Sympathy and Acknowledgement for the Accuracy of John Bolton?
Michael Rubin offers a bizarre entry at National Review Online today:
An apology owed to John Bolton [Michael Rubin]The most recent Iran NIE confirms that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon back in 2003. Forgotten in much of the recent press coverage is that this proves John Bolton, at the time was undersecretary of state for Arms Control, correct. Many of the people under and around him, perhaps fearing that his analysis might get in the way of their initiatives, attacked him and leaked anonymously in the press to undermine him. And yet, now we know that Bolton was right. It seems that a number of journalists, diplomats, and Senate staffers owe Mr. Bolton an acknowledgment, if not an apology.
As one of the lead critics of John Bolton's brand of pugnacious nationalism, I find this appeal by Michael Rubin to be strangely deficient on Bolton's record.
First of all, I for one never challenged Bolton's view that Iran had been on a covert weapons track. In fact, my blog regularly has commented that I believe that Iran has wanted nuclear weapons (or something close -- like a full fuel cycle capacity that mimicks what Japan has) and that it probably had a program of some kind. My colleague Jeffrey Lewis of ArmsControlWonk.com has also suggested the same.
So if Bolton needs acknowledgement for asserting something that I did, Valerie Plame did, Jim Risen did, and Russian, and Chinese, and French, and German, and Israeli intelligence analysts did -- by all means.
But Bolton and Co.'s proclivity to assume the worst case analysis always and to stove-pipe intelligence and to try to take to market "raw intelligence" produced significant misreadings on other fronts -- particularly Iran's alternative course. But he also got wrong Iraq's WMD activities, Cuba's WMD activities, North Korea's direction and intentions, and other issues.
Bolton's brinksmanship on Cuba was embarrassing for all concerned.
So, by all means -- if Bolton needs or wants an apology for being criticized for having gotten something right on Iran as reported in the recent National Intelligence Estimate, where are Bolton's apologies to the rest of the national security community for his errors -- and for his commentary of late that it is "politics" driving the latest Iran NIE, not intelligence.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I believe that Iran has wanted nuclear weapons
To believe otherwise would be to think Iran governed by simpleminded punks.
Simpleminded for not learning the lesson in the differing fates of Saddam and Kim, punks for not demanding the perquisites of the regional hegemony that we won for them at Tora Bora and Tikrit.
Shall this proud and ancient people really swallow the legitimacy of an Indian, an Israeli, a Pakistani bomb, but not a Persian one?
Why? We would not, in their place.
I am continually astonished at our inability to extend to our "foes" the slightest particle of comprehension that they are motivated by the same impulses as are we.
December 10, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Maybe they're not stupid, but they still weren't going for nukes.
Look at it this way. You're Iran. Your defense budget isn't unlimited.
A nuke is going to suck down billions and billions and billions of dollars, and its going to take years and years.
Which means you've got a window of vulnerability for five or ten years, when the Americans can hit you, and you've got no nuke to defend with. And an American attack is imminent, it can happen anytime during that time.
Thing with a nuke is that you have to have it ready to roll. So all those prior attacks, before the nuke comes off the assembly line... well, a hypothetical future nuke just won't do you a bit of good.
Meanwhile, you're throwing billions and billions of dollars down the crapper.
Maybe better to take those billions and put it into bucks that will deliver bangs today.
A state of the art radar system now is worth a lot more than a nuke five years down the road.
A good anti-missile, anti-aircraft system will be a lot bigger deterrent than a hypothetical nuke ten years down.
Indeed, a nuke project now raises your vulnerability, it gives your enemies incentive to attack you before you can bring home the bacon.
So a nuke is not necessarily the be all and end all.
Just a thought...
December 10, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
simpleminded not to want a nuke
not necessarily cost effective (including costs like regional conflagration) to develop one...
December 10, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nuclear weapon is not necessarily a security guarantee or a status symbol.
There are a number of countries which potentially have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon within a short time: Germany, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, South Korea, Phillipines, Argentina, Chile, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, South Africa, etc. etc. Most have not bothered.
There are at least three countries which are known to either had nuclear weapons or had advanced nuclear weapons programs but abandoned them. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa.
December 10, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he also got wrong Iraq's WMD activities, Cuba's WMD activities, North Korea's direction and intentions, and other issues.
Anent which, do you credit him with sincerity?
I confess, I believe his policy proclamations are made in the service of his overall (existential...?) bellicosity.
I believe him disingenuous in the extreme, and I fear one gives him too much credit attempting to deconstruct at face value his arguments.
December 10, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares what Michael Rubin thinks? Other than Clemon's off- expressed desire for a signed copy of Bolton's latest book, I don't see the point of this post.
That said, Steve's claim the opinions re Iran's REAL intentions that are shared by himself, Valerie Plame, Jim Risen, Russian, Chinese, French, Germans, Israeli intelligence analysts etc sounds familiar. Somehow, it suggests all of the above are in total agreement with something that all are privy to. Is this information from one single source, a compilation, or the product of independent analysis of their own intel gathering by each individual entity? Or what?
"Everyone" also believed that Saddam had WMD's. The little-discussed reasons behind that shared "beliefs" was the fact that the same disinformation was passed around from country to country and back again; forming a self-reinforcing loop of cw.
Are we seeing the same thing again?
In an unusually caustic (even for him) article, Uri Avnery tells it like it is:
"The first reaction of the Israeli leadership was vigorous and determined: total denial.
The American report is simply wrong, all the media proclaimed. It is based on false information. Our own intelligence community is in possession of much better data, which prove that the bomb is well on its way.
Really? All the intelligence in the hands of the Mossad is automatically transferred to the CIA. It is part of the mass of data on which the American report is based."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/121007Avnery.shtml
Judging from many of the Israeli responses, the NIE reflects a difference in interpretation, not information. However, Olmert has sworn to disprove the NIE's conclusions and during his 24hr visit to Israel, JCS Mike Mullen has just been briefed by all manner of high-level Israelis in order to counter the American intelligence conclusions.
One of Olmert's statements, that Israel will work with the IAEA, suggests that Israel has some information that they will share in order to get them on board.
The JPosts' excellent military affairs/security writer, Herb Keinon, has published an informative article that lays out a big picture explanation of the issues. One of the key points is that Israeli policies are absolutely firm on the notion that Iran should have not be allowed to "have mastery over the nuclear fuel cycle" and that as a "nuclear threshold state" is already a threat to Israel.
Some of Keinon's sources are surprised at the Israeli suprise as:
"The first indication came in the spring of 2006 when US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley publicly backed a compromise solution proffered by the Russians, which Israel rejected, whereby Russia would enrich uranium for Teheran on Russian soil.
Another sign of divergence was Israel's belief that any engagement with the Iranians would be tantamount to giving them a "certificate of legitimacy." That was not the American position.
Also in recent months, there has been a difference of opinion about whether Iran needed only to suspend its uranium enrichment before negotiations could begin, or whether it had to completely halt and dismantle its enrichment capabilities.
During the days when former UN ambassador John Bolton was involved in the issue, the terminology used was "suspension, cessation and dismantlement." US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, watered down the terminology, and all that was discussed in recent months was an Iranian uranium enrichment suspension, with even the words "a long-term suspension" omitted."
http://tinyurl.com/2x2h5j
John Bolton ALWAYS held the position that Iran shouldn't be allowed any nuclear capability, civilian uses included. For some reason, most of those elites opining on his doings neglected to mention that little detail. From what Bush has been saying about Iranian "knowledge", one wonders if the game remains the same.
In an article about the NIE, Olmert and Bush, Haaretz' acerbic Yoel Marcus drops this hint:
"There is some basis for the belief that in the last year of his presidency, Bush will make some important pledges to Israel that will also obligate the next administration."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932139.html
I suppose it's possible that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is one of the "pledges", but given the context of the article, I wonder if Marcus meant that Bush will obligate the next administration with strikes on Iran by giving Israel aid and comfort, codes, a Greenlight and US hot action if Iran retaliates.
December 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. They sure seem to be going out of their way to prove that the NIE actually vindicates the Neocons. It's obviously not designed to convince anyone, so you just have to deal with its motives, which are not to admit error or defeat.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 10, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The most recent Iran NIE confirms that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon back in 2003."
Really?????
When are folks going to stop falling for the "undisclosed source" nonsense, and base their conclusions on disclosed, observable fact.
Steve, if you really have info that rises above spin, please share it.
December 10, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran having a nuclear weapon is unimportant to me as I have yet to hear a credible answer to the question;
"Well, what are they going to do with it if they have one?"
There are volumns being printed and spoken on both sides of the issue, who to believe?
John Bolton? Cheney? Bill Kristol? The recent NIE?
I'll stick with Mohammad el Baradi.....or Scott Ritter if you can find him.
December 11, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink