Democrats across the land had a major "I told you so" moment this week when a new National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran stopped their clandestine nuclear weapons program back in 2003. Democrat candidates for president in 2008 renewed their calls for diplomacy with no preconditions, with Edwards taking the opportunity to attack Clinton for her record on hawkishness regarding Iran, and Obama chastising the choice by the Bush Administration to ever rattle the saber. Hillary at least acknowledged the reality that diplomacy requires both carrots and sticks, which gives her even more credibility in my book (but still not enough to bring me to vote for her).
The Tehran Times was quick to point out that the "NIE report [was] a complete fiasco for the US" and the San Francisco Chronicle asked whether "Bush [is] out of touch on Iran? Or willfully ignorant?"
I'm sure some people at Blogcritics felt vindicated by this news as well, especially after the "healthy" debate that followed my September article on Why We Can't Live With A Nuclear Iran. Surely this new NIE is proof positive that the nation of Iran is really a misunderstood, complex sort of fellow who is just another victim of Bush's salacious neocon imperialistic tendencies.
I'd prefer a world where we didn't have to worry about an Iranian nuclear threat (or any nuclear threat for that matter). However, the new NIE report, despite mainstream media gullibility, doesn't really change the issues with Iran's nuclear program, nor should it materially change the way the US and the international community deals with Iran. While the NIE has been portrayed as a huge blow to the credibility of the US and its intelligence community, the reality isn't nearly as straightforward. Any lowering of our guard as a result of this information is at our own peril.
First, it's worth pointing out that the NIE confirms that Iran was indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program as recently as four years ago. This illegal program was under the radar of the IAEA and flouted the law of the international community. That Iran stopped this program in 2003 is curious - while we can never truly know what's in the heart of man, I have a feeling that the U.S. response to Saddam Hussein's (lack of) WMD's may have been a factor in Tehran's decision to abandon, or at least pack away for the moment, their quest for nukes. One thing is clear; the mullarchy didn't halt the program out of the goodness of their hearts.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
What the left just seems not to get about the NIE and the situation with Iran, even though it ought to be blazingly obvious, is that in the period leading up to 2003 Iran had plenty of time to develop the basic technology to make nuclear weapons. Now their 'peaceful' nuclear power program is moving forward to develop the raw materials. They don't need to have an active weapons program while they're building up their ability to generate plutonium, and as soon as they have enough weapons grade plutonium they can reactivate their weapons program in a matter of weeks.
Iran has created a situation where they can make a legitimate sounding denial that they are working on nukes, while at the same time doing nothing to even slow down their weapon development.
Dave
2 - Christopher Rose
In the end, it doesn't really matter that much whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. Just as the doctrine of mutually assured destruction successfully prevented a nuclear war between the West and the Soviet Union, the same will apply here.
In fact, given that Israel has, illegally and without meaningful complaint from the West, joined the nuclear club and that the USA either already has or certainly would let Tehran know that it would retaliate massively if Iran did launch an attack, I doubt that much will change at all if Iran does succeed in making such weapons.
A quick look at a map shows that there is a pretty large arc of fire around Iran and it seems pretty rational on their part to want to strengthen their negotiating position by building a stronger hand.
As to the NIE report, it seems more than a little strange that it has changed its views so dramatically in the space of two years.
3 - Doug Hunter
"I'd prefer a world where we didn't have to worry about an Iranian nuclear threat"
Why worry? There's no reasonable forseeable scenario where the US would ever be attacked by an Iranian nuke. It's like mutually assured destruction but even better, it'd be one way Iranian suicide.
Best stick to worrying about heart disease, vehicle safety, and the education of the next generation.
4 - bliffle
Apparently, there are 30 nations that have the ability to develop nukes. What is proposed for them?
5 - The Obnoxious American
Doug,
Iran has close ties with many terrorists groups, they actively support attacks on US military in Iraq (although that activity has been in decline since the surge went into full swing).
Iran with nukes can drastically change the balance of power and destabilize the middle east in a way that will make the Iraq war look like a side show.
Moreover, given their ties to Hezbolla as well as their support for any anti us movement, there is a good possibility that an Iranian nuke could be passed on to a terror cell and who knows where that would end up. And I'm not even talking about the possibility of Iran striking Israel or any country within the 1200 mile radius of Iranian missile technology.
MAD assumes a state will actually limit the use of nukes to a time of their choosing. Can the same level of discretion really be assigned to the mullahs? I'm not willing to take that chance.
6 - The Obnoxious American
Bliffle,
To your point, I am starting a new program here at BC. Whenever someone poses a question that is actually covered in the article, I will simply quote. So in answer to your question:
"Many will chastise me as they did before, for questioning Iran's sovereign right to explore whatever technologies they choose, including nuclear ones. This point is magnified in the face of a nuclear Pakistan, Israel, and most (supposedly) hypocritical of all, the United States. While it may be fun to indulge in theory, I'd be a lot more comfortable if no one had nukes at all. But I'll settle for at least ensuring any tyrannical regimes who support terrorism, who's military is recognized as a terrorist group and actively kills American troops, and whose leader speaks of genocide, never gets their hands on a nuke."
7 - The Obnoxious American
BTW Doug, I realize you were being sarcastic, but others might not :>
8 - bliffle
How about our Loyal Royal pals in pakistan? AQ Khan (who should be rotting in solitary confinement for his crimes) already created a greater threat to the USA than any Iranian has done, or probably could do.
Or is it OK because he did it for money rather than ideology?
Why does anyone believe anything that GWB says about Iran?
9 - Clavos
Strong article, OA.
What makes you so sure Doug was being sarcastic?
10 - Brian
It should also be noted that by having a clandestine nuclear weapons program, Iran was and still is in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a signer. In this light, any claims of Iran's sovereign right to pursue nuclear technology without foreign intervention are null and void. It forfeited those rights when it broke the terms of the NPT.
Secondly, the real threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran is that a bomb gives them impunity for nearly any aggressive action against its neighbors. Nuclear Weapons ensure that any wars between two nuclear powers will be full scale and catastrophic. In this manner, nuclear weapons can be a stabilizing force. However, when third party proxies are employed by one side to attack the other, for example using Hezbollah to attack Isreal, there are few options left to the other side. Provided these proxy attacks do not amount to mass genocide, the other side will just have to learn to live with it. In the case of Isreal, this would mean living with constant attacks.
Bottom line, even if Iran behaves as a rational actor with a nuclear weapon and does not give it to a terrorist organization, the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran are still unacceptable to the US or the west in general.
11 - handyguy
It's entirely too typical of the right-wing warmongerers on this site to take good news and piss all over it. Even Dick Cheney accepts the new NIE as a change in the situation. But Dave Nalle? Nah! 'Cause he's never wrong.
Or maybe Nalle thinks Cheney is now part of his all purpose bete noir, "the left"?
12 - The Obnoxious American
Clavos,
Just judging based on Doug's prior responses. He might be serious in a dismissive kind of way. I can't say I blame him, and the last paragraph in the article goes to that same pessimism.
Handyguy,
A more reasoned response would be to actually attack the points Dave (or I) made, rather than simply turn this yet again into a partisan bickering session.
I find it rather hard to agree with you throwing the label of warmonger around here, when IRAN is the one trying to secretly make nukes. It's silly to make that charge when any rational view of the situation shows that Iran has done something that they shouldn't. The only question is the response. I don't agree that we should accept this situation, and anyone who is concerned about this country should feel the same way. Whether they do is another question entirely.
Bliffle,
Did I tell you about this new program I am instituting, about responding to questions that are covered in the article? Regarding pakistan and AQ Khan:
"Many will chastise me as they did before, for questioning Iran's sovereign right to explore whatever technologies they choose, including nuclear ones. This point is magnified in the face of a nuclear Pakistan, Israel, and most (supposedly) hypocritical of all, the United States. While it may be fun to indulge in theory, I'd be a lot more comfortable if no one had nukes at all. But I'll settle for at least ensuring any tyrannical regimes who support terrorism, who's military is recognized as a terrorist group and actively kills American troops, and whose leader speaks of genocide, never gets their hands on a nuke."
To your other question, nowhere do I reference anything "GWB" says about Iran, other than his comments about them coming clean.
If you read this article you'd know my premise is almost entirely based on contents of the NIE, which proves that Iran did try to make actual nuclear weapons in secret, and to this day continues to try and generate the fuel for said weapons. You don't actually think they want nukes for energy do you? You realize they are sitting on a ton of oil, besides they could have a nuclear reactor with full international support if they let the UN manage the fuel and waste. Why wouldn't they agree to that if they just wanted energy?
You're going to have to do better than the same old left wing anti bush refrains if you are going to post to one of my articles my dear friend.
13 - troll
...I take it that few of you put much stock in Ali Khamenei's '05 fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons
14 - The Obnoxious American
If they backed that fatwah up by actually letting the UN manage the inputs and outputs of the nuclear energy process, then maybe. But their actions are hardly sincere.
15 - handyguy
A little partisan bickering gets the old blood pumping. Good for the soul.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Partisan Bickering? Isn't that a Serbian soccer club...?
I don't want to bicker, but I do want to challenge something OA has written - actually, the paragraph which seems to me to be at the heart of his argument.
He writes: "...while the NIE says the weapons program has been halted, our intelligence capability, as well as that of the international community, is not what we once thought it was. It's possible that the NIE missed something. It's probable that the IAEA, under the bumbling management of Mohammad El Baradei, missed something."
This seems to be unbacked opinion. Exactly how is the intelligence community, which has a history of both stunning coups de grâce and right royal fuck-ups, any more or less competent than it once was? What is "bumbling" about ElBaradei's helmsmanship of the IAEA... other than, perhaps, that they didn't find what the Bush admin wanted them to find?
17 - Baronius
Maybe the Iranian government has no interest in attacking the US. Maybe they have no friends who'd like to attack the US. They definitely want to attack some of our friends. That's not too high a standard to hold ourselves to, protecting our allies from becoming powder. So their nuclear program has to be a matter of interest for us.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris seems to think that MAD is a workable strategy in the Middle East. It isn't.
What is a workable nuclear strategy is the fear by all sides that one country will strike first to obtain its goals. A quick look at the map reveals the reason why. As you move west from the Zagros Mountains in western Iran, you discover that nobody in the neighborhood has strategic depth except perhaps Turkey. Nuclear strikes here are not hard shots below the solar plexus, as they might be to the United States or Russia, they are power punches ramming the nose's cartilage into the brain. In other words, nuclear strikes are the end of the country hit.
That is why, when I have advocated Israel's use of nuclear weapons, I have always advocated a first strike. This is not bloodthirstiness, it is the desire to see the strategy work.
I agree with OA that a nuclear Iran is not an option for the Middle East. No matter what the US intelligence boys would have us all believe, a nuclear Iran is a guarantee of nuclear war, and that is not where we want to go.
19 - handyguy
Well, of course we should remain aware and vigilant about the nuclear [or as our so-brilliant president insists, "newkeelar"] capabilities and plans of Iran and of other countries. Accusing Democrats of believing otherwise is either a bad habit or a deliberate noise-machine distortion tactic.
What is objectionable in the administration's rhetoric and in stubbornly warlike and obtuse articles like this one is the emphasis on military threat and bombast. Do we have to match Ahmadinejad's overheated rhetoric line for line? Was it truly necessary or wise for the President of the United States to bring up World War III at press conferences in talking about this subject?
Diplomacy should be the first resort, not the last. Making war noises is a very dangerous game. Did no one learn the lessons of Iraq - that responding to apocalyptic rhetoric rather than the more mundane reality gets us in deep doo-doo every time?
The Bushies deliberately ignored/slapped down overtures from Iranian moderates before Ahmadinejad was elected. Those moderates may no longer exert enough influence to change anything. Why does the right insist this was good, sensible policy?
Can we have a regime change, please? The sooner the better.
20 - Les Slater
"Can we have a regime change, please? The sooner the better."
January 2009 is not that far away. However, that regime change is not going to fundamentally change anything.
The U.S. and its imperialist allies are still going to continue to be the war mongers that they must be.
Iran is not the problem. It is Washington.
21 - Lumpy
Les is right. Regime change needs to start at the UN and in the Hague. The international socialists and their NGOs must be desttoyed before we cam restore our republic to the values of the constritution.
22 - Les Slater
The UN is in New York, but it is dominated by Washington, imperialist Washington.
23 - Dave Nalle
Les, people would take you more seriously if you stopped parroting the same rhetoric the communist international has been nonsensically spewing out for 30 years and perhaps focused on some positive aspect of communism which might benefit the workers of the US. The whole imperialism canard just alienates people and sounds silly when so clearly out of touch with reality.
Dave
24 - Jacob
Dave
True or False:
The U.S. and its imperialist allies are still going to continue to be the war mongers
The UN is in New York, but it is dominated by Washington, imperialist Washington.
It doesn’t take a commie to figure it out.
25 - Les Slater
"... so clearly out of touch with reality."
From the guy who says the U.S. never made a profit from war.