Questioning the Annual Threat Assessment: The Difficulties for Washington's Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran

Last week the US intelligence community released The Annual Threat Assessment 2009, presented by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The report not only underlined Iran’s past attempts in acquiring nuclear weapons but also pointed to Iran’s ongoing uranium enrichment efforts. Blair stated that "Israel and Iran are liable to enter into a confrontation or crisis" some time this year because of the Iranian nuclear programme. Blair also expressed his specific concern regarding a possible Iran-Israel war with Iran-backed Hezbollah reinforcing its weapons in southern Lebanon.



It is difficult for Blair to assume that Iran may not restart its nuclear weapons program when the report Blair signed states:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.

Moreover, how can Blair not foresee that Iran, which has been enriching uranium since 2006 and is capable of delivering nuclear weapons through medium-range balistic missiles, can use its potential possession of nuclear weapons as the key bargaining point during diplomatic engagement with the US?

When we look closer to the document, it is not that difficult to see how fragile any assertion that Iran is not pursuing nuclear capability is, given the raison d'etat of Tehran's regional and global position. The report states: “Iran’s longstanding foreign policy goals are to preserve the Islamic regime, safeguard Iran’s sovereignty, defend its nuclear ambitions, and expand its influence in the region and the Islamic world.” This is to be expected given that Iran, as a revisionist state, is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and other organizations in the region.

Dan Gillerman, Israel’s former envoy to the United Nations, stated his concerns over Iran’s capacity to restart its nuclear program on Fox News. Indeed, he equated the 2007 US Nuclear with the piece of paper Chamberlain waved on the eve of the Second World War in 1938. He implied that the US should watch Iran, sanction Iran, and make sure that the capability of the extreme fundamentalist regime of Iran is far away from destructing the region.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlNwT3CbtiI[/youtube]

The report states: "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons..." Therefore, it suggests giving priority to diplomatic engagement to encourage such a decision.

However, this US-led diplomatic effort is also a thorny process which is expected to take much more time than some can tolerate. The most terrifying scenario is Iran's readiness to restart its nuclear weapons program during negotiations. According to the report:

We assess Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons....We judge Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame, [although State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.

Because of the obstacles faced by the Obama Administration to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a possible Israeli airstrike --- similar to the attack on Osirak in Iraq in 1981 --- could come to fruition in prior to 2013.

For now, Washington is focused on 2009, not 2013. The course of discussions with Iran should determine whether The Annual Threat Assessment 2010 highlights a crisis averted or a crisis which is impending.

Exclusive: How Iran is Taking Over America

Once it was Reds under the Bed. Now it's the Mullahs Hiding behind the Curtains.

Human Events sounds the warning, exposing all the pseudo-Americans who are actually working for Tehran. Our only qualm with this article is that --- as it outed Trita Parsi, Juan Cole, and Gary Sick, all of whom we have featured on this website --- somehow it forgot to mention Enduring America amongst the threats to Mr and Mrs USA.

Why U.S. Policy Leans Too Close to Terrorist Appeasement
Clare M. Lopez

The Obama administration has lost no time extending an outstretched hand to Iran’s terrorist regime, just as promised during the election campaign. The president assured the mullahs of his pacific intentions in a January 2009 interview on al-Arabiya TV, asking nothing more than that Iran unclench its fist.

Secretary of State Clinton echoed Obama after an early February 2009 meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Absent from either of their comments was any mention of Tehran’s obligations before the world community to comply with United Nations resolutions to immediately and verifiably suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Also missing was any criticism of Iran’s massive support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizballah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- not to mention its long-standing affiliation with al-Qa’eda.

As for introduction of a U.N. resolution to condemn Iran for repeated incitement to genocide of a fellow U.N. member state -- the State of Israel -- somehow that didn’t come up either. Holding to account a regime that stones girls to death for being raped, hangs gays from construction cranes, and executes juveniles also doesn’t seem central to the new agenda. Perhaps we missed it and the United States actually signed on to the Cairo Declaration. For those who don’t remember that ignominious piece of paper, it is the 1990 opt-out by Muslim states from the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights.

An 8 February 2009 speech by Vice President Joe Biden (in Munich, of all places) did note U.S. readiness to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, but also repeated that the U.S. is open to talks. This is what your mother always warned you against: mixed signals.

Under the Bush administration we had no Iran policy. Now, our policy leans too close to appeasement. How did it get this way?

America’s foreign policy toward Iran did not reach this level of malleability overnight or by accident. A well-organized plan to infiltrate and influence U.S. policymakers at the highest levels has been operating on American soil for well over a decade. Conceived in Tehran under the direct authority of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the plan set out to create a network of top U.S. academics, diplomats, journalists, NGOs, and think tanks that would advocate a policy of appeasement towards Iran. Iran’s top strategic objective has always been to buy time for its nuclear weapons program, which now is well along in developing the three critical components: enriched uranium, warhead weaponization, and a credible missile delivery system.

Beginning in the late 1990s, a de facto alliance between Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. (such as CAIR -- the Council on Islamic American Relations) and frank Tehran regime advocates like the American-Iranian Council (AIC) openly began to promote public support for a U.S. foreign policy based on the favored positions of the Islamic Republic. In 2002, a new pro-Iran group was formed by a young Swedish-Iranian immigrant named Trita Parsi. That group, the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) quickly established itself as the nexus of a growing network of individuals and organizations that openly lobby for a U.S. policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives, and negotiations with the Tehran regime -- while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions, or threat of military action. Part and parcel of this advocacy on behalf of Tehran is a pattern of antipathy towards Israel that minimizes its security concerns and dismisses its legitimate defense needs.

Under Parsi, who is closely connected to the Tehran regime, the NIAC network has expanded to include a growing number of new groups. Some of them -- such as The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) -- are NIAC clones. CASMII was founded in December 2005 to oppose all forms of pressure on Iran. Others, such as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS, founded in February 2007) play the role of useful idiots. CNAS had Dr. Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s appointee as Ambassador to the UN, on its Board of Directors.

Dr. Vali Nasr, who has been named senior advisor to U.S. Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, was one of the authors of a September 2008 CNAS publication called Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options. Nasr’s chapter, "The Implications of Military Confrontation with Iran," urged the U.S. to take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table and instead focus on how best to accommodate Tehran’s rising power in the Middle East region. The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) launched its pro-Iran activities with a cross-country event called The Folly of Attacking Iran Tour, which crisscrossed the U.S. in February and March 2008.

The American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP) was founded in December 2008 with an “experts list” that reads like a remix of other CAIR and NIAC affiliates, including former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering, James Dobbins, and William Miller plus well-known academic figures such as Professors Gary G. Sick of Columbia University and Juan R. Cole of the University of Michigan. These groups’ interlocking Boards of Advisors, Directors, and Experts include many other nationally-known figures from public policy and international business arenas, including some big oil companies.

All are associated in one way or another with Trita Parsi and NIAC and all advocate a policy of accommodation with Iran.

The Iranian regime makes no attempt to disguise its links to this network. NIAC, for instance, was openly mentioned in the 7 December 2007 issue of the government-controlled Aftab News, where the NIAC network was called the regime’s “Iran lobby in the U.S.” In March 2007, the Fars News daily described NIAC as ‘a non-profit’ organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of AIPAC [the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, a legal lobby group] and to enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the U.S. in order to ‘penetrate U.S. politics.’

Maneuvering behind Washington, D.C. policymaking scenes to exert influence on U.S. decision makers is pretty standard for a host of legitimate interest groups, including many foreign countries. Concern is indicated, however, when the guiding influence behind such maneuvering emanates from the top levels of a regime like Iran’s that holds top spot on the Department of State’s state sponsors of terror list, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the U.S. and our ally Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held, kidnapped, killed, and tortured American civilians and military over a 30-year period. The expanding influence of this pro-Iran lobby on U.S. foreign policy attests to a determined and sophisticated operation that serves only the interests of regime implacably hostile to America’s own national security interests.

Ms. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.

Mr Obama's World: Alerts in US Foreign Policy (13 February)

Latest Post: Analysing the Iran (Non-)Threat
Related Post: US Government Documents - Proof of “Ghost Detention”, Torture, Death
Related Post: US Director of National Intelligence - No Evidence that Iran Has Restarted Nuclear Weapons Programme
Related Post: Afghanistan - Karzai Talks Back to Washington



10 p.m. And yet more manoeuvring on Iran. The US State Department has condemned the Iranian Government's charges of espionage against seven members of the Baha'i religious community.

9:45 p.m. An interesting political twist in Iraq. Former Prime Minister Ayad  Allawi has warned that the country's fragile political stability could be broken if national elections later this year are as unfair as last month's provincial polls: ""If we don't rectify, if the process is not inclusive, and there are not laws in Iraq to clarify the funding and the capabilities of the various groups ... then we unfortunately will have a catastrophe in the next elections."

Evening Update (8:40 p.m): Here comes the Magic Link. The US Government has now tied its suspension of missile defence deployment in Eastern Europe to Russian agreement to end assistance to Iran's nuclear energy programmes: ""If we are able to work together to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, we would be able to moderate the pace of development of missile defenses in Europe," said a "senior Administration official".

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that if North Korea "completely and verifiably" ends its nuclear arms programme, then the US is willing to normalize ties.

8:30 p.m. We've just posted a separate entry on how folks itching for a showdown with Iran have effectively thrown out the latest US intelligence assessment that there is no evidence Tehran has resumed production of nuclear weapons.

1:30 p.m. Afghan authorities have condemned a raid by Australian forces in which five children died.

10:20 a.m. In his first day of talks in Afghanistan, US envoy Richard Holbrooke will meet the Ministers of Defense and Interior. He sees Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday.

9:55 a.m. A quiet start to the day has been disrupted violently by a suicide bomb south of Baghdad. At least 32 Shi'a pilgrims have been killed and 84 injured.

The attack is the second on Shi'a pilgrims this week, following the killing of eight people yesterday in Karbala.

Morning Update (9 a.m. GMT; 4 a.m. Washington): We're taking advantage of a slow news period to post a series of analyses: Afghan President Hamid Karzai's attempt to seize the public relations initiative from the US, the Director of National Intelligence's statement that there is no evidence for resumption of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, and --- most importantly --- confirmation in US Government documents of extraordinary rendition, "ghost detainees", and torture.

Update: Analysing the Iranian (Non-)Threat

Well, it didn't take long.

This morning we highlighted the US "Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment", which explicitly said that, as of mid-2007, Iran had not resumed its programme for nuclear weapons.

We added, however, that the report left open the door to those who don't like this assessment of non-threat, offering the admission:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.

And we noted that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who presented the report to a US Senate committee, "was so cautious that..he has made a rod for the back that he was trying to cover,quite keen to cover his back and that of his agency". Step up, stridently pro-Israel Commentary magazine:

Blair acknowledged [Iran's nuclear programme] was a difficult question to deal with in a public setting. “I can say at this point that Iran is clearly developing all the components of a deliverable nuclear weapons program — fissionable material, nuclear weaponizing capability and the means to deliver it,” he said.

Let's revisit the relevant passage of the Threat Assessment report:

We judge in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities and that the halt lasted at least several years. We assess Tehran had not restarted these activities as of at least mid-2007. Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them.

That's not exactly the same as "clearly developing...nuclear weaponizing capability". Or to be blunt, the Director of National Intelligence, in front of a Congressional committee was undercutting the analysis of his intelligence services.

And it gets worse. Yesterday morning, Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times put out a sensational article, "U.S. Now Sees Iran as Pursuing Nuclear Bomb".

It's a poor piece of journalism, with almost no sources and absolutely no evidence to back up the claim, "The Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb." There's a Presidential quote pulled far out of context, and another snap sentence before a Congressional committee, this one from CIA Director, Leon Panetta: ""From all the information I've seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

It's enough, however, for Miller to write, "The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007," when in fact the Threat Assessment repeats and supports the conclusions of that Estimate unequivocally. And you can guess which of the two pieces --- Miller's slipshod report or the primary document based on the detailed analysis of the intelligence services --- is racing around the talkboards on the Internet and the journals like Commentary.

So it may come to pass --- amidst hesitant Obama officials, activists wanting to take out an "enemy", and a mainstream media without the time or judgement to consider details rather than assumptions --- that grey becomes black and Iran once more becomes Threat Number One to the United States. If so, then this month's opening for US-Iran engagement will be jeopardised, not by a Bomb but by unsupported bluster.

US Director of National Intelligence: No Evidence that Iran Has Restarted Nuclear Weapons Program

It may not have the sexiest of titles but, for those digging for the detail in US foreign policy, the "Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment" is a must-read. Presented by the US Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, to the US Senate yesterday, it offers the latest American evaluation of challenges from Al Qa'eda to the Middle East to Afghanistan to Latin America.

Here's one far-from-incidental passage: the US does not believe Iran is an imminent nuclear threat. Indeed, American intelligence has no evidence that Iran has resumed the weaponisation programme that it suspended in 2003:

We judge in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities and that the halt lasted at least several years. We assess Tehran had not restarted these activities as of at least mid-2007.

In effect, Blair was re-stating the US intelligence community's issued a National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007. This reversed previous American analysis: far from pushing for a nuclear weapon, Iran had halted its efforts four years earlier.

This didn't mean, of course, that Iran had stopped the pursuit of enriched uranium, since that was necessary for any nuclear energy programme. Nor had Iran suspended development of ballistic missiles. However, it was no longer seeking to put nuclear warheads on those missiles.

The December 2007 NIE has been repeatedly attacked by politicians and commentators, in part because it undermines Israel's projection of an Iran prepared for an offensive strike, in part because it removes one of the props for "regime change" in Tehran. Conversely, its conclusions are useful backing for a policy of "engagement", since there is time to deal politically with Iran before it resumes weapons development, let alone joins the A-Bomb Club.

It should be noted, however, that Blair also threw a bone to those who have criticised US intelligence for being too soft on Iran: "Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them." Indeed, he was so cautious that I suspect he has made a rod for the back that he was trying to cover, namely that US intelligence simply doesn't know what is going on:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.