Panetta ignorance about Iran not inspiring

I've heard every progressive talking head tell what a wonderful guy Leon Panetta is. . .

from Charles Davis via A Tiny Revolution:

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Who needs intelligence in Washington?

In his confirmation hearing before thee Senate Intelligence Committee, President Obama's pick to head the CIA, Leon Panetta, said he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons -- contrary to the opinion of the intelligence community he is about to lead -- in this exchange with Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), who had his own problems with the facts (and the views of international inspectors and the U.S. intelligence community):

SEN. BAYH: There was a -- and this involves the National Intelligence Estimates. We had an unfortunate case -- I'm sure you're aware of -- with regard to Iran, where the way in which the National Intelligence Estimate was written highlighted the fact that apparently they suspended the weaponization aspect of their program. Then, in the footnote, it noted that they continued to pace with their attempts to develop fissile material and delivery capabilities and those kind of things, and in fact may have restarted their weaponization efforts. We just don't know.

So I would encourage you -- just a comment -- to look very carefully how these things are written, because that really undermined our diplomatic efforts to gather our allies to put pressure on Iran to stop those kind of activities. So my comment, my question, is, is it your belief that Iran is seeking a nuclear military capability? Or are their interests solely limited to the civilian sphere?

MR. PANETTA: From all the information that I've seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.

There’s of course several problems with this exchange, but let’s begin with Bayh’s patently false assertion that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (NIE) declared in a footnote that Iran “may have restarted their weaponization efforts. We just don’t know.”

Since Bayh, a member of the Intelligence Committee, can’t recall the actual findings of the NIE, perhaps we should recap for the confused senators that might be reading this: it declares on behalf of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The footnote to that statement declares:

For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.

So, in fact, the ‘07 NIE (pdf) explicitly states with “high confidence” that Iran has ended its “nuclear weapons program”, defined as its “nuclear weapons design and weaponization work” -- decidedly not, as Bayh asserts, “that they may have restarted their weaponization efforts. We just don't know.” Those findings have been a thorn in the side of hawkish, fear-mongering politicians since it came out -- "an unfortunate case" in Bayh's words -- but it seems to have largely been forgotten or dismissed by America's elite politicians and journalists.

As for Panetta, it would be interesting to hear what information he has seen that the Bush administration’s Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell hasn’t (and why he didn't correct Bayh's distortion of the NIE). Speaking last month with PBS’s Charlie Rose, McConnell declared his belief that “Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon”, but added, “I cannot prove that.”

Meanwhile, in March of last year Bush administration Deputy Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council Thomas Fingar stood by the findings of the ’07 NIE in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations. “The judgments would be the same,” he said. “[Y]ou don’t have a bomb unless you can produce a device and weaponize it. That’s what’s stopped.”

In its most recent report (pdf), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also declared that “The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”

Nothing in the reports issued by the IAEA or the U.S. intelligence community back the Cheney/Obama/Panetta claim that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, there is a clear pattern of Obama administration officials ignoring these findings, while offering no evidence to justify their claims.

Posted by Charles Davis at 10:55 PM

Someone in Obama's circle: please tell him what's going on in Iran. Really

Because he's starting to sound a great deal less smart than he used to. There's no doubt Obama's a very informed constitutional scholar. There is considerable doubt that he knows what he's talking about concerning Iran.

Comment posted by Don Bacon at January 16, 2009 12:28 AM on Tiny Revolution:

Mar 2, 2007. . .Obama: The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons

National Intelligence Estimate, Dec 4, 2007 . . .. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program

IAEA Report, May 26, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

July 25, 2008 . .Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran today, "don't wait for the next president" to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. . .Iran poses "an extraordinarily grave situation." He said the world must send "a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."

NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."

Sep 6, 2008 ...Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said

IAEA Report, September 15, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."

Oct 2, 2008 . . .Obama: "The American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. . .I will always tell the American people the truth."

Nov 7, 2008 ... U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran's development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

IAEA Report on Iran, Nov 19, 2008 -- "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."

Dec 7, 2008 . . .Obama: "We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"

Jan 11, 2009 . . .Obama: "[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race."

A Separate and More Dangerous Reality

from false dichotomy by charles davis (via Tiny Revolution)

An inconvenient truth

President-elect Barack Obama in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges and as I said during the campaign we have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.

How many ways does this look like a war crime, part 2

Elaine Meinel Supkis continues to educate me by drawing together a host of disparate news items and explaining them in the context of history.

That last post of mine shows the ship that was rammed, trying to bring relief to civilians, civilians who legally, democratically elected a government that has been denounced by our illegally elected one.

As Elaine points out, some countries have asked for humanitarian help to be allowed into Gaza. Several countries have the navies to actually force their way in, and would if they were serious about helping out. But only one country is actually doing anything about it.




That country is Iran.

Their supply ship, carrying 2000 tons of food, medicine, and "other" was to leave today, and get to Gaza in 12 to 14 days.

Elaine halfway expects WWIII to start at that point.

Why is BushCo so intent on attacking Iran?

Is it their sponsorship of "terrorism?" Is it the "threat" they pose to the US?

Or, to be more diabolical, is it the only chance of Republicans winning the next election?

No, I think it boils down to one word—Petrochemicals.

from Michael Klare in Tomsdispatch:

In the case of oil and natural gas, the major energy-surplus states can be counted on two hands. Ten oil-rich states possess 82.2% of the world's proven reserves. In order of importance, they are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria. The possession of natural gas is even more concentrated. Three countries -- Russia, Iran, and Qatar -- harbor an astonishing 55.8% of the world supply. All of these countries are in an enviable position to cash in on the dramatic rise in global energy prices and to extract from potential customers whatever political concessions they deem important.

I assume you noticed which countries are numbers two and three...

Admiral Fallon Resigns

Huffington Post:

"I think this is a cumulative kind of thing," said Gates, speaking of the circumstances leading up to Fallon's decision. "It isn't the result of any one article or any one issue."

"As I say, the notion that this decision portends anything in terms of change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, 'ridiculous,' " he said.

Of course there's no change of course! The US wanted to bomb Iran before—apparently only Fallon stood in the way—and the US wants to bomb Iran now! No change at all!