Obama v. the US intelligence community

President Obama today:

But what's clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

That indicates to us that despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for -- for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization. And that is not acceptable to the international community, not just to the United States.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee:

“Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

Enriching uranium to 20 percent is far from the 97-99 percent enrichment necessary to build nuclear weapons, as the Associated Press conceded when it withdrew an article that conflated Iran's enrichment for medical research with a weapons program. And it's far from clear that enriching uranium to 20 percent, which some experts doubt Iran is even technically capable of doing or sustaining, "would lead to weaponization." In fact, it's so unclear that even the normally reliable U.S. intelligence community -- reliably alarmist, that is -- acknowledges it has no evidence Iran is developing nukes, or whether it will even "eventually decide" to do so. Iran's announcement it plans to increase its uranium enrichment level has no impact on that assessment of its technical capability and political will, or lack thereof, to build nuclear weapons.

But the president and officials in his administration continue to suggest otherwise, exaggerating the claims of their own intelligence officials as they make the case for more economic sanctions against Iran -- sanctions that will inevitably impact poor Iranians more than the elites. If Obama spoke in a faux-Texas drawl, perhaps there would be more outrage about that.

The Washington Times: Fox News, if Fox News viewers could read

In my last post, I criticized The Washington Times' Eli Lake for what I alleged was inaccurate reporting, as a piece he wrote claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies were now claiming that Iran never halted work on its nuclear program in 2003, contrary to the official view conveyed in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. Notably, Lake then wrote:

Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country's supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, on the other hand, delivering the 2010 Annual Threat Estimate to the Senate Intelligence Committee -- and representing the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies -- states: "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." That is, the differences among intelligence analysts don't focus on whether Iran's supreme leader "has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons," the debate remains whether Iran would ever decide to do so -- in violation of Ayatollah Khomeini's own fatwa against nukes; the debate is not over when Iran will begin building nukes, but if.

That isn't a contradiction to Lake, though. Responding to my post on Twitter, he wrote that "the threats testimony is not an NIE. And it is consistent with my earlier and newsweek's earlier scoop. #nicetry". While correct that the testimony is not an NIE, it's a rather pedantic point as there's zero chance the official intelligence estimate on Iran is going to directly contradict the testimony in the threat assessment delivered by the very same man. As to the glaring contradiction between his piece and the official view of the intelligence community, as stated by Dennis Blair, Lake declared "it's not a contradiction", which is, well, confounding.

Until you realize Lake's done this before, as in a ludicrous 2007 article he wrote for the now-defunct neconservative rag The New York Sun, "Iran Is Found To Be a Lair of Al Qaeda." As the Cato Institute's Justin Logan writes:

In that story, Lake published a claim purportedly leaked to him that the National Intelligence Estimate judged that one of two senior al Qaeda leadership councils “meets regularly in eastern Iran.” Lake wrote that “there is little disagreement that a branch of al Qaeda's leadership operates in Iran, [but] the intelligence community diverges on the extent to which the hosting of the senior leaders represents a policy of the regime in Tehran or the rogue actions of Iran’s Quds Force, the terrorist support units that report directly to Iran’s supreme leader.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Lake, the story was tersely refuted later that day by the National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats, Edward Gistaro. Asked at a National Press Club briefing whether the judgment Lake described was in the final draft report, Gistaro replied “No, it is not. I don’t think it was ever in the draft…. I read [the Sun article] this morning, and I thought, ‘I don’t know where this comes from.’” The transcript of the conference describes “laughter” in the briefing room after this revelation.

Seeing a pattern?

Yup, still lying

In case anyone is wondering, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still making unsubstantiated claims about Iran's nuclear program, ignoring the testimony of the Obama administration's own Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair -- just like the president, the CIA director and the ambassador to the United Nations. Here she is today in a press conference with Panamanian Foreign Minister Samuel Lewis Navarro:

And obviously, we believe that, you know, pursuing very careful engagement on a range of issues that affect our interests and the interests of the world with Iran makes sense, and there's nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Wrong on Iraq, wrong on Iran

On Friday, a group of seven key House Democrats -- including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the chairs of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, and long-time grandstander Henry Waxman -- wrote President Obama to offer qualified support for his diplomatic overtures to Iran. But in their letter (pdf), the esteemed group of lawmakers caution that the practice of engaging the Iranians can’t be “open-ended”, and argue that unless the Iranian regime suspends its uranium enrichment program, the U.S. should pursue a new round of the type of trade sanctions that worked so well at affecting change in places such as Iraq and Cuba.

Since the letter is about Iran’s nuclear program and is written by U.S. politicians, it also contains a number of, shall we say, misstatements (or as they're known in the real world: lies). Indeed, in the opening paragraph the lawmakers -- six of seven of whom backed the illegal invasion of Iraq, which should give you a good sense of the group’s collective foreign policy acumen -- state:

"We are distressed by the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that Iran has already stockpiled enough low enriched uranium to generate one nuclear weapon."

Unfortunately for this merry band of bullshitters, the most recent IAEA report (pdf) says that international inspectors have “been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran” to a weapons program. It also says nothing about Iran possessing enough low enriched uranium for a bomb, probably because you can’t make a nuclear weapon from low enriched uranium.

As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin noted at a hearing in early March, “uranium for civil nuclear power production has to be enriched from two to four percent,” whereas “highly enriched uranium which is necessary for a nuclear bomb or warhead, needs to be enriched to about 90 percent.”

The February 19 report from the IAEA, meanwhile, states that Iran has enriched its uranium to 3.49 percent, a far cry from the level necessary to build a nuke. And as Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stated at the same hearing, “We assess now that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium.”

Furthermore, if Iran were to decide to build a nuclear weapon -- which Blair, echoing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, says the Iranian government has not chosen to do -- it would need to kick out the IAEA inspectors currently overseeing its enrichment facilities and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus alerting the whole world to its intentions.

Now perhaps Mr. Waxman and Mr. Hoyer et al are simply unaware of these widely reported facts. Or, perhaps, they’re just liars who prefer politically convenient fear-mongering to nuanced, reality-based analysis of Iran's nuclear program.

Dennis Blair: Iran not developing nukes

Admiral Dennis Blair may face credible allegations of abetting Indonesian war crimes, but he's turning out to be the most honest and reality-based official in the Obama administration when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. Here's The Washington Post on Blair's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday:

Iran has not produced the highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon and has not decided to do so, U.S. intelligence officials told Congress yesterday, an assessment that contrasts with a stark Israeli warning days earlier that Iran has crossed the "technological threshold" in its pursuit of the bomb.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said that Iran has not decided to pursue the production of weapons-grade uranium and the parallel ability to load it onto a ballistic missile.

Blair's testimony is consistent with the findings of the 2007 NIE on Iran and the reports from the IAEA, which would not be remarkable had his fellow administration officials -- from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to President Obama himself -- repeatedly contradicted those reports, and the statements of the top U.S. intelligence official.

For example: Just over a week ago -- and after Blair had told another Senate panel that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons -- Secretary Clinton told ABC News' Charlie Gibson Martha Raddatz that "Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon is deeply troubling to not only the United States, but many people throughout the world." Obama has likewise consistently referred to Iran's "development" or "pursuit" of nuclear weapons.

Apparently committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) was equally perplexed by the "apparent inconsistencies" in the administration's statements on Iran, as he asked Blair a string of questions aimed at setting the record straight:

LEVIN: There had been some confusion and I think some apparent inconsistencies in our assessment of Iran's uranium enrichment activities and their intent. It's my understanding that uranium for civil nuclear power production has to be enriched from two to four percent but that highly enriched uranium which is necessary for a nuclear bomb or warhead, needs to be enriched to about 90 percent. Let me ask you first, director, does the intelligence community believe that as of this time Iran has any highly enriched uranium?

BLAIR: We assess now that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium.

----

LEVIN: On March 1st, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen was asked if Iran has enough fissile material to make a bomb, and he said we think they do. Now that seems to be different from what you just said the intelligence community thinks, which is that you believe they do not. Have you talked to Admiral Mullen or what is the explanation for that apparent difference?

BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, Admiral Mullen later issued a clarification that he was referring to low enriched uranium, not highly enriched uranium.

LEVIN: Now does the intelligence community assess that Iran currently has made the decision to produce highly enriched uranium for a warhead or a bomb?

BLAIR: We assess that Iran has not yet made that decision.

LEVIN: And in 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that, quote, "The intelligence community judges with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Is the position of the intelligence community the same as it was back in October of 2007? Has that changed?

BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, the nuclear weapons program is one of the three components required for deliverable system, including a delivery system and the uranium. But as for the nuclear weapons program the current position of the community is the same -- that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in 2003 and did not -- has not started them again at least as of mid- 2007.

Later, in an exchange with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Blair dispelled the notion that Iran's recent missile tests are an indication it is pursuing nuclear weapons:

MCCAIN: Last month, Iran successfully launched its first satellite into orbit. And President Ahmadinejad proclaimed in a televised speech the official presence of Islamic Republic was registered in space. Last Sunday, Iran tested a precision air-to-surface missile with a 70 mile range. Does that lead one to the conclusion that it's pretty likely, or very likely, that Iran will be developing a nuclear weapon to go along with these weapons of delivery vehicles -- development of delivery vehicles?

BLAIR: I don't think those missile developments, Senator McCain, prejudice the nuclear weapons decision one way or another. I believe those are separate decisions. The same missiles can launch vehicles into space, they can launch warheads, either conventional or nuclear, onto land targets. And Iran is pursuing those for those multiple purposes. Whether they develop a nuclear weapon, which could then be put in that warhead, I believe, is a separate decision which Iran has not made yet.

This is as honest an assessment of Iran's nuclear ambitions and capabilities as I've heard from this administration, which raises the question: is Blair the next to resign?