The NIE And The Media

Today the Mainstream Media (MSM) has been waxing lyrical over the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from the United States Intelligence Community saying that Iran is not and has not been building a nuclear weapon since 2003.

According to the BBC’s Paul Reynolds “the question of sanctions remains active because Iran is still defying Security Council calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment.”

However Justin Webb is his ‘analysis’ said “US hawks are horrified by the report.”

I’m glad Mr Webb in his highly paid job in Washington can add such gravitas to the story, perhaps he could do us a favour and actually clarify who these ‘hawks’ are and why are they 'horrified'?

If you read the BBC report, buried underneath the ‘outstanding reporting’ that is so typical of the BBC, the actual NIE report isn’t as ‘firm’ as the pundits in Television Centre like us to believe.

Before I launch into fisk mode, lets make one thing clear about anything to do with the subject of Intelligence Reporting and Gathering and how to ‘read’ them.

Intelligence reports of this kind,be it from The Director of National Intelligence from the National Intelligence Council or from the Joint Intelligence Committee here in the United Kingdom are couched in a language that is ambiguous and is open to interpretation, reflecting the very real world uncertainties that these people have to operate in. This is why it is called a National Intelligence Estimate.

Often you will see words or phrases like “we judge,”, “we assess”, ” we estimate”, “probably” very likely”,” we cannot dismiss",” we cannot rule out”,"we cannot discount” peppering all these documents to reflect the fact that intelligence gathering and reporting is by its very nature is an ‘art’ and not a 'science'.

Secondly the word “Confidence” is related to the quality of the information that the judgment is based on. “High Confidence” for an example means that the high grade information has also been verified or tested against other sources and as such is ‘reasonable’ to assume it is accurate. However a “High Confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong. “Moderate Confidence” generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible,but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of “confidence”.

Finally it is important to bear in mind that the information that is being sought is often at the heart of an opponents defence planning and is guarded by counter-measures to disguise or mislead. These can range from physical security measures such as guards or placement in a secure environment like an underground bunker, electronic counter measures like firewalls or ‘roaming hackers’ through to counter-intelligence measures being run by the opponents intelligence network using all the tricks in the book like ‘false flag’ operations, ‘agents in place’ and other aspects of Human Intelligence (HUMINT), decoy documentation and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT).

The great military thinker Clausewitz stated as such in his seminal unfinished work On War:

“BY the word "Information," we denote all the knowledge which we have of the enemy and his country; therefore, in fact, the foundation of all our ideas and actions. Let us just consider the nature of this foundation, its want of trustworthiness, its changefulness, and we shall soon feel what a dangerous edifice war is, how easily it may fall to pieces and bury us in its ruins. For although it is a maxim in all books that we should trust only certain information, that we must be always suspicious; that is only a miserable book-comfort, belonging to that description of knowledge in which writers of systems and compendiums take refuge for want of anything better.”

Even in Iraq, today we are still uncertain on the scale and nature of Saddam’s WMD programme therefore when the likes of the BBC start running pieces like this, which totally fits in with their ‘group think’ alarms bells start ringing.

To quote from the Key Findings of NIE Report, it actually points out:

-We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities wereworking under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

- We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because ofintelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

- We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

- We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

- Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determinedto develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

It adds later in the document some important caveats:

We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willingto maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—
rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for aweapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

So far from the blanket “Tehran has always maintained its nuclear programme is being developed purely for peaceful purposes.” It is far from clear what Iran is trying to do in its nuclear policy.

And the timing of the report is interesting, as I have already stated it was unlikely that the US was going to embark on any military options in 2008, due to the Presidential Elections, however if this NIE is ‘accurate’ then a choice might have to be made in 2009 or 2010. All this report does is default the decision until then.

By that time Hickory Dickory Clinton or Obama might be in charge……

News: Democrats Defeat Wire-Tap Amendment

Source: From Reuters

U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday, defying President George W. Bush,passing a bill tightening legal oversight of the power of intelligence agents to use wiretaps to eavesdrop on terror suspects.

The vote in the Democratic-led House was 227-189, largely along party lines.The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. If it passes both chambers, the White House has threatened to veto the measure, warning it would hamper electronic spying efforts, subjecting the United States to increased risks.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the bill "fails to give our intelligence community the tools it needs, and it fails to protect companies facing massive lawsuits for allegedly stepping up and answering the nation's call for help after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer defended the measure, saying, "This legislation gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to listen in on those who seek to harm us while addressing concerns that (a Bush-backed) bill passed in August could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans."

Democrats rejected Bush's demand for retroactive immunity for any telecommunications company that may have taken part in the warrantless domestic spying program begun after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

The White House said it was prepared to work with Congress on a possible compromise bill that "would strengthen the nation's intelligence capabilities while respecting the constitutional rights of Americans."

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that the government receive the approval of a secret FISA court to conduct surveillance in the United States of suspected foreign enemy targets.Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the United States and others overseas if one had suspected ties to terrorists.

The legislation would replace a previous law passed in August under fierce pressure from the administration that expanded the powers of the US intelligence services to use wiretaps in global terror probes.A warrant would be needed only if the American was a target.Nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T, Verizon and Sprint Nextel Corp of violating Americans' privacy rights in helping the government's warrantless domestic spying program.

News: US Courts Pour Cold Water On Wire-Tap Case

Source: AP

A federal appeals court dealt a near-fatal blow Friday to an Islamic charity's lawsuit alleging it was illegally wiretapped by federal investigators, saying that a key piece of evidence the charity planned to use is a protected state secret.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a top secret call log accidentally turned over to the now-defunct U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation's lawyers by the U.S. Treasury Department can't be used as evidence.

Al-Haramain, which was labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, alleged it had been illegally wiretapped by the Bush administration without a warrant.

The charity's lawyers voluntarily turned over the document to FBI agents after it was given to them.The appeals court said that ruling was "a commendable effort to thread the needle," but still ran counter to the state secrets law, which precludes the disclosure of sensitive information in court that could jeopardize national security.

"Such an approach countenances a back door around the privilege and would eviscerate the state secret itself," Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

News: Sen Edwards A 'Preventative War Doctrine' Is 'Ridiculous And Dangerous'

Source: USA Today

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards attcked Sen. Hillary Clinton "is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire." John Edward's in a recent television debate rounded on the front runner's foreign policy by accusing her of being 'hawkish' and not being strait with the electorate on Iran.

He also attack Clinton and her ties to lobbyists as part of a corrupt Washington system that voters should reject in the presidential election.

He also continued his attack on the Bush-Cheney policy of "preventative war doctrine." He was quoted as saying "After 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, "preventive war," -- which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq."

He went further and added "But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America."

"Think about it -- you don't prevent wars by starting them. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so dangerous."

"George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq and now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran. And we have to stop them. ...As a nation, we stand today at a fork in the road with Iran. We have a real choice about the direction we'll take. One path will replay the last seven years. It leads toward a dark future of belligerence, aggression, and war."

His pitch was seen as a pitch to the left/liberal wing of the Democrat Party, which is undergoing its internal debates to nominate the Presidential Nomination he outlined his foreign policy plan pledge as:

-End the "preventive war" doctrine.

-Use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions.

-Reengage with Iran.

-Reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran.

However he failed to expand on his alternative policies in the debate.

News:Rice Stands By Sanctions On Iran

Source:Reuters

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday defended expanded U.S. sanctions on Iran.

"The international community cannot just sit idly by until we face unpalatable choices. A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime would be deeply destabilizing in the world's most volatile region," she told the NBC ‘Today’ show.

The United States on Thursday slapped new sanctions on Iran and accused its Revolutionary Guard of spreading weapons of mass destruction. However President Vladimir Putin criticized the move, saying it would force Tehran into a corner over its nuclear program.

Ms Rice acknowledged that Washington and Moscow had some disagreement over tactics and timing regarding Iran, but she said the two countries shared the same basic goal of a non-nuclear Iran.

Some U.S. allies and Democratic critics of President Bush's policies say Washington is being too bellicose.

Comment:US & Iran-The Ticking Time Bomb

The 'Great Prophet' Exercise in November 2006 (Source:FAS)

Source:FAS and BBC Middle East

“Iran has responded defiantly to new sanctions imposed by the US targeting Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and three state-owned banks.”

The BBC in it ‘analysis’ regards the latest bout of US diplomatic pressure on the Iran as another step towards war.

In its article the BBC seems to regard the latest moves by the US administration as ‘hostile’ devoting much of its piece towards the Iranian response. According to The BBC correspondent in Tehran, Jon Leyne, says the sanctions could be very damaging for Iran economically. The Revolutionary Guards are thought to control around a third of the country's economy, including car factories, newspapers and oil and gas fields.

Indeed they may well do but it will also strengthen the IRGC control over the Government.

This 'anti-war' and 'anti-American' view is echoed by the “commentary” on HYS-the BBC’s own interactive website mainly by the increasingly anti-American British

“On the day that Bush asks the world to help overthrow Communism in Cuba (again), and sanctions are announced against Iran for - just maybe, possibly - wanting to acquire 3 or 4 of what Israel's got 200+ of, and the USA's got 7000+ of, perhaps it's time for the rest of the World to just stop listening to arrant hypocrisy disguised as righteousness”

“Iran has caused the deaths of many USA and UK soldiers in Iraq.
Paul Butler, Reading, United Kingdom
Where is the proof? Are you going to start thinking for yourself and making your own judgment, or simply echo the un-proven assumptions coming from War loving generals and politicians for yet another disaster in the region (which by the way, this time, its going to be the real cause of death of thousands of US/UK soldiers)? I say we have caused enough misery for that region, lets get out!!”

Such ‘populist’ opinion (at the moment) seems to be missing some obvious points-as those more familiar with Iran will understand. The fact Iran is not hiding its ambitions and could be in a period known as a ‘transition to war’:

-The IRGC has now being purged of all ‘suspect elements’ and is now taking the leading edge in ‘strengthening’ Iranian defences.

-The capture of Al Quds personnel by Iraqi, British, American security forces in the last year.

-The recent display of Shehab-3 (Range 1280 KM/800 Miles) confirms that Iran has now significant Ballistic Missile capability. Western analysis also believes the Shehab-5 and Shehab-6 (based on North Korea’s Taep'o-dong-2 Range: 4,000-4,300 Km) may also be on-line although there is no firm information yet.

Shehab3 and 3b SLBM on recent display in Tehran (Source:FAS)

-The recent crackdown on ‘pro-Western’ and ‘anti-social elements’ within Iraq by Baseej Security Forces.

-The rationing of petrol and other non-essential materials

-The provocation by the IRGC during the ‘Frightened 15’ episode.

-The continuing non compliance with the IAEA inspections.

-The 10 day ‘Great Prophet’ Exercise in November 2006 with test launches of SLBM's

Objectively Iran is preparing for some sort of military confrontation, either with Israel or the Western Alliance. The one calculation that seems to be overlooked is the Iran is well aware of the political and psychological problems within the West’s key players-the US and the UK.

The US is currently starting its electoral process with Democrats and Republicans neither wishing to get involved further in a military confrontation with all the uncertainty that goes with that. Further more the Bush Administration is winding down and has used it’s up its political capital on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The British Government is in a period of flux,with Brown in a weak position,and with the self inflicted wound of Intelligence Debarcle, coupled with the prevalent anti-American mood by some sections of the public and media has left the UK in no mood for more military activity.It hasn’t got the military or political capital to do so although British Forces in theatre are directly threatened.

Israel is still licking its wounds after it apparent ‘defeat’ by Hezbollah and only France seems to be moving in the direction of a more robust position.

The IRGC will be more than aware of this-it is possible that there may well be a dramatic escalation during the Presidential Race. It cannot also be discounted that the recent attacks by the PKK may well involve Al Qods forces providing logistic and intelligence support, Turkey being a main ally of Isreal in the region.

The irony is that it may not be President Bush who needs to confront the final showdown that started with 9/11-but the very critics who have been grandstanding. Let’s hope they have a policy to deal with it or the Middle East will be very quite for the next 500 years.

Source:FAS

News-New Head of NRO Announced

Source:Defencelink

The Department of Defence (DoD) announced the appointment on the 19/10/07 of Scott F. Large as director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), with the concurrence of the director of national intelligence.

Large served as the NRO's principal deputy director, and recently as the director of source operations and management in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Large joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1986 and has held a variety of increasingly senior technical positions culminating as the associate deputy director for science and technology. He then moved back to the NRO to serve as the director of imagery systems acquisition and operations.

The NRO is a support agency tasked in providing imagery intelligence both for the CIA and the US military, it builds and operates the US’s reconnaissance satellites. It is funded through the National Reconnaissance Program, part of the National Intelligence Program.

News-Senate Gives Approval Over New Wire-Tap Rules

Source: Reuters UK

Sen Chris Dodd votes against amended Wire-tap Bill

A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects,

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties. Mr. Rockefeller was quoted "It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past"

Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, called the Senate bill "a delicate arrangement of compromises."

The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans. It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. The House bill would have required court approval when eavesdropping on terrorism suspects who might call Americans, and omitted the phone company immunity.

To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans. An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years.

However a number of Democrats are prepared to ‘hold’ the Bill which could block the Senate vote. Presidential Candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (Connecticut); Sen. Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) voted against the committee's bill because of the immunity provision, despite winning passage of the amendment on Americans overseas.