Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is the Iran NIE a Trojan Horse?

Posted by Russ Wellen, Scholars and Rogues at 11:00 AM on December 6, 2007.


Russ Wellen: "Rather than adjusting policy on Iran in accordance to the reality-check provided by the NIE, the President moved the goal post on Iran."
trojanhorse

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Russ Wellen, originally appeared on Scholars & Rogues

The Iran NIE has elicited a range of emotions in those opposed to the Bush administration's policies from gloating

to discreet celebration. In the minds of many, it's like V-Day: Let the church bells peal, kiss a girl in Times Square. Others, particularly Iranian commentators located in the US, are considerably less sanguine.

They fear, as Farideh Farhi writes at Juan Cole's spin-off, Informed Comment: Global Affairs, that the NIE can "easily become an instrument in support of the Bush Administration's current policy."

In fact, according to Kaveh Afrasiabi at Asia Times Online, "The temporary freeze on the military option [resulting from] the new intelligence report has nested within it its exact opposite." In other words, a Trojan horse.

Even though, he maintains, the nuclear programs that Iran halted in 2004-2005 were not weapons, the NIE and the administration painted them as such. If a follow-up report were to indicate that Iran planned to resurrect said weapons program, that would provide "ample justification for Washington's planned 'pre-emptive strikes' on Iran, not to mention added sanctions."

Thus leaving "the pendulum capable of swinging in wildly different directions almost at will."

Meanwhile, at CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Action Against Iran), Daniel Pourkesali writes, "Forgive this writer for being a spoiler." But he too finds that the resurrection theme is like a ticking time bomb embedded in the NIE.

He mentions the "assertions on page 7 paragraph D [of the NIE] that 'Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to produce nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so.'"

They leave "the door wide open for administration hawks like Mr. Cheney to abruptly accuse Iran of resurrecting its 'nuclear weapons program much as he did back in 2002, claiming that Saddam Hussein had 'resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons.'" In other words, the hawks are fixated on another bird, the phoenix.

At NIAC (National Iranian-American Council), Trita Parsi explains how the administration further unrolls the rock before the resurrection justification. "Rather than adjusting policy on Iran in accordance to the reality-check provided by the NIE, the President moved the goal post on Iran."

"As the NIE declared that Iran likely doesn't have a weapons program, the President shifted the red line from weaponization to the mere knowledge of enriching uranium [which, of course] is not of a military nature and is permitted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

"The President also pointed out, as though to justify military strikes, that Iran's knowledge of the enrichment process would permit Tehran to have a clandestine program. [But, of course] a full suspension of the Iranian program would not eliminate the Iranian knowledge of the enrichment program and, as a result, the risk of a clandestine program would continue to exist."

Unless, of course, the atomic scientists of Iran submitted to the erasure of their memories as if their minds were hard drives.

Finally, Ms. Farhi comments on the "propitious convergence between the NIE and the Bush Administration's current policy and the timing of the release of this report," which was finished a year ago. (See Gareth Porter for a full explanation.)

First she reminds us of Stephen Hadley's statement that "the President has the right strategy, intensified international pressure along with the willingness to negotiate. . . [and for it] to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran -- with diplomatic isolation, United Nations Sanctions, and with other financial pressure."

Then she frets that "this NIE can so easily become an instrument in support of the Bush Administration's current policy."

We'll allow Dr. Afrasiabi to be the last to rain on the parade. "The bottom line. . . [is that the US] has now pre-positioned itself for yet another disastrous gambit in the volatile Middle East."

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, bush, nie, nuclear weapons

Russ Wellen is a senior editor at Freezerbox.com and Nuclear Deproliferation Editor at OpEdNews.com.


Latino Migrant Beaten to Death in Penn
A predictable outcome of the overheated immigration debate in this country.
Post by yave begnet. July 24, 2008.
House Hearing on 2004's Lessons Sheds No New Light on Flawed Election
Old arguments and explanations abound about the last presidential election.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. July 24, 2008.
McCain: Time to Start Rationing Veterans' Healthcare
'McCain received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America.'
Post by Steve Benen. July 24, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Reminds Me Of A Joke
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 6, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush Administration's "logic" reminds me of a bit I once saw by Steve Martin. The logic goes like this: Iran either has or does not have a nuclear weapons program. So, therefore, there is a 50% chance it has a nuclear weapons program.
Actually, it is worse than that. Iran MIGHT GET a nuclear weapons program in the future, or it may not, therefore there is a almost certain chance it will get a program, justifying a preemptive military strike before it gets (might get) the program, or so think Cheney and Bush and their Neocon advisors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The administraions angle on this couldn't be simpler
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Dec 6, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surprised no one has caught on to what is actually being said about this on the conservative side of teh intertubes. The fact that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program after the invasion (and subsequent occupation) of Iraq is proof that the president's strategy was right all along, ipso facto. We fought them over there, and now the other nations in the region are straightening up in response. Look for exactly this point of view to develop in the MSM shortly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Day of Infamy
Posted by: Abe on Dec 7, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANOTHER "DAY OF INFAMY"
March 20, 2003

An unprovoked attack in Forty-one
That some say, could have been prevented
Sadly, now we have another one
From lies our Government invented.

We are coming on five years of War
More than forty-three hundred killed
Just so, as some say, the Pres's wishes
For his vain revenge, could be fulfilled.

There's untold numbers of wounded
Some of body and some in mind
Each day a "Day of Infamy"
In War of an unnecessary kind.

And now there's more sabre rattling
To get us in yet, another fight
By those warmongers in DC
Where good sense has taken flight.

They will bankrupt our Country
And leave debts our children must pay
They've ruined our credibility
And what was, “The American Way”.

How did we let them do this to us
As they ignore our Constitution?
If we don't try to stop them now
There can be, but one resolution!

We'll go the way of other Nations
Who fell to Government's aggression
With apathy and fear and silence
As their Rights fell to oppression.

Some think it is unpatriotic
To speak with a critical word
But, be careful that, that, “Freedom of Speech”
Won't be the last, that you've heard!

If we don't change our heading
Then, one more, "Day of Infamy"
Will be the downfall of our Nation
The end of, "The Land of the Free"!

Del "Abe" Jones
12.06.2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Day of Infamy Posted by: Basenjis
NI"Estimate" like the cost of the "invasion" (War) in Past valued dollars
Posted by: common intelligence on Dec 7, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, the marketing labels are always displayed in such words as that there is no "accountability". It's only an "estimate" on a guess. Like the cost of the WAR IT'S AN UNACCOUNTABLE.

The fact is "they" would have everyone (of us) believe that only "they" have or could or can have any "intelligence" about any issue, as if only "they" are "intelligent " enough to gather, assemble and decipher what is "known and not known. and that we know ..... the known and the unknowns we don't know that we now know...".-D. Rumsfeld Ya know?

My point is this the CIA is really the CYA ( ya know?).
Just by saying That Iran "stopped" a nuclear weapons program infers that they were creating or working on them.

That inference is Bush's clout in the seed planted into the ground of the medias propaganda machine. The media then expands and pounds this Bush shit until it saturates the mind stream of the people and the papers. Until the distraction of the promise of Christmas shopping over takes it. Then the bastards will slip some agenda through in the eleventh hour before the congressional recess until January. Then it will come into view, we got duped again. Just like this HR1955 before the Thanksgiving break.

(Make sure YOU call to defeat SB1959. See that changed the # from HR1955, to confuse the concern!)

The biggest question I have is:
" Who the hell is Bush to have some kind of omnipotent insight as to having any idea of knowing anything?" WHere does this wisdom come from? Who are Bush's ghost writers. They have to be identified and extracted then we can see the idiot "behind the curtain" sweat.

And why is it that the people buy this line of underhanded draconian propaganda. Is congress so preoccupied with the mire of false flag efforts that they can't just put the impeachment process in motion?
By the time they do or could the next distractive tactic, another "damage control emergency" will come to the for front of the news and we'll loose sight of this lie too.

Layer upon layer upon layer of procrastinated possibilities in pushing forth extraditing this insane Bush & CO. is strategically being pushed under the carpet. Now the damned election is sure to take from row center and no progress will be made to secure our country from this entrenched agenda to destroy our country for world power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No "Justification" Posted by: motamanx
On the other hand
Posted by: Staggo on Dec 7, 2007 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush rhetoric may very well fall on deaf ears in the international community. The UN may not be willing to act upon this administration's paranoia. These member countries, such as Russia, are already critical of Bush claims and threats. They may choose to take more diplomatic steps rather than backing the US on further economic sanctions. Bush's credibility is incredibly weak abroad. Though nobody can stop American military action, other countries can impede and stymie it. They are not answerable to American pressure. There is no Blair out there anymore. Far from it. Also, an attack on Iran, regardless of highly doubtful claims, would cause a chain-of-command crisis and incredible domestic chaos. Further, I do not believe Congress will let this action slither through, regardless of its present self-imposed impotence. Bush will not be able to recover the high ground, claims or no claims. What we see and hear is a pathetic display of delusional fantasies. He pouting and running for rhetorical cover. Bush is dangerous, but he not omnipotent. This is no longer those days of the build-up to the Iraq war. This time, nobody--nobody--believes him on anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is the Promise?
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If memory serves me right, didn't Condi, Bushie and Dickie "promise" to talk to Iran if "they gave up their quest for a nuclear weapon?" Did I miss something here? It seems to me that the Texas Turd stood before a podium not too long ago and said "when Iran gives up this road to nuclear arming, we'll go to the table, but until then, we won't", or words to that effect.

Has anyone heard when and where the meeting will now take place?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is about time
Posted by: Mikeharvest on Dec 8, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every day I read the latest comments about the atrocious deeds and lies committed by Bush and Co. . Then I read the frustration voiced by most of the citizens of the USA who has enough interest to comment.

The idea of going after Bush`s speech writers is a good place to start. Writers (and press secretaries) who sell their soul to support the obvious lies of the Bush Administration should be prosecuted. Once there is no one to cover up the lies, the Emperor will have no clothes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran is Israel's enemy- not ours
Posted by: Forrest on Dec 10, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not about nuclear weapons- it's about any perceived threat to the state of Israel, whether from Syria, Iraq, or Iran.

Jane's Intelligence Digest has an interesting article: Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
http://www.janes.com/security/international_
security/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml

"Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.

An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.

To resume supplies from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through whose territory it would be likely to run. Paritzky's ministry was reported to have said on 9 April that it would hold discussions with Jordanian authorities on resuming oil supplies from Mosul, with one source saying the Jordanians were "optimistic". Jordan, aware of the deep political sensitivities involved, immediately denied there were any such talks.

Paritzky said he was certain the USA would respond favourably to the idea of resurrecting the pipeline. Indeed, according to Western diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with Iraqi opposition groups.

It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.

All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill.

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA.

Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment.

The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]