With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE),"Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," a consensus has emerged that war with Iran"now appears to be off the agenda." Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a"fatal blow" to the country's enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a"great victory."

I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.

The NIE's main point, contained in its first line, famously holds:"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Other analysts – John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Caroline Glick, Claudia Rossett, Michael Rubin, and Gerald Steinberg – have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are"not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts. British intelligence believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.

Let us skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?

For the sake of argument, let us assume the May 2005 NIE was correct, in which sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies assessed"with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Let us also assume there are three possible American responses to the Iranian nuclear buildup:

1. Convince the Iranians of their own accord to stop the nuclear weapons program.
2. Stop it for them through military intervention (which need not be a direct strike against the nuclear infrastructure but could be more indirect, such as an embargo on refined petrochemicals entering the country).
3. Permit it to culminate in Iran's acquiring a nuclear bomb.

As for Option #3, President Bush recently noted that whoever is"interested in avoiding World War III, … ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." So far, the lame NIE has not changed his mind. He appears to share John McCain's view that"There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Therefore, the real question is not whether Iran will be stopped, but how.

The 2007 NIE has effectively terminated Option #1, convincing the Iranians themselves to halt their nuclear program, because this route requires wide external agreement. When key countries banded together to pass Security Council Resolution 1737 in December 2006, it caused the Iranian leadership to respond with caution and fear; but the NIE's soothing conclusion undercuts such widespread cooperation and pressure. When Washington pressures some Western states, Russia, China, and the IAEA, they can pull it out of the drawer, wave it in the Americans' faces, and refuse to cooperate. Worse, the NIE has sent a signal to the apocalyptic-minded leadership in Tehran that the danger of external sanctions has ended, that it can go undisturbed about its bomb-building business.

That leaves Option #2, direct intervention of some sort. Yes, that seems unlikely now, with the NIE dropping like a bombshell and shifting the debate. But will this hugely-criticized one thousand-word exercise really continue to dominate the American understanding of the problem? Will it change George W. Bush's mind? Will its influence extend to a year from now? Will it extend yet further, to the next president?

Highly unlikely, for these projections assume stasis – that this one report can refute all other interpretations, that no further developments will take place in Iran, that the argument over Iranian nuclear intentions closed down in early December 2007, never to revive. The debate most assuredly will continue to evolve and the influence of this NIE will fade and become just one of many appraisals, technical and non-technical, official and unofficial, American and non-American.

In short, with Option #1 undermined and Option #3 unacceptable, Option #2 – war carried out by either U.S. or Israeli forces – becomes the more probable. Thus have short-sighted, small-minded, blatantly partisan intelligence bureaucrats, trying to hide unpleasant realities, helped engineer their own nightmare.

Sally Gee - 12/19/2007

The gremlins struck. This is how is should read:

Mr Friedman, it seems you misunderstand the position that stoning takes on the left-right spectrum. Unlike, say the firing squad, lethal injection, gassing and hanging, it carries no limiting upfront costs and it has the virtue of being egalitarian insofar as everyone not only can join in but believers particularly are actively encouraged to participate. Even more democratic than the traditional American custom of lynching people of the wrong color, I am sure you agree.

Sally Gee - 12/19/2007

Mr Friedman, it seems you misunderstand the position that stoning takes on the left-right spectrum. Unlike, say the firing squad, lethal injection, gassing and hanging, and it has the virtue of being egalitarian insofar as everyyone not only can join in but believers particularly are actively encouraged to participate. Even more democratic than the traditional American custom of lynching of the wrong color, I am sure you agree.

N. Friedman - 12/17/2007

Arnold,

What, on this page, have I said about the USSR. My only comments about that country concern the fact that my wife comes from the USSR. She reports that it was a god awful regime. I have no comments, so far as I know, about China.

My argument is that were Iran to arm, it would be a very dangerous country due to its ideology. I think that your arguments do not dispute that fact.

At present, Iran is merely a country with a nasty ideology that supports nasty groups in other countries. It is not clear what its actual plans are. As I said, were it to have the bomb, you would know it because Tel Aviv would no longer exist. Do you doubt that?

You indicate that decisions by responsible countries are made based on actions. I suggest you read Winston Churchill's book The Gathering Storm. Churchill notes there are exceptions to that approach. A country which has a sufficiently foul ideology, as does Iran, bears close watching. And that is what I advocate: close watching.

omar ibrahim baker - 12/17/2007

Pipes is worried, and rightly so, about Israel only.

That a USA attack on Iran that will most probably end no better than its demarche against Iraq and most certainly will only embroil the USA in an unending series of military excursions in the Middle East( Turkey next?) does not seem to cause him any worry!

However it is note worthy that AFTER IRAQ the USA should go against IRAN to better maintain Israeli regional super power status!

It is no coincidence that Pipes call should come with Kramer's ire at M&W (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/45448.html).

The NIE has chosen to look at and consider first and foremost AMERICAN PRIORITIES whereas Kramer’s and Pipes’ are Israel’s and ,of equal importance, is their, Kramer's and Pipes, “revolt” against the diminishing concern, the non prioritizing, of Israeli interests by the US intelligence over those of the USA!

omar ibrahim baker - 12/17/2007

Arnold Shcherban - 12/16/2007

And I initially didn't mention you in any regard, but just called the author of the article imperialistic hack, the characterization the complete validity of which I thorougly explained... in response to your comments coming to his defense and against myself.

Look, our debate over Iranian issue have become the dialogue of deafs.
I tell you (as even the most crazy Bush and Pipes supporter would do) that political decisions, especially concerning such things as war and peace ought to be based (and are based when taken by any responsible politicians/leaders) on ACTIONS of the adversaries or friends, not on their statements or ideology, you on the other part continue to present the quotes of the horrible
statements made by them.
If this or any other country would react with such vigor in action to every bad mouthing it gets from some other groups or state actors, to every violence that happens in other countries around the world that goes against its ideology and social principles, the world would be in a state of permanent, perpetual world-wide war.
Pipes longs for the new demonstration of the US military might, I and many others can bet my life that Iran can dealt with under the auspices of the proposals its leaders made not far ago (so far flatly rejected without even given a thought by the US administration).

The whole idea of the war on terror as it has been shown by many (including conservative) serious and more or less objective observers is the permanent war against the nations, not just several thousands of hard-core terrorists.

As far as your argument against my analogy with USSR and China is concerned it does not stand a chance, since you, as well as right-wing hawks, started to sing that revised song about Soviets and Chinese only recently, to explain and justify the militaristic approach towards Iraq, Iran and other Muslim countries.
Over Cold War period the Soviets and Chinese were equalized with monsters and were considered to be the most terrible existential threat to Western civilization, they were called the main sponsors of world terrorism who were impossible to deal with through negotiations, just by force - practically the copy of the terms the US mainstream propaganda and political elite used against Saddam and Iranian leaders, and they did have enormous arsenal
of WMDs and the vast means of their delivery to the territory of the Western World countries.
And still (and certainly for the better) they have been dealt with through diplomacy (and that was the only language they really understood and positively reacted to, not the language of sanctions and threats).
So don't try to fool us with that false, up-to-date revisionistic trick
of recognition that Soviets had moral
anti-war tradition. It is ridiculous
and revolting, at the same time,
to hear that from the practically same folks that screamed delirious about the extreme agressiveness of Soviet and Chinese communists and total absense of any humanistic morality among communists.
And you too, N?!
Iran has not been imperialistic either before or after Khomeimi statement you referred to, it is not
now, and will never be in any forseeable future. That's the only undeniable fact all honest and unbiased historians know and can testify to in the discussed regard.

In view of all the abovementioned I would like to discontinue our debate.

N. Friedman - 12/16/2007

Arnold,

If you examine my posts over the course of years, I have never once expressed support for the Iraq war. Not even once. I have, instead, argued that it is not as big a mistake as Peter Clarke (whatever became of him?) alleged. That is a very different thing. But, I have not remotely suggested I support what I view to be a folly.

Regarding, Israel... I certainly support Israel. But, not so far as it might undermine the interests of my country, the US. Thus far, I do not see any conflict that places the two countries at loggerheads.

Regarding Iran, were it to obtain the bomb, you would learn about it because Tel Aviv would be dust - if the Ahmadinejad clique is dominant.

I did not say the US should not try to negotiate with Iran. I have, rather, said that we should be concerned about Iran's imperialistic ideology, which is a different thing. I say that because were Iran to acquire the capability to project power, it would do so to the disadvantage of you and me. And, it would not hold back due to the MAD doctrine like the USSR because there is, unlike in the USSR, no moral tradition that opposes war. Rather, the religious ideology of the country makes war an imperative whenever the opportunity is present.

As Khomeini said, Islam is not a religion for pacifists.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/16/2007

The main idea AND HOPE expressed in the Pipes article (the one I hope we debate about) is that regardless whether NIE
report correct or not, the drive for war with Iran (read WAR OF AGRESSION against sovereign country, member of the UN) should remain intact and even intensify.
All his articles I've read so far, all his ideological potential related to the so-called "Iranian problem" strives for one thing only:
to instill into the minds of the readers that there is no way to get Iran to negotiating table, there is no way to resolve the so-called Iranian crisis, except with massive military action (preferably - air raids), and the regime change.

The history of the relations between
US and Iran as well as between Israel and Iran for that matter, shows however, that the Iranians can be negotiated with, .., if you treat them, not as absolute evil, but as
any other country with certain needs
and wants, with its own security and
national interests problems.
They did successfully (not just for them, but for all parties involved)negotiate in the past with both US and Israel and will negotiate again, provided the latter powers will give display the elementary courtesies, mentioned above.
Moreover, the Iranian offer to give
up their (not necessarily military) nuclear progran and cut off financial support for Hezbolla and Hamas (the two main things the US and Israel allegedly want from them)in exchange for the US and some other states dropping the policy of the regime change there, normalize the diplomatic relations with them, and provide economic aid/incentives is still on the American table, but such folks as Pipes and you always "forget" to mention such "minute" fact.
This approach worked with much more powerful and at the time dangerous countries by both conservative and democratic opinion, such as e.g. Soviet Union and China, the threat from which to the western civilization was much more profound
and immediate, any way one looks at it.
That's why calling him <imperialist ic hack> is absolutely justifiable.
And that's why you coming in his defense (and as I notice you do that
on all his articles related Iran and Israel) shows that your anti-imperialist stance, if it exists whatsoever, is merely pretense.

As far as the alleged Iranian imperialism is concerned you never presented any factual evidence of their imperialistic actions, just ideological statements, to which
I have already and on multiple occasions replied along the same line, the only practical political line for sane folks: actions not words or ideology that's what matters
in Real Politik.
Even if you throw in their support of Hezbolla and Hamas, real actions (which I doubt
specifically provided for terrorists acts/operations), this does not account for what most people inderstand or thesariuses define as "imperialism".

As far as the percentage of my or your mistakes is concerned, stop pretending that you don't understand
that the indicated by me percentage is, of course, approximate, and what I wanted to express was just high percentage of me being correct (at least, so far) on many issues related to Iraq war, as well as on Iranian ones, in polar difference with such ideologues as Pipes and many others.

But I also see that there is no way
you conceed any point as long as it is related to Israel, and that's what drives you discontent with me
and warm acceptance of purely ideological and imperialistic articles of pipes of this world.
To add fule to a flame I will call him now <terrorist from ideology>.

N. Friedman - 12/15/2007

Arnold,

I am surprises you take insult at my comment. Surely, if you were correct, you would refute my analysis, rather than insult it. Be that as it may...

I do not know where you get your percentage of right and wrong on any of this. I do not know your percentage. I doubt you know mine. I do not know mine for that matter.

I repeat, the Iranian Revolution brought to power a group of people who have a very imperialistic mindset - one pushed by religious ideology. I think that is a fact. They make no bones about the matter either. On the other hand, they thus far lack the ability to act on their intentions. That, after all, is your point. Unlike what you seem to say, I would prefer to keep it that way.

So far as the NIE is concerned, I have no opinion on it. Such is a technical matter. However, it is a well known fact that converting an enrichment program to a weapons program would take a matter of months. So, clearly, the NIE report cannot be taken on face value, most especially given the fact that Iran has obtained ICBM's, which are specifically designed only for carrying nuclear weapons.

The obvious question with the NIE is not its accuracy - since it also states that it does not know Iran's current intentions - but its intended purpose. That is difficult to explain, given the hostile reception it has received all over the Western world, where no one remotely agrees with its assessment.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/15/2007

Simplistic?!
Well, Mr. Sophisticated, let see what you present to us..
The US has no monopoly on the ideology of imperialism?!
What are you talking about?
Did I say that the US invented ideology of imperialism and has monopoly on it?
Did I say that no other country practices imperialistic approach?
Whom do you debate with?
If mine is simplistic yours is none at all.

As far as Iran is concerned, I'm not going to award you with the argument, since even if the ideology
of the Iranian is imperialistic, the viewpoint I believe have already submitted strong arguments against on numerous occasions, its practice/reality
is not and has not been, in contrary
to the US, UK, and some others.
And that is the one and only thing that matters in Real Politick.

As far, as Iran allegedly going nuclear, remember I told you over a couple of our debates that it doesn't, and recent NIE confirmed it.
Now answer, please, one question (and no more) how come such a simplistic observer as myself is right on about 90% of similar issues, but such sophisticated historians as Mr. Pipes and other from his cohort (not already mentioning you) are wrong on the percentage of those?
Perhaps, just perhaps, because they are ideologues, not the bona-fide historians...?
Never gave it a thought?

Now do you wanna bet about Iran having long-range ICBM which are used only to carry nuclear warheads (to make sure that you're wrong again)? Mr. Simplistic say they don't.

N. Friedman - 12/15/2007

Mr. Schoenberg,

The previous administration was not liberal, unless you use the term in a relative fashion that looks for somewhat subtle details. The "liberal" administration that existed in Iran would be far to the right of the Republican party by a long way. I kind of doubt that the Republican party would support the stoning to death of sinners.

No one knows what portion of Iran's population is spoken for by Ahmadinejad. There is, however, a somewhat substantial percentage of the population in, for example, Tehran which is considerably more modern in outlook but that is not represented by the mullahs at all. However, there is surely a much more substantial group which is spoken for by the theocratic mullahs.

It, of course, really does not matter whether the theocratic government speaks for all. They rule nonetheless and they have not, at this point, been deposed. And the modernist group does not appear to be able all that much to affect the course of events - protest or not.

Mike Schoenberg - 12/15/2007

Two questions come up right away. How long before the next Iranian election and does Ahmadinejad speek for the majority. Remember the poverty as well as the university students protests. Not to mention the previous administration which was liberal.
Now if the NIE under so many government agencies comes to this conclusion either it's a Le Carre novel or the truth.

Mike Schoenberg - 12/15/2007

Two questions come up right away. How long before the next Iranian election and does Ahmadinejad speek for the majority. Remember the poverty as well as the university students protests. Not to mention the previous administration which was liberal.
Now if the NIE under so many government agencies comes to this conclusion either it's a Le Carre novel or the truth.

N. Friedman - 12/14/2007

Arnold,

Your conclusion is too simplistic.

Imperialism is an ideology. The US may engage in it but the US does not have a monopoly on that ideology.


The actual ideology expressed by the Iranian government is, at the very least, imperialistic in nature. And, it is driven by religion. And, Islamic rule would be, for a person of your background, oppressive and brutish.

So far as Iran's imperialistic ideology, note Ahmadinejad's speeches proclaiming Iran's intention to lead an Islamic drive to recapture lands lost to Islam over the course of the last three hundred years, most particularly in Southern and Western Europe (i.e. in South Russia, Greece, the Balkins, Sicily and Iberia).

Presumably, Ahmadinejad speaks for a party faction in his country. Presumably, he means something connected to what he said. To the extent that his country follows his ideology, it pursues an imperialistic agenda (i.e. of Fatah [conquest and colonization] based on the Jihad fi sabil Allah [i.e. struggle in the path of Allah or, in English, war to spread Islamic rule throughout the world]) ideology.

So, if you are correct to describe the US as imperialist and, granting me that I know something about the ideology behind the Islamic radicals such as Ahmadinejad, perhaps you might consider that (a) their imperialism is, if imperialism is generally an evil, also bad for being imperialistic and (b) that a religiously driven imperialism is a particularly bad form of imperialism and (c) a standoff between imperialistic forces is, in the end, worse than one imperial force predominating, as now may exist (assuming your theory that the US is imperialist).

In other words, it seems to me that one can be opposed to imperialism while recognizing that radically religious imperialism is a much worse problem in the end.


As for the US report, it is not all that convincing because (a) Iran has obtained long range ICBM's which are used only to carry nuclear weapons and (b) it is pursuing its refining program which, when it is completed, can be converted into a weapons program in, evidently, a few months. So, combining an imperialistic agenda with ICBM's and the capacity, in the end for nuclear weapons to be made is a lethal problem, no matter what the US government chooses, this time around, to call it.

So, I do not know if Pipe's is correct. However, whether or not correct, the end result will be a nasty problem for the world, if, in fact, Iran makes the decision to go nuclear - assuming that it has not already done so secretly.

Arnold Shcherban - 12/12/2007

Facts/truth and Pipes will remain to be strangers..., as long as he remains imperialistic hack.