Iran Fallout

Students in Tehran demonstrate for freedom: Live Free or Die. Lots of fallout since last week on the flipped NIE report on Iran. So bizarre. Daniel Henninger on the cartoon-like Dem view of the world and the disregard of Iran's actual behavior (I can just imagine some Democrat president, a la Jimmy Carter, going to talk to evil creepy dictators and being taken hostage):

Let's assume for argument's sake that Iran did stop its nuke program in 2003. Why, then, in 2006 was Iran performing test flights of the Shabab-2 and Shabab-3 ballistic missiles, the latter with a range of some 1,200 miles? Commenting at the time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Iranians "are not unaware that the security environment is one in which if they actually were to do something, Iran would suffer greatly." But as of this week, they might not.

Indeed last week, just as the U.S. intelligence professionals were preparing to tell the world it could forget about Iran (as yesterday's news reports made clear the world is about to do), the Iranian defense ministry announced it has built a new 1,200-mile missile, the Ashura. In September, it put on display the 1,100-mile-range Ghadr-1 missile. If this is all an inconsequential feint, it's a remarkably big one.

Dual use has a lot to answer for. Why does a country like Iran awash with oil need to develop nuclear power? (And why is it building and shooting off missiles?) More from the WSJ:

In this regard, it's hilarious to see the left and some in the media accuse Mr. Bush once again of distorting intelligence. The truth is the opposite. The White House was presented with this new estimate only weeks ago, and no doubt concluded it had little choice but to accept and release it however much its policy makers disagreed. Had it done otherwise, the finding would have been leaked and the Administration would have been assailed for "politicizing" intelligence.

The result is that we now have NIE judgments substituting for policy in a dangerous way. For one thing, these judgments are never certain, and policy in a dangerous world has to account for those uncertainties. We know from our own sources that not everyone in American intelligence agrees with this NIE "consensus," and the Israelis have already made clear they don't either.

John Bolton describes the flaws in the NIE report, authored by State Dept. imports (that's the clue right there, what country do they work for anyway):

First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout."

The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives.

Apparently the report is softer on Iran than even the UN's IAEA, if such a thing is possible. The Tribune with more on the IAEA's disturbing findings (and lack of full access--what is Iran hiding?). The Brits are openly skeptical, verging on contemptuous. The Telegraph:

British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.

The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.[snip]

But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.

The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation.

The report has undermined a third set of UN sanctions--taken most options off the table, and probably increased the likelihood of war.

But the NIE report may not be the last word. Two former House Intelligence Committee heads are so concerned about this debacle they have written an op-ed piece on the limits of intelligence, and the need for policy makers to make policy, with these further points:

Most importantly, it does not explain why the 2005 NIE came to the opposite conclusion, or what factors could drive Iran to "restart" its nuclear-weapons program. [snip]

Intelligence is essential in countering proliferation challenges from state and nonstate actors. And national-security issues should be bipartisan and debated in a constructive manner, recognizing that sometimes, based on the information available, what we believe in good faith to be true may turn out to be wrong.

They conclude Iran clearly remains dangerous. Two-thirds of Americans apparently don't believe Iran has stopped developing nuclear weapons, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, which includes even a majority of liberals. And 62% believe Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the US.

For now, the fallout from Iran's nuclear program remains verbal.

UPDATE: The little dictator has a blog. A few negative comments from overseas have been allowed on the site, but one Canadian commented, after the NIE came out, "I knew you were telling the truth". NY Times:

The exchanges are available at ahmadinejad.ir in Persian, Arabic, English and French. The president has been keeping the blog for more than a year and promises to spend 15 minutes a week updating it.

“He has a very keen understanding of publicity,” said Karim Arghandehpour, a political scientist and journalist in Tehran. “His Web log shows how he believes in modern publicity instruments and wants to use them.”

In his most recent piece, Mr. Ahmadinejad has provided a “Guideline for Islamic Governance” and writes about how an official should consider his duties as his “responsibilities before God” to help the people. “It is in this view that the smile of an orphan is more important than the contentment of greedy rulers,” he writes.

There is a political irony to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s blogging, since other Iranian bloggers, including reporters who worked for news Web sites, came under more pressure after his election. Hundreds of Web sites and blogs that were critical of the government have been blocked. Censorship has been so wide that the president’s blog was once blocked mistakenly along with Google for a day.