What the New NIE Really Means Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So, once we get through all the recriminations, celebrations and shock of the new Iran what does it actually mean?  As far as I see it, three key points.

First, on the strategy.  I have to agree with Zbiginew Brzezinski who has long argued that the Iran situation is absolutely important but that it is not absolutely urgent.  In other words: we have time and with time comes a much broader array of diplomatic options and strategies that we should be trying. But Iran still is important and it's still a potential threat.  Iran, still has a civilian nuclear program, which it could eventually transform into a weapons program.  It still has growing influence in the region and has significant interests in Iraq.  It's growing influence is causing anxiety across the region.  That's why experts like Ray Takeyh, who advocate talking with the Iranians, have had mixed views about the NIE.  I suspect that they don't want people to just conclude that Iran is no longer a threat and pull it from the priority list (But I agree with Joe Klein that by complaining about this right now, Takeyh misses the larger point). 

Second, politically, the Iran issue is significantly blunted in the 2008 cycle.  Rudy Giuliani, who has been the most militant candidate out there on this issue, sounded almost reasonable on Meet the Press this morning.  He didn't go as far as to say that we should have direct talks and he didn't take the preemptive strike option off the table.  But he did say that economic and military pressure seems to have an impact and that we should be using those tools.  He also said that in the "short-term the threat isn't nearly as grave" and that in the "long-term we need to be very very cautious about Iran." (Quotes based on video not transcript)  He also directly contradicted Norman Podhoretz's accusations about the NIE.  That's not nearly as aggressive as the tune he was singing quite recently.  It certainly wouldn't qualify as the blatant war mongering that we were hearing quite recently.

Finally, and most importantly.  The chances of going to war in the next 13 months have been dramatically reduced.  I never thought that the Administration would be crazy enough to pull the trigger on this operation.  And I always thought the probability of an actual strike was low.  But still, this NIE is comforting.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

[Iran's] growing influence is causing anxiety across the region

Well, dear me, causing anxiety across the region. Sounds like a real problem, possibly more important than the oppression of Palestinians or the 2.4 million Iraqi war refugees .

The recent Manama Dialogue security conference in Bahrain, hosted by The International Institute for Strategic Studies, was attended by all the Gulf States except Iraq. Surely, if there is in fact anxiety across the region, we'd find some evidence of it there. Let's look at the record:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered a regional security pact and a 12-point cooperation plan, including free trade and joint investments in oil and gas earlier this week during a summit of Persian Gulf leaders. "We see the presentation of these proposals as a positive development to enhance peace in the region and to ensure stability and security," Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa told participants at a regional security conference on Friday. "While reiterating Iran's full sovereign right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, it is indispensable for Iran to actively and fully cooperate with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said. [Iran is cooperating with the IAEA.]

In a rare public spat among Gulf Arab countries, Qatar indicated on Saturday that Iraq had not been invited to a regional summit of mainly Sunni Muslim-ruled Gulf states because of Baghdad's treatment of Sunnis. In front of hundreds of delegates at a security summit in Bahrain Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, asked Qatar's prime minister why non-Arab Turkey and Shi'ite Iran were invited to last week's Doha Gulf summit, but not Iraq.

Asked at the Manama Dialogue conference whether Israel's nuclear program posed a threat to the region, US Defense Secretary Gates replied: "No, I do not." The statement was greeted by laughter from a room filled with government officials from Middle Eastern countries.

SedDef Robert Gates went on to spin the recent NIE and to hype the Iran "threat": "Iran still has the capability to restart its weapons program and continues to enrich uranium, an essential part of atomic weapons development . . . There can be little doubt that [Iran's] destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing".
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new

Iran's neighbors weren't as belligerent: "We want the military factor (of Iran's nuclear programme) to be eliminated," the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Abdulrahman al-Attiyah told AFP on Saturday. "What we care for in the GCC is finding solutions that enhance security and stability ... and believe in dialogue as a way to solve the crisis," between the West and Iran . . .We are not for the military confrontation option," said Attiyah.

Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamed bin Jassem al-Thani went further, calling on Washington to engage Tehran in dialogue to reach a solution. "Direct talks do not mean agreeing (from the start) with the other party," he told conference delegates on Saturday, among them US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071208/wl_mideast_afp/gulfusirannuclearpolitics

It seems like it there's any anxiety in the region it's principally directed at the governments of Iraq, Israel and the United States, and not Iran, wouldn't you agree?

[Ilan Goldenberg]

Don,

The Saudis and many of the Gulf States are really anxious about expanding Iranian influence. It is something to factor in along with everything else that is going on.

[Don Bacon]

Ilan,

It's true that recent US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded Iran's influence in the ME, but the proper response is dialog and possibly a security pact, which is what Iran has proposed, and not going on about potential threats and anxieties. I had a boss once who would never let me use the word "problem". He insisted that I say solution, or possibly challenge. Good advice.

US foreign policy should be oriented on keeping the peace, not preparing for war. It's dialog and agreements, not invasions and selling billions of dollars worth of military hardware. It's communicating and diplomacy, not name-calling and scare stories. It's Jim Baker, not the discredited Joe Klein.

The Gulf States have just completed an historic conference during which Iran's president, invited for the first time, presented a comprehensive proposal for peace and security in the Gulf Region. This proposal received no ink in the US national press. The only story on the Manama Dialog was buried on page A27 of today's WaPo. It largely consists of a transcription of Gates's belligerent remarks, and was entitled: "Iran Aims 'To Foment Instability,' Gates Says". Oh, yeah, the US claims Iran is fomenting instability. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. We're smarter than that, aren't we?

Incidentally, DEBKAfile (I know) has a story out today about Saudi Arabia brokering a US/Iran deal.

[Mike M.]

Hmmm... seems to me there's one more lesson to be learned from the NIE, and it's one I'd really like to see you and Michael Cohen address -- a big lesson is that we need more foreign policy voices. Our media needs to stretch to get opinions from outside of the usual sources. The Intelligence Community didn't save the day here, it ratified what a lot of people on the left were already saying about Iran as a potential threat.

Here's what I'd like to see: not people who were wrong on Iraq getting shut out of the debate, but people who were right twice on Iraq and Iran brought into the conversation. Lefties can be Very Serious too!

[Dan Kervick]

I agree with Mike M. It's rather frustrating to have to go through months and months and months of hearing people like Gareth Porter and Scott Ritter lay out the facts about Iran from a standpoint of real knowledge and expertise while Washington's timid lemmings follow the crowd, refuse even to acknowledge the existence of these men, and run scared of even broaching the topic of whether the conventional beltway wisdom might be wrong. Then the CIA comes along and gives all the lemmings permission to think different thoughts, and they all rush off in another direction. But it's what we've come to expect from a media culture in which every right wing yahoo gets a platform, but serious people on the left are systematically ignored.

[Dan Kervick]

Excuse me, I meant Gordon Prather, not Gareth Porter - although Porter's reporting has also been very good.

[Don Bacon]

We can focus on what the ignorants are doing in Washington or we can focus on what's really going on in the Middle East. The Gulf States are awash in oil money and they don't want any part of this Israel/US warmongering with Iran. The US is trying to drive the arab states away from Iran and ally them with Israel using Palestine and military sales. Iran sees the prosperity in the Gulf States and presents an offer. Where do we go from here?

1. Support the Gulf Security Pact proposed by Iran
2. Recognize that threats are conter-productive
3. Encourage a diplomatic solution to differences
4. Discourage a military course of action, in support of Admiral Fallon (CENTCOM)

news reports:
Ahmadinejad: "The Islamic Republic of Iran stands by the Saudi nation and is prepared to share experience with the country in nuclear technology under the IAEA supervision. The Saudi king for his part congratulated the Iranian nation and government on advent of the holy month of Ramadhan and said efforts should be made to foil enemy's divisive plots. Terming Ahmadinejad as a "big lover of the world of Islam and Muslims," the King regretted mistreatment of the Iranian Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia. . . .Iran and Saudi Arabia have inked an agreement worth 500 million euros [$740m] to build a combined cycle power plant in Heris, East Azerbaijan province.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and China on Wednesday signed four memoranda of understanding (MoUs) to expand cooperation in the fields of road, railroad and marine transport. . . Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao Thursday called on the international community to have confidence in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its nuclear program. . . Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said on Tuesday that Beijing is against imposing unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

India will soon discuss with Pakistan the issue of gas transit fee that have stalled a trilateral agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran on a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline originating from Iran.

In Iran, Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel on Sunday said the recent America's report confirms the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program. "We will continue our efforts to achieve our nuclear rights and we will cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within the framework of the law," he added.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

The fraud who gave us Nojeh of course should be consulted about strategic successes against the Iranians. He, obviously, would be the first to ask.

[ma374zda]

c151t

[Alex]

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?