" the regime of Iran, especially the hardliners led by the Supreme Leader and represented by the president, acted as if the new report of the US intelligence organizations was a new chapter of the Koran."
In all my years on the internet that was one of the few lines I actually Laughed Out Loud at.
The statement comes to us from Bahman Diba, PhD in International Law. His specialty being international sea law. He is almost certain to post his thoughts on the recent US/Iran confrontation as he did about the British hostage crisis and I look forward to his thoughts.
However I happend to bring up the NIE and the IAEAs chief Mohamed Baradei's visit to Iran this weekend in the Harry-"does it seem real?"-Smith thread.
Apparently some say the NIE means nothing and Bush is still planning to attack Iran and others tell me I can sleep easier. Because the NIE is gospel proof of accurate intelligence (all of a sudden imagine that) that Iran has absolutely no interest in making a nuclear weapon and it stopped it's illegal nuke making program in 2003. So it's all good.
Except the good Dr. here has a few questions and points he'd like to make, which I will list here. I still have yet to hear these asked or expressed in the media.
1- The report is made by the US intelligence organizations which claim
to have listened to the conversations of the Iranian officials. In a
country that is well aware that the telephone calls of the officials
are monitored by the intelligence organizations, how reliable is such
an eavesdropping? It is said that the NIE is based on the eavesdropping
made by the British agents. It is interesting that a high ranking UK
official has recently said: "the intelligence analysts in the UK believed that Iran has deceived the US intelligence organization."
2- The report says that Iran had a military nuclear program, which was
stopped in 2003. This statement does not mean anything. The entire
nuclear program of Iran is not at all in a stage that one can say it
has or it has not a military side (that is exactly what the
International Atomic Energy Agency has said time and again in all of
its reports about the nuclear case of Iran, including the recent report
which was equality celebrated by it Iranian regime). The way to
military or non-military nuclear programs is the same up to the final
stages. For the same reason, the United Nations Security Council
resolutions and the Western pressure about the nuclear program of Iran
are all based on one point: the "lack of trust". They argue that they
do not want Iran to enrich uranium (although it is mentioned in the
NPT) because they do not trust the regime of Iran. They are concerned
that Iranian regime might divert the program to the military side in
the last stages (exactly what the North Koreans did). Therefore, a
direct statement about stopping of the military side of the Iranian
nuclear program is meaningless, while the regime of Iran continue to
enrich uranium and expand the heavy water nuclear facilities in Arak
(yet, another way of getting to the military goals).
3- As Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary, said recently in the
conference of Bahrain (Washington post, Dec. 2007): if the regime of
Iran, welcomes this report as being the reflection of facts, why it
does not accept the other NIE reports about the depth of Iranian
intervention Iraq, the support of international terrorism and support
of Hamas and Hezbollah? It would be interesting to see the reaction of
the Iranian Islamic
regime to the new reports of the NIE about the human rights, corruption
and other problems of Iran under the rule of Iranian Taliban.
4- If the military nuclear program of Iran has stopped in 2003, then
what it has to do with the present administration? It was the time of
Khatami and good or bad, the credit goes to him. The only thing that
remains for the present administration is the level of its hypocrisy to
the people of Iran and the other states.
5- The Iranian Supreme Leader and some other officials of the Islamic Republic in Iran have claimed that they consider the nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam. While the extent of such claim is clearly under question (it is based on the Fatwa or religious ruling of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that can change it any time and it
is not mandatory for many muslins), the present NIE and its support by
the regime of Iran, indicate to the level of deception used by the
leaders of the Islamic regime in Iran.
Thoughts?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Iran Will Not Voluntarily Cease Its Nuclear Weapons Program
January 12, 2008 - 06:10 ET by reasonsjesterIt is odd that so soon after the apparent 9/11 intelligence debacle, which saw Operation Able Danger go unheeded and the CIA dismissal of Iranian intelligence defectors like Hamid Reza Zakeri, who had warned of an impending attack of immense proportions on U.S. soil to occur around September 10th as early as July 26th, 2001 (see Timmerman 7-26 in bib.), we now have a community of mainly leftist intellectuals ready to put full stock and credo into the NIE report that you cite. Dr. Bahman Diba, for his part, raises some good questions directly relevant to the issue of whether our intelligence, specifically meaning the latest NIE, can now 'unquestionably' be relied upon. One of the most specific problems of intelligence, as I am sure you are well aware, is that there is a danger of "fitting" information to a "template" already formed by certain assumptions that may or may not be correct. Modern liberals, by assuming that people in general mean well, are in danger of exposing the nation (and other nations) to unimagineable harm if their assumption is incorrect. If one takes more "rational actor" assumptions; that is, that all the nations of the world are guided by individuals who think strategically about how to best improve their positions in the world (a problematic assumption, but helpful in many instances), then we will draw different conclusions about Iran's nuclear energy program, regardless of what the mullahs or their spokesmen may say publicly. A short excerpt from Dr. Jerome Corsi's "Atomic Iran" illustrates a relevant point:
"On Sunday, October 31, 2004, virtually on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, met in Tehran. The 247 lawmakers present of the 290 total considered an inflammatory resolution. The bill before the Majlis wold require the government to enrich uranium. The session was carried live on national radio. As the assembly voted unanimously to enrich uranium, the members of parliament took up an eerie chant: "Death to America!...Death to Israel!" (19)
The above statement of fact is not in and of itself enough to condemn Iran. After all, many dictatorial regimes in precarious or threatened positions resort to virulent nationalism to prop up the regime, increase productivity, or "signal" to potential enemies. However, this parliamentary resolution and the context it was drafted in, contributes to a public international record that has the spokesman of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, denying the Holocaust and stating that he would "wipe Israel off the map." Such cold statements add to the assumption that at the very least Iran feels threatened by Israel and the U.S., and at worst the Iranian government plans to use nuclear weapons once it can procure them. In either case, it is extremely risky to trust a government that is documented as supporting terrorism and that consistently lies and evades any meaningful inspection regime. It seems very much wishful thinking that Iran means no other state any harm when it is already sponsoring such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah. Hezbollah, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, "carried out principally" the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers that killed 19 Americans and wounded 372 (60). In addition, Iran has been implicated cooperating with al Qaeda (again from The 9/11 Commission Report):
"The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations." (79)
Specifically damning for Iran is the symbiotic relationship between the regime and al Qaeda that contributed to the ultimately "successful" 9/11 attacks themselves, although this relationship is underplayed in the report itself (240-241):
"For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda" (240).
Such an accumulation of evidence that Iran means us harm (including the documented support Iran gave to the Taliban during the U.S.' War in Afghanistan; the funding, training, and equipping of insurgents in Iraq, as well as its provision of "mujahadeen" to the cause; and finally this week's assault on a U.S. naval vessel in the Persian Gulf) is not consistent with the claim that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. By properly framing Iran's past behavior, we have ample cause to doubt Iran's "peaceful" intentions with its nuclear program. Dr. Bahman Diba's concerns are thus well-founded and well-taken in consideration of whether or not to rely on the latest NIE as ample evidence that Iran has forsaken its nuclear weapons program. Do not trust and verify seems the most reasonable path to securing U.S. and U.S. allies' interests.
Bib.
The 9/11 Commision Report.
Corsi, Jerome. "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." Cumberland House: Nashville, TN. 2005.
Timmerman, Kenneth R. "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran." Crown Forum: New York, NY. 2005.
Note: In my opinion, Timmerman's book is the better researched and better documented of the two.
-The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius