A Matter of Intelligence

Let's see. There are two articles today regarding the nuclear situation in Iran. The first, titled,"Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb: U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements", discusses a review by the CIA who conclude that it is not likely for Iran to develop nuclear weapons for at least 10 years--thus undermining the President's concern about the issue (e.g., as in , "Ten years?? We don't need to worry about it now, for heaven's sake."). Of course, buried in the rambling article are these two gems:

Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

and

The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea.

The second article reports that Israel is extremely concerned about the Iranians and their nuclear ambitions and points out that they already have a missle capability to deliver a nuclear payload to Israel. That they are aggressively pursuing the nuclear payload is quite a worry.

Israel has repeatedly warned that Iran, which already posses the Shahab-3 missile — a weapon capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching Europe, Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East — is a threat to the Jewish state.

The question is who do you believe? It is, of course, a matter of intelligence; and like all such matters, there are obvious disagreements. If you will recall, a similar lackadaisical, "wait and see" attitude toward the prospect of the development of North Korean nuclear weapons (despite intelligence that was mixed), ended thusly: "Oops! We were wrong, they already have them. Now we can't do anything about it!"

I refer you to this excellent article which discusses how someone like the President of the U.S. or the Prime Minister of Israel should deal with controversial intelligence issues.

Let me quote from a Jeff Jacoby column from a few days ago:

So what kind of culture do we want intelligence agencies to foster among their operatives and analysts: one that tends to be overly focused on possible threats, or one that is more likely to downplay them? In general, would we rather take action to eliminate a danger that turns out to have been overstated — or take no action, and then be stunned when the enemy strikes?

Surely the question answers itself. When the enemy is an international terrorist organization or a violent and dictatorial regime, preemption must trump reaction. Ousting the most brutal and homicidal tyrant in the Arab world, even if we then discover that he didn’t pose the WMD threat we had envisioned, beats watching Osama bin Laden’s acolytes steer jetliners into the World Trade Center. Bombing the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak, as Israel did in 1981, beats waiting until Iraq launches its first nuclear strike. International law has always recognized that states have a right of self-defense, including anticipatory self-defense.

And, as another factor in the decision-making of which strategy to pursue, consider the current game being played by Iran in the negotiations with the EU. And also consider this statement from the new President of Iran.

So, which will it be? I would say it is definitely a matter of intelligence.

UPDATE: Roger Simon discusses the first article about Iran's nuclear weapons and has an interesting take on the story.