GraphicZionism: Kerry's Iranian Progress

.

^

Skeptical? We're Downright Doubtful

Okay, President Obama admits Israel can be 'skeptical' over the Iran deal.

But can we also be skeptical over the consultations he permits Israel with Washington?

Will we know everything that he will know about fulfillment of the agreement's conditions and terms?

I doubt that. 

^

Israel Needs To Not Be Further Kerryed

Our Prime Minister was told by the American president that as regards the deal with Iran

"Consistent with our commitment to consult closely with our Israeli friends...he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution,"...

Despite protestations that everything will be okay, many and more* see this agreement as disastrous.

What should be the campaign focus now?

What Benjamin Netanyahu is thinking I do not know.  And I doubt he'll tell me.

But what I would suggest is to focus on Obama and to highlight the following points:

a) is he reliable?  can he be trusted based on his performance these past few years?  how to we track his future moves on Iran?

b) is a proper supervisory mechanism in place? will it work? will it report publicly?

c) based on those reports, does the US and its allies have a military alternative response is infractions and violations happen?

We must emphasize that a strike is the only alternative to this deal's failing.  No more deals.  No more negotiations.

Instead of having Israel being pressured all the time, the object is to pressure the United States and its President (as for its Secretary of State, if Obama prefers someone else to negotiate, we can leave him out).


P.S.

But we can name a new term: to be kerryed which means to be circumvented but employed to mislead as a useful idiot.

___________

*

One.  Two.  Three.  Four.  Five.  Six.  Seven.  Eight.  Nine (finally).  Ten.  

Eleven I, Eleven II.   Twelve.  Thirteen.  Fourteen.  Fifteen.  Sixteen.  

Seventeen.   Eighteen.  Nineteen.  Twenty. Twenty-one.  Twenty-two.  

Twenty-three.   Twenty-four.  Twenty-five.  Twenty-six.  Twenty-seven.  

Twenty-eight.  Twenty-nine.

^

The Pal. Authority Is Going Nuclear

Reported:

Tunisia 13/05/2013 WAFA - The State of Palestine participated in the meetings of the 51st session of the Executive Council of the Arab Atomic Energy Agency, which began its work on Monday in Hammamet, Tunisia, with the participation of 11 countries...[and was] represented in the meetings by Counsel of the  Embassy of Palestine in Tunisia, Hisham Mustafa, deputy head of the Arab Atomic Energy Agency....[he noted - who this 'he' is is unclear to me] at the beginning of his speech opening, the struggle of the Palestinian people, especially as the anniversary of the 65th Nakba would occur two days later, and said that 'this anniversary causes us to work hard in order to obtain the Palestinian people all their national rights, particularly the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.'He added that the efforts made by the General Directorate for the implementation of programs and projects planned for the first half of this year were the subject of the satisfaction of the Member States, and that the volume of activity reflects the desire of public administration in the development of peaceful nuclear activity in Arab countries and promote it to catch up with developed countries...

Now reread Rajoub:

Former Palestinian Authority security chief Jibril Rajoub said the Arab League must help the Palestinians fight Israel, particularly the capture of Jerusalem. Rajoub said he supported nuclear attacks on Israel.

“Until now, we don’t have nuclear weapons,” Rajoub said. “Believe me, if we had nuclear weapons we would use them tomorrow morning.”

^

If Dan Meridor Isn't A 'Happy-Camper'....

If he's not that much a 'happy-camper' -

Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor on Sunday expressed doubt over optimistic reports emerging from the first round of nuclear talks in Istanbul over the weekend.

"The Iranian nuclear project is far from being over," Meridor told Army Radio.

Them we really are in trouble.


^

Are The Iranians Subscribed?

This came into my box:

Subscribe to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to have access to all content!

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists goes mobile!

In 2011 we have been working on a project to optimize viewing of SAGE journals via handheld devices. We see this as a vital mechanism in the future accessibility of our journal content. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists now has its own SAGE Journals Online (SJO) mobile optimized site. The site was launched at the beginning of September 2011 and is accessible at: m.bos.sagepub.com. When you access the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists SJO Platform http://bos.sagepub.com via a handheld device it will automatically go to the mobile optimized version. The optimized site features all the regular content that you would expect to see on the usual SJO platform.

About the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Bulletin is an independent nonprofit organization that publishes analysis and conducts forums about nuclear security, climate stabilization, and safety in the biosciences. Founded by Manhattan Project scientists from the University of Chicago, it links the work of scholars and experts with policymaking entities and citizens around the world. An international network of authors assesses scientific advancements that involve both benefits and risks to humanity, with the goal of influencing public policy to protect the Earth and its inhabitants. The organization’s scientific advisory boards include 19 Nobel laureates, ambassadors, leading scholars, distinguished NGO officials, and public policy experts. The Bulletin is closely followed in Washington and other world capitals and uses its iconic Doomsday Clock to draw international attention to global risks and solutions.

To find out more please visit www.thebulletin.org

^

While Mullen Mulls...

Jennifer Rubin, over at Contentions, pegs down Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and asks What Is Israel to Do?

Quoting him from a JPost report that "A military strike against Iran would be 'incredibly destabilizing'”, Ms. Rubin adds:

...this should certainly unnerve you — on multiple counts. First, we again see that the Obami consider the prospect of a strike on Iran to be ”destabilizing” — apparently more so than a nuclear-armed Iran. Second, Mullen confesses he really doesn’t know how far Iran’s nuclear program has progressed...is it evidence that our intelligence is deficient...Third...he thinks economic sanctions will be ineffective. Finally, and worst of all, even if Mullen believes these things, why in the world would he say them?

Her conclusion is that Mullen and Obama would want us to

...learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. As many of us have argued for over a year, that has been and remains, if not the intent, at least the inevitable result of Obama’s Iran policy. That the vast majority of mainstream American Jewish leaders have not woken up to this reality – nor in any meaningful way challenged the administration – is a tragic failure of immense proportions.

I like being a blogger. It's being in good great company, company like Jennifer.

Her opinions and thinking I line up with.

But can't those American Jewish leaders think?


- - -

Where But the New York Times?

Where but on the opinion page of the New York Times would you find an article that suggests:

Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb.

The author is Adam B. Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute, which says a lot, too, about American military thinking. It seems he is a nuclear abolitionist, or favors it.

The reasons, and please, don't laugh:

First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States...

...Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel...

...Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties...

...Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.

...Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region...

Now you want to ask a question, right? Well, he does it for you:-

What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less...

"Unless"?

Doesn't he believe in the concept of probability?

Nope:-

Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.

Aaaaaargh.


UPDATE


Now found this:

Lowther’s article is hard to take seriously, but the fact that it appears in our leading newspaper and is written by a government employee is sure to lead many in the conspiracy-mad Middle East to imagine that it represents the views of the U.S. government. That will only further encourage Iran and discourage its neighbors. Not that Iran needs much outside encouragement. Its leaders are plainly convinced that the U.S. is not going to do anything substantive to stop its nuclear program. And they are probably right. But that is hardly cause for celebration.

It's Really Quite Simple

Both the message and the solution:

Is Obama A Diplomatic Impotent? UPDATED

Item One:

For Immediate Release September 25, 2009

JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY and 10 DOWNING ST SPOKESMAN

President Obama and Prime Minister Brown held a meeting this morning on the margins of the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh...They agreed that Iran's nuclear activity was unacceptable, that the international community expected answers on October 1 and was also united in calling upon Iran to live up to its international responsibilities...

Item Two:

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
September 26, 2009

This week, I joined leaders from around the world at the United Nations and the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh. Today, I can report on what we achieved...

...In New York, we advanced the cause of peace and security...We also took unprecedented steps to secure loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to seek a world without them...The United States is meeting our responsibilities by pursuing an agreement with Russia to reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. And just as we meet our responsibilities, so must other nations, including Iran and North Korea.

...This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime, and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion. That is why international negotiations with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency.

My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions.

On this, the international community is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany, have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities.

Iran’s leaders must now choose – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.

Item Three:

Iran's Nuclear Program

James Acton, associate in the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was online Friday, Sept. 25 at Noon ET to discuss Iran's disclosure of a second uranium processing facility. Acton specializes in nonproliferation and disarmament. A physicist by training, Acton's research focuses on the interface of technical and political issues, with special attention to the civilian nuclear industry, IAEA safeguards, and practical solutions to strengthening the nonproliferation regime.

____________________

Frederick, Md.: Why did only three of the G-20 leaders make today's statement? Do we have a sense of where the other world leaders are on this subject?...

James Acton: ...They are playing a wait and see game at the moment.

_______________________

Boston: So does the discovery of this second enrichment facility finally convince Russia and China that Iran's peaceful assurances can not be taken at face value? Will they finally support us on further economic sanctions after the December deadline? Even if Iran allows inspectors into both known sites, how can other countries ever be sure there isn't some other weaponization activity going on elsewhere in the country?

James Acton: I suspect that Medvedev's comment yesterday--that sanctions are required under "special" circumstances--was a reference to this facility and may indicate a willingness to sanction Iran further if talks break down. We'll have to see where China is on this...

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: It has been clear for several years from news reports (often not in American papers) that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb despite its statements to the contrary. We keep saying that this is intolerable, threaten sanctions, and Iran keeps on developing. Apparently, Israel is being told by the U.S. to avoid military action, despite the fact that the leader of Iran has multiple times talked about the illegitimacy of Israel and the need for it to no longer exist. There are times in history when negotiations cannot work and military action is needed. Isn't this a time? What gives us the right to tell Israel to avoid military action when its actual existence is threatened by Iran?

James Acton: I agree 100% the Iran case is deeply worrying. I agree that it wants the ability to build a nuclear weapon at short notice, if not a weapon itself.

However, I disagree that the military option is a solution. The problem with the military option is that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon after being attacked (very likely) we are in a much worse position.

Israel says publicly that strong multilateral sanctions are the best solution--and it is right.

But I want to emphasize again that the ball is in the Iranian court. If Iran cooperates fully and proactively with the IAEA and abides the Security Council resolutions, a good outcome is still possible.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Is there a shred of evidence that Iran has, can now or will soon be able to enrich uranium to the 90+% required for weapons?

James Acton: There is no essential difference between the technology required to enrich to 5% and 90%. Once Iran has mastered the technology to produce low enriched uranium, it can reconfigure the equipment to produce HEU relatively simply. There is some technical debate among experts about how long it would take to do so--but none that it is possible.

So, your opinion about Obama on the Iran issue is, what?

====================

Impotency Quotient Update

Iran is helping to detect uranium deposits inVenezuela and initial evaluations suggest reserves are significant, President Hugo Chavez's government said Friday.

Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz said Iran has been assisting Venezuela with geophysical survey flights and geochemical analysis of the deposits, and that evaluations "indicate the existence of uranium in western parts of the country and in Santa Elena de Uairen," in southeastern Bolivar state.

"We could have important reserves of uranium," Sanz told reporters upon arrival on Venezuela's Margarita Island for a weekend Africa-South America summit. He added that efforts to certify the reserves could begin within the next three years.

The announcement came as revelations that Iran has secretly been building a uranium-enrichment plant provoke concerns among countries including the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, Germany and China.

Nuclear Weapons In Middle East - 1966

Any of this sound familiar as well?

294. Memorandum of Conversation/1/

Washington, May 26, 1966, 5 p.m.

/1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964-66, DEF 12 NEAR E. Confidential. Drafted by Thompson and approved in S on May 28. The meeting was held in the Secretary's office. The memorandum is Part III of VI.

SUBJECT
Nuclear Weapons in the Near East

PARTICIPANTS

Ambassador Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, USSR

The Secretary
Llewellyn E. Thompson, Ambassador-at-Large, Department of State

The Secretary asked the Ambassador if he had any reaction in Moscow to the discussion they had had with respect to nuclear weapons in the Near East./2/ Dobrynin said he had understood the Secretary was not talking about a possible treaty, but rather the policy of our two countries.

/2/The subject was discussed briefly in the course of a wide-ranging discussion between Rusk and Dobrynin on March 18. According to a memorandum of the conversation, Rusk indicated the United States would be interested in a nuclear free zone in the Near East, provided that Turkey and Greece could be excluded. Dobrynin expressed skepticism as to whether Israel and the UAR would be interested in such an arrangement. Rusk expressed the opinion that both would be. (Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 70 A 4443, 388.3, 1966)

The Secretary agreed that a formal treaty might not be practical since the Arabs would probably not sign a treaty with the Israelis. Dobrynin said that the Soviets were not going to furnish any nuclear weapons to these countries and he assumed that we were not and therefore he had not pursued the matter further in Moscow.

The Secretary pointed out that if all these countries would accept IAEA safeguards, this could be a good first step. He went on to explain, however, that what he had had in mind was the possibility that both the Soviet Union and the United States might get these countries to give separately private assurances to us and we could then each tell the governments on the other side. The Secretary asked if there had been any discussion of this subject with Cairo. Dobrynin replied that there was not, to his knowledge, but it was possible that this had come up during the recent visit of Mr. Kosygin to Cairo.

The Secretary said he could tell the Ambassador quite privately that we were convinced that the Israelis were not planning to make nuclear weapons.

Ambassador Dobrynin expressed some skepticism and wondered how an arrangement could be made. The Secretary said he thought that if these countries assured us that they would not go nuclear, they would not do so. He asked if it was the policy of the Soviet Government that there should be no nuclear weapons in this area.

The Ambassador replied that there should not be any anywhere!

The Secretary asked if the Ambassador had had any discussion in Moscow with respect to keeping sophisticated weapons out of the Middle East, such as missiles. Dobrynin, without directly relating his reply to any conversations he had had in Moscow, said that he did not see much possibility in this area until the Big Powers took some steps toward disarmament and set an example

. Otherwise, it was difficult to convince these countries not to acquire such weapons.

Roger Cohen Keeps Getting Tougher

In his column today, among other things, he suggest the scenario of a normalization with Iran that

...notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.

Of course, past Iranian statements regarding Israel such as

Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

and

Ahmadinejad last week called Israel a "dirty microbe" and "savage animal", as Iran stepped up its rhetoric against the Jewish state..."World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region," the Iranian president said.

Cohen ignores. Why one set is valid and the other not?

Anyway, Cohen continues and gets to Israel which he accuses as being able to derail any such deal:

...It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads.

Weapons, if they exist, that do not threaten anyone, except states like Iran which have made it clear they want to eliminate Israel.

And them Cohen quotes none other than Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who thinks that

“a combination of ignorance and arrogance” under the Bush administration squandered countless diplomatic opportunities with Iran and so allowed it to forge ahead with its nuclear program.

and what does ElBaradei say?

“Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran...I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”

which leads Cohen to draw this conclusion:

To avoid that nightmare Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It’s time.

Tough, echoing Nicholas Kristof, his fellow NYTimes columnist.

Who says there's no plaigerism at the NYT?


P.S. Just saw this letter there at the NYT:

Roger Cohen raises the legitimate question of when, if ever, Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons. He also reasonably suggests that the United States should engage in negotiations with Iran on this issue, despite the fact that the Europeans have made no progress in such negotiations for several years.

But one might question why Mr. Cohen could not make these points without severely criticizing Israel and making the inflammatory suggestion that its leaders are attempting to manipulate American policy.

Michael Gewirtz, New York

William Kristol On What Obama Didn't Do

Reviewing Obama's speech on Iran and North Korea, notice what he didn't do:

He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world.

Least Comprehensible Headline

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

Fissile?

To rhyme with missile?

Is that a missile that is fissionable missionable?

Is it a "fizz"?

No, it seems to be bad English.

Great, now we have Army generals trying to talk French.

I know Iranians use French a lot but we need a bit more backbone, unlike that which the French provide little example of.

==============================

UPDATE

Oh, oh.

Not only is the English incomprehensible, their raw intelligence data is as well:

Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

Gates' comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN's "State of the Union" that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear Caricature

No Rain Fallout

Haaretz, Israel's most unbelievable newspaper, reports that

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

Gee, I would have thought that everyone knows that in a rain storm, your feet get very wet, if not other parts.

In Iran's case, the object is to prevent the "rain" from fallouting.

Rice: "The Iranians Have to be Stopped"

Condi Rice is interviewed by Wolf (Ze'ev) Blitzer:-

QUESTION: Let’s move on and talk about something else in the region, Iran and nuclear tensions, specifically with Israel right now. The Jerusalem Post reported on Thursday this:

“The IDF,” the Israel Defense Forces, “is drawing up options for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that do not include coordination with the United States, the Jerusalem Post has learned. While its preference is to coordinate with the U.S., defense officials have said Israel is preparing a wide range of options for such an operation.”

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can’t comment on unknown sources. I don’t know what those sources are. I do know that we’ve had lots of very important discussions, not just with Israel but with states in the region, about the potential threat from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The international community is focused on it because just that kind of talk lets you know how serious a matter this is.

The Iranians have to be stopped ultimately from gaining the kind of technology and putting that technology into use to build a nuclear weapons capability. And that’s what we’re all focused on.

QUESTION: How much time is there?

SECRETARY RICE: I don’t think it’s worthwhile to try to judge the many different timelines that are out there about when they might achieve that capability. The important thing is that Iran is under a microscope on this issue. Iran is under sanctions on this issue. Many, many companies and banks and institutions are leaving Iran. Iran is becoming more isolated. And there is even a debate in Iran about whether their government’s policies and the isolation that it has brought is worth it.

And so we have built extraordinary pressure on Iran that was not, frankly, there when the President came to office. When the President came to office, nobody really believed that the Iranians were trying to do this.

QUESTION: And you have no doubt that their intent – the Iranians – is to build a nuclear bomb?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I have no doubt that they could have a civil nuclear program tomorrow if they wished. We’ve told them, everyone has told them, that the kind of reactor that the Russians built for them at Bushehr, which is a civil nuclear reactor, with a fuel take-back to Russia, is available to them at any time. So if they want civil nuclear power, they’ve got an option. That leaves only the assumption that perhaps they’re not looking for civil nuclear power, but rather for a nuclear weapons program.

How Long to Wait?

I picked one sentence from this story in the NYTimes on the briefing given members of Congress on which to comment:-

While one of the senior intelligence officials said that the United States agreed that Syria was “good to go” in turning on the reactor, it would have been years before it could have produced weapons fuel.

Why?

Well, simple. Who cares if years would have gone by before Syria could have produced something nuclear (if that is true)?

If you child plays with matches, do you wait until he burns down the house before punishing him by taking away the matches?

Israel (and the rest of the world) faced with North Korea and Syria fooling around nuclear need just wait until - until when? Until they get to be like Iran?

Joltin' Bolton

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, author of "Surrender Is Not an Option" and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute has an op-ed in the Washington Post. Excerpts:-


The Flaws In the Iran Report

Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.
All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it...

...Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified. 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."

...Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq

...Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was "possible" but not "likely" that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions.

...That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.

(Kippah tip: Atlas Shrugs)

Vicious Debate

The NYTimes reports on a debate within Bush's Administration as if Israel was less than honest in its claim that Syria was going nuclear.

Israel's enemies will go to all extemes to portray her as untrustworthy.

Excerpt:-

A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.

At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.

...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach..officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings that Syria was on a path that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Others in the Bush administration remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.

...The Israeli strike occurred at a particularly delicate time for American diplomatic efforts. In addition to the North Korean nuclear negotiations, the White House is also trying to engineer a regional Middle East peace conference that would work toward a comprehensive peace accord between Arabs and Israelis.

The current and former American officials said Israel presented the United States with intelligence over the summer about what it described as nuclear activity in Syria. Officials have said Israel told the White House shortly in advance of the September raid that it was prepared to carry it out, but it is not clear whether the White House took a position then about whether the attack was justified.

One former top Bush administration official said Israeli officials were so concerned about the threat posed by a potential Syrian nuclear program that they told the White House they could not wait past the end of the summer to strike the facility.

...Bruce Riedel, a veteran of the C.I.A. and the National Security Council and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, said that American intelligence agencies remained cautious in drawing hard conclusions about the significance of the suspicious activity at the Syrian site.

Still, Mr. Riedel said Israel would not have launched the strike in Syria if it believed Damascus was merely developing more sophisticated ballistic missiles or chemical weapons. “Those red lines were crossed 20 years ago,” he said. “You don’t risk general war in the Middle East over an extra 100 kilometers’ range on a missile system.”

Another former intelligence official said Syria was attempting to develop so-called airburst capability for its ballistic missiles. Such technology would allow Syria to detonate warheads in the air to disperse the warhead’s material more widely.

...“Opposing the Israeli strike to protect the six-party talks would be a breathtaking repudiation of the administration’s own national security strategy,” said John R. Bolton, former United States ambassador to the United Nations.