Behind the scenes at the NIE
This Washington Post article gives us a little bit of behind-the-scenes information on the background to the latest NIE report on Iran’s nuclear program.
What we find there isn’t especially reassuring. The agencies involved are connecting some mighty distant dots, which can lead to incorrect conclusions. As this piece in American Thinker puts it, the Left, the Right, and the Europeans are all quite skeptical of the findings:
When all these parties can agree on any topic whatsoever there are certainly grounds for curiosity. The NIE conclusions deserve scrutiny. Unfortunately, this analysis has been hampered by the intelligence community’s desire to keep their methodology hidden from public view under the pretext that disclosure of their sources of intelligence might imperil them.
I certainly see the need to protect sources. But it’s hard to analyze or trust a report without having access to the underpinnings of the conclusions drawn.
Some of those underpinnings are disclosed in the Post article. Here are some interesting points from that piece, and my commentary on them:
(1) The previous intelligence indicating that Iran had a weapons program was based on access gained in 2004—partly through a German intelligence officer—to a computer that contained Iranian plans to convert its weaponry so that a certain class of missiles could carry a nuclear payload.
Commentary: Unless there was corroborating information that isn’t mentioned in the article, this fact underscores the reliance of intelligence on single sources. If the sources are highly reliable, this is probably acceptable. If not, it is potentially problematic. But as I said in my last piece on the NIE, it is extremely difficult to penetrate a closed and hostile foreign system such as Saddam’s Iraq or the mullahs’ Iran, and so a paucity of sources of information is probably standard operating procedure.
(2) The present intelligence that Iran doesn’t have a weapons program is based at least partly on the following:
[D]uring a dinner in Tehran with visiting American experts in 2005, Iranian leaders Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani flatly declared that the country’s nuclear weapons research had been halted because Iran felt it did not need the actual bombs, only the ability to show the world it could.
If our intelligence really relied on this, then I’m afraid our intelligence is a ass. Rafsanjani? At a dinner, speaking to American experts? I don’t think one should put any credence in this sort of self-serving statement, and I wonder at the fact that it’s included here as though it has some meaning.
On the other hand, there is some corroborating evidence for the stoppage of the weapons program. But it doesn’t sound like a whole lot. Two Iranian officials, one a member of the military, were overheard stating that the weapons program had been shut down—but only “snippets” of their conversation were accessed. And of course there’s a distinct possibility the program had in fact been continued, but after the intelligence break involving the laptop computer, the Iranians may have very strictly limited the number of people privy to it, and these people might have been out of the newly closed loop.
(3) The findings and conclusions of the NIE report were hotly debated even by those engaged in its composition:
[T]he internal debate over the meaning of the new Iran intelligence was intense and often contentious, with different agencies and individuals clashing over everything from the fine points to the broad conclusions, participants said.
Commentary: I’ve been on similar inter-agency committees, although the topics under consideration have been different. And you know what they say about reports written by committee—well, it’s all true.
(4) The computer trail of the project discovered in 2004 had gone cold.
Commentary: Similar to my remarks under #2, if the Iranians had learned the computer intelligence had been compromised—which is highly possible—they would have abandoned that method and stored the information some other way.
(5) The NIE report was made public because of fears it would be leaked anyway:
We knew it would leak, so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking,” said a top intelligence official.
Commentary: Such is the state of confidential information in today’s Washington.
At least the NIE tried to vet the report for source disinformation:
One intelligence official said Bush’s team expressed concern that the intercepts might be disinformation, so analysts tested that thesis. “They tried to figure out what exactly it would take to perpetrate that kind of deception, how many people would be involved, how they would go about doing it, when it would have been set up and so forth,” the official said. Analysts “scrubbed and rescrubbed” more than 1,000 pieces of evidence but concluded Iran’s program really had been shut down.
I’m not sure what “scrubbing and rescrubbing” means in that particular context (I’m familiar with it in other contexts). But I can’t imagine how it would preclude the possibility of a program of disinformation and/or restricted information on the part of Iranian officials. And, if the bickering was that great among the agencies that released the report, my guess is that many in the intelligence community had grave doubts about this, as well.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, certainly does:
To him, it was another example of the tenuous nature of intelligence. “This is not about ‘I don’t like the conclusion,'” he said. “We didn’t know enough in 2005, and we don’t know enough today.”
Correct. Instead of the NIE, perhaps the report should be renamed the NEI: “Not Enough Information.”
I’ve written Intelligence Estimates, though never a National Level Intelligence Estimate.
When I was an Intell Officer, if the commander asked me to make an estimate, I would–based on any and all information I had. Sometimes that information was a hunch based only on previous hunches that turned out to be correct.
I don’t know why people are getting all worked up about this NIE. It’s no better or worse than any other. Heck, it may be better than most….
It’s like people just figured out that Americans bet their lives on hunches, pictures, “scrubbing disinformation lists”, and dinner conversations! We’ve been doing that since the Soviet’s got the bomb!
There’s nothing unique or uniquely disturbing about this particular NIE…..
Almost instantly, the conclusions of the NIE report have been questioned by the NYT, WaPost, Britain, Germany, France, Israel, various Arab countries and anyone who has heard anything A-mad-n-jihad says.
If the report is not a feint intended to trick Iran into becoming cocky and overplaying their hand, then our government is so dysfunctional that our rights are in danger, and as the D of I identifies: “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
Bush should explain himself better or at least more often. Condoleezza Rice should be positioning herself for a position at Stanford rather than the Carter Center. The United States should stop its codependent relationships with all the worst regimes in the world.
Our lives in danger
Oh, stop being such little girls! Grow up!
It’s always been like this. The cold war secrecy just kept us from seeing this kind of sausage making.
I’ll bet you’d faint dead away if you knew the mistakes, guesses and half-truths our wars and foreign policy were always based on.
You act like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was something new! We have re-joined history after the weird static peace of the Cold War….
This is a Baby-Boomer crisis of expectations.
The stories are:
1) media misreporting the NIE
2) world repudiation of the fantasy NIE scenario which the media misreported
3) the fantasies of many U.S. citizens about U.S. intelligence capabilities
As gcotharn says, it’s the way the NIE report has been used that is especially troubling.
But what Richard Fernandez has called the narrow base of the intelligence is also troubling:
So I’m guessing that a big swing like this means they now have a source they didn’t have on certain subjects that are absolutely critical to making the estimate. Read it one way and the Iranians “are go” read it another way and the Iranians are “no go”. I don’t want to make too much of it, but following that line of reasoning you would really start to worry because your intel is therefore narrowly based. What you want right away is collateral. But what if you can’t get collateral because of the data depends on one or two things, like what the leadership decided or didn’t decide in secret? Then you are at the mercy of the accuracy of your narrow source.
The Brits in the spy business agree. They believe that:
…the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran….British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. “We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.
I find it hard to believe the US intelligence force is that gullible. But they certainly sound it from the Post article.
Richard Fernandez clearly knows what he is talking about and he obviously has experience in these things. His is high quality speculation.
For the second part, I assure you, as readers sitting here, we have no idea what the Brits in the spy business think. None. No idea….
By ‘analysts believe’, just insert the words ‘some speculate’…. Theirs is low quality speculation.
Reporting about second-hand speculation on intelligence items is just pointless.
Speculating about reporting about second-hand speculation about foreign intelligence ‘beliefs’ is just nonsensical.
We have far more knowledge about the weather and capabilities to determine wheather indicators and variables and it still rains on picnics.
This NIE is no better or worse than any other NIE.
The standoff of the Cold War shouldn’t be confused with the genuine peace that would be possible if we applied principles healthier than those animating our current policies. During most of the Nineteenth Century, for example, progress and stability were expected.
The NIE’s ridiculous conclusions, the bureaucratic turf warfare surrounding it and the destructive policies it will foster are only possible since the pragmatist, post-modern nihilism that passes for philosophy today jettisoned self-interest and moral certitude.
Presumably, a great deal of government activity and intelligence is effective and remains secret. The NIE, however, is exasperating since it punctuates how far we have descended. Government operating at this level of ineptitude is dangerous, and should be considered weird.
Matthew M–you’re post would be just as accurate if it were written any point between Big Wars this century. Perhaps any century….
The Peace of the Cold War is one of the best and lasting Peaces in mankind’s history. That’s as good as it gets–that’s as good as it has ever gotten.
The problem is one of expectations.
“Intelligence Estimates” including: “Hey, do you think we should drag that big horse the Trojans gave us into the city.” have always been products of bureaucratic turf wars.
There is nothing more political than estimating the relative strengths and weaknesses of an enemy.
‘Healthier Principles’, please…. The only thing weird is that some thought we had slipped the bounds of history and had entered The Age of Aquarium.
Hey, maybe it’s a fine guess based on all kinds of mufti-and-dagger skullduggery. Maybe it’s a crappy guess….
Such has it always been.
You can ban guns, you can ban smoking, you can ban fat and you can ban harsh words, but you cannot ban politics and uncertainty in estimating an enemies strength….
Maybe we can sue somebody if it’s wrong. Hahahahaha!
“but you cannot ban politics”….. where dots are apparently in the eyes of the beholder, just like the definition of is is…., so there must be a god, w/ a sense of humor, because it can’t be for no reason that the dims are represented by the “ass” ….
if you haven’t seen it, check out the NIE coverage in todays Atlas Shrugs:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
This just in:
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions:
(1) right-wing neocons
(the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews;
(2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as
reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East — including both in Iraq and against
Iran.
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3642849/
It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its “campaign against terrorism” (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going “somewhat badly” or “very badly” in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the “surge” has either made things worse or has had no impact
(68-30).
Of course, we knew that all along…
Yeah, I’m a bit concerned that this NIE is overly sanguine about the situation in Iran. I certainly oppose an all-out invasion of Iran (even if we could pull it off, which we literally can’t at present) but we should maintain political pressure not to mention not necessarily ruling out narrowly focused strikes on their nuclear facilities if they won’t cooperate with an intrusive inspections program of some kind.
McLovin Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 4:44 am
This just in:
A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions:….
that’s all pretty much accurate McLovin….
But then you say: “Of course, we knew that all along…”
that of course is a lie, there were some people guessing, and only guessing; we can dredge out countless quotes from dims stretching the whole decade before 2003, beating the drums (until it was politically convenient to change positions)… nobody new nothin for sure about saddam except in hindsight, and that is the truth; even in hindsight the “truth” of saddam’s wmd is murky at best……
glad to hear some common sense from Mitsu…..
and on the subject of torture, we’re all agreed it’s morally repugnant, and generally counter-productive…. but “never” is still just smug self-righteousness in the face of confronting genocide …. i repeat, bush, neo and company are not the enemy, people on the left are as confused about the difference between nuances of right and wrong as they are about the authentic history of the democratic party…..
one final comment for the evening…
McLovin Says:
“It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove….”
like i said Mc, you’re right about that….. and the saudis, iran and other moslem nazis are playing them and everyone else on the left like a fiddle…..
“On the subject of torture, we’re all agreed it’s morally repugnant, and generally counter-productive”
Case closed!
I like how Pam calls them the Jewicidals.
McLovin, like Mitsu, am glad to hear we agree honestly on the nuance of “generally”, i do luv that common sense, and “honesty is the best policy” as they say, though here again not “always”; how that “nuance” does come back to haunt us in real life, like when you seriously think yo own mama’s life is truly at stake…. but Mc, no debate just for sport, on the topic of the authentic history of the democratic party (?); or perhaps something we can agree on, like condi’s “intellectual” betrayal with mo’s nazis at annapolis….
“Generally” has a nuance?
I’m not getting what you mean, Perfecto.
Care to explain?
I think I understand what you’re trying to say here:
“when you seriously think yo own mama’s life is truly at stake”
And I would respond that:
Yes, if Dick Cheney has taken my mamma hostage and threatened to kill her, I guess I’d have no choice but to pistol whip W into telling me where the “secure undisclosed location” is. Then when Lynne blocks the bunker doorway, I may have to club her down.
I may have to break the speed limit while driving there without my seat belt, should I not be able to strap it up in time.
But I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a reason to think it should be legal to pistol whip the president and club down Lynne Cheney, break the speed limit or drive without seat belts.
We are a people of laws. Respect for the law derives from respect for the individual.
Why do most, if not all, totalitarian governments rely on torture?
We know and they know it’s not the most effective way to obtain information. So why use it?
Totalitarians like torture because it demonstrates the complete destruction of individual dignity at the hands of the state. The targets are less the direct victims of torture than those who administer it and those who know about it and thereby wonder whether it might someday happen to them.
Americans oppose torture because it violates the core principles of democracy: that the government’s power must be limited and that it must always respect the fundamental dignity of the individual.
Speak for yourself. I’m all for the government acting to protect my most fundamental right.. the right to live.. therefore if it feels that it needs to torture certain enemies then I’m all for it.
i should perhaps have looked “generally” up in the dictionary, i assumed it to include possible exceptions, which is what i meant….
“Americans oppose torture because it violates the core principles of democracy: that the government’s power must be limited and that it must always respect the fundamental dignity of the individual.”
sure in principle, but in reality not “always”… totalitarian systems use torture in a methodical way to intimidate and control a certain crowd, as group punishment, so-to-speak, ie. communist china degrading and torturing female tibetan monks, for no other purpose than training, etc… there is a radical difference between that and dealing with a well established and exceptionally dedicated mass murderer for potentially critical information. at a certain point i am not at all willing to accede that there is a moral equality of american soldiers or hebron jews vs fatah (hamas lite); nazis are just nazis, judenrein, sharia, etc. are not part of “our” method or constitutional ideals, this is a real struggle for existance against an enemy that does not share or respect our constitution or core moral values … if killing the enemy is justified in certain instances, something like “waterboarding”, in certain circumstances, can’t be less moral… why can’t we all just get along?
Heh. Grey is at least more honest about his intentions than the usual leftist troll; he makes no bones about wanting to return to the soul-crushing “balance of power” of the Cold War. Never mind how many people are brutally slaughtered and dumped in mass graves by the bad guys, what’s important is that they balance out the good guys and put the brakes on actual progress, so we can pursue instead a make-believe progress toward a science fiction fantasy! Ideally we would all fight wars based on computer simulations, and people would peacefully march into disintegration chambers in an orderly fashion when designated as killed. That way we could keep our Cold War going forever, because once there were no more horrific side effects of war like the destruction of infrastructure, spread of disease, or hospitals filled with wounded people clinging to life despite their injuries, we would no longer see any need to end the war that’s so necessary to maintaining the peace and locking our world in permanent stasis.
As they say, war is hell, but there are versions of peace that are worse.
Heh. Grey is at least more honest about his intentions than the usual leftist troll; he makes no bones about wanting to return to the soul-crushing “balance of power” of the Cold War.
Whoa right there.
I am a conservative through and through–since an unfortunate dispute with my 7th grade teacher over the story “Monsters are Due on Main Street”…..
I’m in the National Guard and I served previously as a Military Intell Officer. I commented on this thread ‘cuz I have actual experience with producing Intell Estimates.
My father is a Korea Vet and worked in Missile Defense and Nuclear testing. I served in Korea. You will not find a family more dedicated to winning the Cold War than mine.
When The Wall fell, I remarked to my fellow officers: “Within a few years, we are going to long for these peaceful days….”
I was right. It was one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in the history of mankind. Now, it’s back to the “Unbalance of Power” chaos that has characterized history.
Put simply: The chances of American Civilians dying is higher now than during the Cold War…. What a strange thing.
Take back your slur against me.
What slur? You’re so far off the right side you’ve come back on the left. I, as a US civilian, am quite glad the Cold War is ended. Whatever increase in the number of we civilians dying is more than made up for by the fact that fewer US soldiers are dying, and more importantly, those that do die are not dying in vain.
the cold war hasn’t ended, it has morphed….
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
Alex i agree with it 100% The peace process is war against israel by other means.