The badly-drafted NIE Report

Unfortunately I am a bit behind on current events–law school exams have been known to have such an affect–but even though this is a few days late, I still think an analysis of the NIE report is in order.

As you no doubt know, the report has concluded “with high confidence”… I might add, that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”

Now, this report can be either believed (although doing so… how does one say… requires a willing suspension of disbelief) or be attacked for a number of valid reasons. Allow me to address both alternatives in order.

First, if we believe the report, how is it that our intelligence is 4 years behind the curve in finding such information out? Is it not entirely possible under this logic that Iran might have started it’s program back up in 2005–giving them a 4 year head start until our policy changes again in ’09? Hardly re-assuring.

Secondly, if we choose to disbelieve the report, there are a variety of good reasons for doing so. To begin, it is unclear whether the new intelligence responsible for the 180 degree about-face based on reliable sources.  It is quite possible Iran may be leaking information to try to mislead western intelligence officials.  One only needs to look at the the statements of Iranian officials on a weekly basis to figure out they are a peace-loving nation.  The pursuit of nuclear weapons quite simply fits the mold.

Secondly, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not share the same degree of confidence in the U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” (WSJ).

Third, the three authors of the report are all admittedly opposed to Bush’s current Iranian policy. This isn’t to say that Bush’s interpretation of the intelligence isn’t equally tainted by ideology, but at least Bush’s position until now was based on intelligence documents that re-enforced his position. Given the astonishing new findings, one can’t but wonder if the report was designed in part to undermine the Bush strategy.

What is perhaps the most unfortunate result of the release of the report is how quickly it’s findings were put to partisan political purposes. Democrats quickly ran to the microphones–unquestionably accepting the intelligence report as inherent truth (which I found a bit odd given their qualms about previous WMD intelligence)–claiming Bush’s policy was incorrect and re-articulating the need for a diplomatic solution.

The mainstream media has responded no better. The New York Times immediately published an article titled “The Good and Bad News About Iran“. In relevant part:

The good news:
Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House fevered rhetoric….

And the bad news:
But there’s also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not be overlooked… Tehran’s scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel — the hardest part of building a weapon. Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program.

As James Toranto (one of my favorite cynics) concluded… “In other words, the bad news, per the Times, is that a lunatic theocracy may soon become a lunatic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The good news is that that there’s nothing President Bush can do to stop it.” I haven’t come to expect much support for bush from the Times; therefore, this article didn’t come as a surprise. You can imagine my shock then at the Time’s op-ed article the following day which seems to conclude the very opposite:

…[T]he report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?

I happen to think the second article has it right; Iran has no need for nuclear fuel with their massive oil reserves; we cannot just blindly accept Teran’s “peaceful uses” explanation given their hard-water facilities. However, what is maddening about these two articles is that within the space of 24 hours, the Times went from bashing Bush’s “fevered rhetoric” to lamenting that the report removes Bush from the responsibilities his “fevered rhetoric” would otherwise require! Can it be said any differently then the times wants it both ways!? They praise Bush’s political defeat yet demand he be held accountable for their preferred “diplomatic” policy should it fail!  If read together, the Times has essentially praised the use of dangerous and misleading intelligence.  I really do not know how to react to such an evasive set of policy positions.

What many fail to realize is that in the end, the danger with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology was with the pursuit itself… not necessarily the weapons that may still be decades away. It is really a question of responsibility; the Iranian regime has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be entrusted with such potential power.

I believe the Bush administration has taken the proper approach to Iran–bringing countries together on issues like sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, the NIE report has wasted much of the political capital the Bush administration — including Condalesa Rice, John Bolton, and others — have worked hard to earn over the past few years.

It seems the drafters of the NIE have in both advocated a policy and have yet managed undermined that very policy within the pages of a single document. If this is not bad drafting… then I don’t know what is.