from SLATE, Dec. 4, 2007: >The New York Times, Washington Post, and
Los Angeles Times lead with the declassified summary of a National
Intelligence Estimate that says Iran stopped work on its nuclear
weapons program in 2003. The findings, which also top the Wall Street
Journal's world-wide newsbox, represent the consensus view of the
country's 16 intelligence agencies and sharply contradict a 2005
estimate that said Iran was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The
report, which is widely described as a huge surprise, also provides a
sharp contrast to recent statements by President Bush, who has been
saying Iran's nuclear program poses a serious threat to U.S. security.
In one fell swoop, these new conclusions are likely to have a profound
effect on Bush's last year in office and the presidential campaign,
not to mention efforts to get the international community to impose
more sanctions on Iran...
> The new intelligence report concludes with "moderate confidence" that Iran
> has not restarted its efforts to get nuclear weapons, even though it has
> continued to enrich uranium, which it claims is for civilian purposes. But
> even if Iran wanted to get a nuclear weapon, it still faces severe technical
> problems and it wouldn't be able to produce enough of the needed material
> until the middle of the next decade. The NYT notes that, all rhetoric aside,
> this schedule is pretty much the same as what was included in the previous
> estimate. (The paper has a nice Page One graphic comparing two key statements
> from the reports.)
> But perhaps more important than any of these estimates is the report's
> contention that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program after the U.N. began
> to poke its nose in it, which "indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a
> cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the …
> costs." As the LAT points out, this should bode well for members of the
> administration who have been advocating negotiation rather than confrontation.
> The White House was quick to say the report validates the Bush administration
> strategy of trying to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But it
> seems clear that members of the administration knew that intelligence
> agencies were reviewing previous conclusions even as Bush and Vice President
> Cheney were warning about the dire effects of a nuclear Iran. The Post has
> the most details on this and says in a separate Page One analysis that Bush
> had known for "at least a month or two" that the matter was being
> investigated when he warned that a nuclear Iran could cause World War III.
> Intelligence officials were met with such skepticism from senior members of
> the Bush administration when they shared the new evidence in July that they
> spent several months making sure it was legit.
> Now the clear challenge for the administration will be to get other countries
> on board to impose new sanctions on Iran. The NYT talks to European officials
> who say they can't understand why the report was released two days after a
> Bush administration official met with world powers in Paris to talk about a
> new Security Council resolution. "Unofficially, our efforts to build up
> momentum for another resolution are gone," one European official said. And
> the report will clearly be seen as a victory for Russia, whose president said
> only a few weeks ago that there was "no evidence" Iran was building a weapon.
> The WSJ is alone in going high with the theory that the report could bring
> problems for the Iranian government, which has not been shy about claiming
> its nuclear ambitions as a way of gaining power across the region. [is this
> in any way true? -- JD] Meanwhile, USAT talks to an Israeli expert [always a
> reliable source, of course] who says Israel's intelligence community
> disagrees with the latest findings [of course].
>Why was the report released now? No one seems to know, but what is
more than clear is that it will have a profound effect on the
presidential race, since it's an issue that was expected to dominate
2008. Democrats were quick to point out the report supports their view
that diplomacy is the best way forward with Iran, notes the NYT. Sen.
Hillary Clinton's Democratic opponents seized the opportunity to
criticize her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a
terrorist organization. [good for them!]<
--
Jim Devine / "The radios blare muzak and newzak, diseases are cured every day /
the worst disease is to be unwanted, to be used up, and cast away." --
Peter Case ("Poor Old Tom").
