A nuclear-armed Iran?
Claude Salhani
August 03, 2005
The latest U.S. intelligence estimates indicate that Iran is now a decade away from being able to manufacture key ingredients allowing it to build a nuclear weapon. This is double the previous estimate, put at five years. How seriously should we take these findings?
"The intelligence estimate is contradictory -- reflecting disagreement within the community. On one hand, the estimate is reassuring: Iran is alleged to be about 10 years away from getting the bomb. On the other hand, the estimate is worrisome," states a news release from the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington think tank.
"Unfortunately, the intelligence community has not had a good track record regarding Iran," says Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, who is a former representative of the Mujahedin e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that is on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations.
Raymond Tanter, an adjunct professor of government at Georgetown University and a former member of the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, who is co-chair of the IPC, explains the five-year discrepancy as follows: "The intelligence estimate has been overtaken by events." The estimate fails to take into account the June 2005 Iranian elections, says Tanter.
"Elections in Iran produced a consolidation of power under the Supreme Leader (Ali) Khamenei and should accelerate nuclear weapons pace by Tehran," said Tanter.
The "intelligence estimate is puzzling," observes the former NSC official. "It is puzzling how an intelligence estimate can conclude it will be another decade before Iran is capable of building a bomb when there is evidence of clandestine enrichment cascades at Iranian secret military sites and an ability of the regime to divert natural uranium gas to centrifuges, both of which should shorten not lengthen the time to produce bomb-making fuel."
Puzzling indeed. So where do we go from here?
"If Iran gets its hands on low-enriched uranium instead of natural uranium as feed material, or can smuggle in high-enriched uranium or plutonium, moreover, the regime could be months, not years away from a bomb," says Tanter.
Tanter explains the discrepancy by saying the "intelligence estimate apparently overlooks evidence provided by Iranian dissident groups." Maybe the intelligence analysts remember the data provided by Iraqi dissident groups in the days leading up to the Iraq war and want to avoid repeating earlier mistakes.
"The intelligence community has not had a good track record regarding Iran," said Tanter, using the very same words as Alireza Jafarzadeh. Hmmm.
Regarding poor track records, the same could be said about the intelligence that came out of Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Or for that matter the ability of the intelligence community to predict the fall of the Soviet Union.
"Most of the major nuclear sites that are now known to the outside world and are inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, including the uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the heavy water facility in Arak, were revealed by Iran's main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The NCRI enabled previously-classified information, some of which U.S. intelligence agencies probably had, to be released publicly and become part of the public record and debate," says Tanter.
For those of you not intricately familiar with Iranian politics, the NCRI is an umbrella organization grouping various Iranian opposition factions. Its chair is none other than Massoud Rajavi, husband of MeK leader Mariam Rajavi.
The Iran Policy Committee further states that "intelligence estimate fails to take into account an inability of U.N. inspectors to monitor suspect Iranian sites." Says Tanter: "The Iranian regime denies the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, full access to the Parchin military site and any access to Lavisan II military site. Thus, there is no way for the IAEA to know what is taking place at those sites. Ironically, the estimate is leaked just as Iran is breaking seals on its equipment in a nuclear facility in Isfahan, in defiance of its prior agreement with European Union," stated Tanter.
The intelligence estimate relies on wishful thinking to explain away suspicious Iranian nuclear actions, states the IPC news release.
"Since overestimating the likelihood that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community uses 'creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years," reads the IPC report.
Tanter adds, "The regime must be pleased to learn that American intelligence analysts are using creative methods to come up with conclusions that are in agreement with the regime's disinformation program."
"If American analysts are using 'creative analysis' to make up for lack of current, actionable intelligence from assets on the ground, it would argue for using information from Iranian dissidents to provide 'lead intelligence,' irrespective of policy implications of relying on groups that are on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list," according to Tanter. In other words, the MeK.
"The bottom line is that if the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran were as reported, it should be viewed with great caution and legitimate skepticism," Tanter said.
Should we take that to mean they could be wrong either way? Could it be that Iran is 20 years from having the technology to build a nuclear devise? Or are they more like 2-1/2 year away?
My guess would be more on the short, rather than the long.
"But Tehran, not only has lied for 18 years and kept its nuclear program concealed, it has continued to date to lie and deceive about its nuclear program, after it made the commitment to be transparent and truthful in October 2003," said Jafarzadeh.
This might explain a report published last week in the American Conservative Magazine stating that Vice President Dick Cheney directed the Pentagon to look into possible tactical nuclear strikes against Iran.
(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)
Copyright 2005 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
"The intelligence estimate is contradictory -- reflecting disagreement within the community. On one hand, the estimate is reassuring: Iran is alleged to be about 10 years away from getting the bomb. On the other hand, the estimate is worrisome," states a news release from the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington think tank.
"Unfortunately, the intelligence community has not had a good track record regarding Iran," says Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting, who is a former representative of the Mujahedin e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that is on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations.
Raymond Tanter, an adjunct professor of government at Georgetown University and a former member of the National Security Council in the Reagan administration, who is co-chair of the IPC, explains the five-year discrepancy as follows: "The intelligence estimate has been overtaken by events." The estimate fails to take into account the June 2005 Iranian elections, says Tanter.
"Elections in Iran produced a consolidation of power under the Supreme Leader (Ali) Khamenei and should accelerate nuclear weapons pace by Tehran," said Tanter.
The "intelligence estimate is puzzling," observes the former NSC official. "It is puzzling how an intelligence estimate can conclude it will be another decade before Iran is capable of building a bomb when there is evidence of clandestine enrichment cascades at Iranian secret military sites and an ability of the regime to divert natural uranium gas to centrifuges, both of which should shorten not lengthen the time to produce bomb-making fuel."
Puzzling indeed. So where do we go from here?
"If Iran gets its hands on low-enriched uranium instead of natural uranium as feed material, or can smuggle in high-enriched uranium or plutonium, moreover, the regime could be months, not years away from a bomb," says Tanter.
Tanter explains the discrepancy by saying the "intelligence estimate apparently overlooks evidence provided by Iranian dissident groups." Maybe the intelligence analysts remember the data provided by Iraqi dissident groups in the days leading up to the Iraq war and want to avoid repeating earlier mistakes.
"The intelligence community has not had a good track record regarding Iran," said Tanter, using the very same words as Alireza Jafarzadeh. Hmmm.
Regarding poor track records, the same could be said about the intelligence that came out of Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Or for that matter the ability of the intelligence community to predict the fall of the Soviet Union.
"Most of the major nuclear sites that are now known to the outside world and are inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, including the uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the heavy water facility in Arak, were revealed by Iran's main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The NCRI enabled previously-classified information, some of which U.S. intelligence agencies probably had, to be released publicly and become part of the public record and debate," says Tanter.
For those of you not intricately familiar with Iranian politics, the NCRI is an umbrella organization grouping various Iranian opposition factions. Its chair is none other than Massoud Rajavi, husband of MeK leader Mariam Rajavi.
The Iran Policy Committee further states that "intelligence estimate fails to take into account an inability of U.N. inspectors to monitor suspect Iranian sites." Says Tanter: "The Iranian regime denies the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, full access to the Parchin military site and any access to Lavisan II military site. Thus, there is no way for the IAEA to know what is taking place at those sites. Ironically, the estimate is leaked just as Iran is breaking seals on its equipment in a nuclear facility in Isfahan, in defiance of its prior agreement with European Union," stated Tanter.
The intelligence estimate relies on wishful thinking to explain away suspicious Iranian nuclear actions, states the IPC news release.
"Since overestimating the likelihood that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community uses 'creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years," reads the IPC report.
Tanter adds, "The regime must be pleased to learn that American intelligence analysts are using creative methods to come up with conclusions that are in agreement with the regime's disinformation program."
"If American analysts are using 'creative analysis' to make up for lack of current, actionable intelligence from assets on the ground, it would argue for using information from Iranian dissidents to provide 'lead intelligence,' irrespective of policy implications of relying on groups that are on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list," according to Tanter. In other words, the MeK.
"The bottom line is that if the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran were as reported, it should be viewed with great caution and legitimate skepticism," Tanter said.
Should we take that to mean they could be wrong either way? Could it be that Iran is 20 years from having the technology to build a nuclear devise? Or are they more like 2-1/2 year away?
My guess would be more on the short, rather than the long.
"But Tehran, not only has lied for 18 years and kept its nuclear program concealed, it has continued to date to lie and deceive about its nuclear program, after it made the commitment to be transparent and truthful in October 2003," said Jafarzadeh.
This might explain a report published last week in the American Conservative Magazine stating that Vice President Dick Cheney directed the Pentagon to look into possible tactical nuclear strikes against Iran.
(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)
Copyright 2005 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
Print
Email
