an added bonus, got the quite support from all the Senate Democrats who fell compelled to advance the interests of Israel.

This is a little devious but certainty was likely than the President just found out last week.

One should always keep in mind that Bush 43 is a third generation inner IC member. The shit-kicking dumb rancher pose is about as believable as the just found out statement.

Why is this happening now? Bush 43 knows that the best course for the nation is to sue for peace. With Annapolis and the Iran report, overtures, probably quite opaque, will be sent out to other “enemies” All of this is dictated by the current state of the economy. The problem is that there is a probability that there will be another Great Depression, which may not wind down in ten years. No body wants this, so basic policy shifts, starting with the peaces goal are mandated,

As has been pointed out by others these NIEs have varied wildly and often contradicted earlier NIEs. Latching onto this one as the real truth, as opposed to the previous ones it contradicts ... the whole process just reduces my faith in the process.

It seems clear someone is playing politics. But I have no idea who. The Bush administration, anti-Bush forces in the Intelligence Community.

So, the Iranians are intelligent for using bluster, but the US isn't?

Yet it's the Iranians who've apparently bent to our will since we invaded Iraq, not the reverse.

Thomas, I think your bias is showing.

I have to agree with George on this. These documents are released for a reason whether they be to up the pressure or the reverse, and this document clearly dials-down the WWIII rhetoric. Taken as such, this is a concilliatory signal to Iran by the Admin. Add in US Military reports that Iran is cutting off weapon flows to Iraq, things are opening up (providing cover) for Condi to possibly open high level talks with the Iranians.

The most interesting part of the NIE is this rather revealing statement near the end;

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. 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. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

Is the Admin clearing the path to search for that right combination?

Tom's post sounds shrill, to me. "Abject fear mongering" or just hardball diplomacy aspect of The Big Bang? With Sid and Dan, I think there's more to be revealed, and responsible reactions must consider the multiple threads that make up WMD "development programs", as well as the multiple levels of communication between US and Iran. Just, for example, how much does one discount Ahmadinejad as more hat than cattle? Why did/does Iran evade/reject US and other requests for overt evidence that it has "shelved" all elements of weaponizing its nuclear research? And just how definitive is that shelf? They're not stupid, but neither are they without guile or ambition.

Indeed, this seems like a classic climb down from the ledges move, right up to where the thing is crafted in such a way that its findings can be quickly reversed, if need be.

Think about it, Dr Barnett-- yes, this can be read as evidence for your thesis, at the expense of assuming that Bush, Cheney, and the rest, really are as stupid as stumps. But can it also be read as a part of the diplomatic course you and others have been advocating? Can't this be read as way for Bush to finesse (or try to finesse) his way around obstreperous Republicans and other hawks while setting up for what you call a soft-kill in the next Administration, or the one after that?

I think it can.

Heck, I saw the news reports, dug in a little, and thought, "Wow, Barnett's going to be really pleased with this!"

Guess not.

The fact that it has reduced tensions and sent the black helicopters scrambling for new conspiracy theories makes this release very smart. This isn't the first time Bush has made a 180 to change the conditions.

It will be more interesting to observe the economic fallout here more than the political fallout, although the political will get more press.

So how hard is it to covert a civilian nuclear program to a military program?
So how good was our intelligence on 9/11?
How good was it about WMDs in Iraq?
How good was it with Libya?
How good was it with A. Q. Khan?

Is our intelligent community believable? This is my dilemma.

Can we believe they are trying to make nukes? Can we believe they are not trying to make nukes?
We had better stay on track to ensure the Iran doesn’t get nukes. The pressure has to remain high, but we have time before we are forced to take dramatic actions. This works out for the US, if you think about it. It gives our military time to rest and recover and reduce our exposure in Iraq; Time for democracy to take hold in the Middle East time for Iraq to build an economy.

Time is on our side.

Interesting Bush press conference on NIE report. It illustrates again how important open and candid dialogue between presidents and media are to creating the necessary insights the public must have in order to have a needed virtuous reality ... like the Swartzcoff press conferences 0f 1990/91

The US visceral need to rub the Iranian's noses in the sand and destabilise the theocracy...led to them throwing the Iranian offer of a strategic reconcilliation back into their faces a few years back.
Now that the Iraqi adventure is re-populating the neocon universe with some common sense , this report allows the US the foot room to move back out from the war corner that they had so pointlessly painted themselves into , whilst still being able to claim that the US pressure that led to this.
But Iranians have nothing to gain by sitting down with the US now.
Just stick to to the NPT...do nothing illegal...and still have the cake and eat it.( deterrence through know how but stay within the NPT).
If US proxies attack....I would not react ....just leave the NPT.
The US needs to engage the Iranians as strategic partners .But thats just not going to happen with this administration and maybe not the next.

Bush was dangerous yesterday, Bush is dangerous today and Bush will be dangerous untill his term ends. Then it is a different story...when the walls are gone and the dogs turned loss, every dog faced dog will have his dog day. Core or gap? Dinosaurs or mammals?

A good summation on Iran by a true elder statesman, Arnaurd de Borchgrave http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21098

So all of a sudden I'm just supposed to not think Iran is overrun with crazy fools? Because an NIE from an area of government that has been famously wrong in recent years says so?

I know intelligence can't be easy and that they probably get things right a thousand times more often than they're wrong, but still. Iran is a scary country.

Frankly, from a political perspective, I think a lot of its media prominence has come through aggressive promotion by Democrats who desperately need George Bush to be the issue in 2008 (especially with the Iraq situation seeming to improve). What better way to do that than allege the unpopular president is itching to start another war? Then request a new NIE that will show Iran isn't making weapons and Bush was wrong again. (btw - if Bush knew months in advance, so did Harry Reid and I bet good money he knew what it would say the day he asked for it, like any good lawyer who only asks questions for which he already knows the answers).

You need no more proof than the fact that Harry Reid requested the new assessment and almost to a person, the Democrats' reaction has been complete criticism of the president. No thank god Iran isn't developing weapons. Just how bad George Bush is.

I think the whole situation is the product of election-related manipulation and as a political manipulator myself, I think it's been masterful.

no Kevin, not if that hasn't been your predisposition before now.

on the other hand, Tom has been arguing that Iran will behave rationally (in its own interests) for some time.

Is this the same Iran that denied having a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003? And if the program is covert what can our intell agencies really know about it except that it's covert? This report appears to be nothing more than guess work. As Iran cannot achieve its goal of becoming a world military and political power without joining the nuclear club it is highly unlikely that they have suspended their hidden program. Given Iran's past denial of having such a program only a fool would trust this report. One is reminded of British intell back in the 30s claiming that Hitler would never invade the Ruhr.

And besides, as Iran remains the godfather, powerhouse and central banking source for international terror the justification for war remains firmly in place.

Why can't Sarah doll and Barbie doll be just friends? As our good professor tells US: "Der babysitter kommt im kampfanzug."