Is Sadr Dead THIS Time?

By Cernig

Between Eric, Fester and myself, we've followed the various iterations of the "Sadr's a spent force" theory that's been floating around now since at least 2004 post-Najaf and noted that each time rumors of his demise have been exaggerated.

Today, Abu Aardvark reports on yet another iteration of that theory - this time, it says that Iran has decided to cut Sadr loose and bury him because it no longer needs an armed opposition group as a proxy now that it's other proxies actually control the government.

Muqtada al Sadr is a mighty but reckless force; he is not as intelligent as Hassan Nasrallah and does not speak the language of politics, however he was an important factor in enforcing the Iranian influence at the moment in which Saddam Hussein's regime fell. Today, it appears that Tehran no longer needs al Sadr – so long as it has control over Iraq within the political framework.

Nouri al Maliki's regime, with its political prowess as opposed to the Sunni political crudeness, has managed to win over Washington – or neutralize it – as well as bring about American-Iranian rapprochement over the Iraqi issue. This was achieved whilst taking advantage of the political situation in Washington in light of US President George W. Bush's weakness following the Democratic victory in Congress and at time when the US has entered into a state of political paralysis as a result of the upcoming elections.

Iran no longer needs Muqtada al Sadr but rather wants a sophisticated model that is even more progressive than Hezbollah's in order to take over Iraq. A government in control is much better than an opposition whose only possession and demands are the right to disrupt – such as the case in Lebanon.

The article he cites, from the very Sunni and very Saudi al-Sharq al-Awsat, goes on to suggest a link with Ahmadinejhad's recent visit to Baghdad, saying Tehran must have blessed Maliki's move.

Marc observes:

So you can add the "Iran is liquidating its no longer useful proxies" theory (which would fit this general line of speculation about Iran's doubts about Sadr and preference for the simultaneously-US backed ISCI) to the the generally most prevalent (in the Iraqi and Arab, not just Western, media) "Maliki and ISCI are liquidating their more popular rivals ahead of the provincial elections" theory; the optimistic "Sadr has lost power and now's the time to take him out" theory (thus far not borne out by the course of the fighting, but who knows - it's early); Maliki's own "it's time to establish state sovereignty over a 'lost' province" theory (which Bush, of course, has embraced; but then why isn't he taking on the other militias and warlords? and why would he start now, and in Basra?); and Reidar Visser's "Maliki is trying to build a power base in the Iraqi Army" theory.

I'm personally highly sceptical - mostly because of the source, which is about as under-the-thumb of the Saudi royals as it's possible to be and which has previously mainstreamed anti_Iranian agitprop which later turned out to be wildly false 9it's reporting on that defecting Iranian general springs immediately to mind). But also because Maliki's SCIRI/DAWA coalition have been the central government for some time now - if Iran wanted to cut a recalcitrant proxy loose and back the proxy-in-power against it then Iran's had plenty of opportunity to do so already. Why now, of all times?

The answer to "why now, of all times?" and "why the Mahdi, strongest of all the militias, first?" seems to me to be one and the same. I keep coming back to those provincial elections which, if the Sadrists were free to contest them, would essentially reduce SCIRI - the main Iran-backed grouping and Maliki's main ally - from a major political force to a minor one.

Jules Crittenden, following the narrative as ever, writes today:

The Sadrists are claiming it’s all political, to cut them out of provincial elections, and if al-Maliki’s that interested, there’s got to be a sleazy political angle to it.* On the other hand, if it in fact has the effect of ending Shiite infighting and lawlessness, and edges out Iran, then there is a distinctly unsleazy strategic angle to it.

But if Maliki's bloc wins, edging Iran out is exactly what isn't going to happen. In that much at least al-Sharq al-Awsat has it right. And if Maliki wins, the SCIRI, with its Badr Brigades, will be far and away the largest Shiite party and militia, with total penetration of the Iraqi security forces. At that point they may just begin to wonder why they need Maliki's DAWA as frontmen at all.

Iran's Shrinking Chemical Weapons Stockpile

By Cernig

Or rather, the shrinking assessments of the size of Iran's chemical weapons stockpile.

It appears the last NIE on Iran's nuclear program isn't the only intelligence community assessment to have dialed down the hype and rhetoric over Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction ability. Successive assessments on Iran's chemical weapons have done the same.

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, the Arms Control Wonk explains.

What next - the possibility that the U.S. intelligence community will admit that the "EFP's from Iran" narrative is flimsier than a Colin Powell presentation to the UN?

And if so would the Bush administration's Weapons of Mass Distraction - the mainstream media - even notice?

Update Meanwhile...

Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.

Simple prudence -- or ominous timing?

The Source Of Bush's Delusion

By Cernig

Both the WaPo and McClatchy have noticed that Dubya erroneously claimed that Iran had said that it wants "to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people” (Dubya's words).

The claim came in an interview with Radio Farda in which Bush also acknowledged Iran's right to have a peaceful nuclear program, but said he wanted Iran to entirely outsource its enrichment to Russia. Iran has rejected this approach mainly because of Russia's track record in using energy supplies to hold customer nations hostage on political matters.

Bush cited his "belief that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear-power program. It's in their right to have it." But he added: "The problem is that the [Iranian] government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because, one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now -- who knows? And secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some -- in the Middle East."

Iran has consistently said that its uranium-enrichment program is aimed only at producing energy, but the United States and some allies fear Iran is seeking the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

"There's a chance that the U.S. and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the government is going to have to make different choices," Bush said. "And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

The UN Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran in an effort to pressure Tehran to halt its enrichment activities.

"What is acceptable to me is to work with a nation like Russia to provide the fuel so that the plant can go forward, which therefore shows that the Iranian government doesn't need to learn to enrich [uranium]," Bush said.

So where is Bush getting this delusion that Iran has said it wants a nuke? Look no further than the influential neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which has constantly banged the drum for war with Iran. Over at National Review's "Corner" blog today, Michael Rubin - a resident scholar in foreign and defense policy studies at AEI - cites....Michael Rubin...as a source for such claims.

On examination, too, one of Rubin's key sources in his self-referenced article for the AIE turns out to be an Iranian Hezboullah hardliner arguing against then-President Rafsanjani, telling him what he should be doing but isn't. Another is by the Daily Telegraph's neocon serial fabulist Phil Sherwell and although Rubin says the cleric involved later "backtracked", what actually happened is that the cleric said he'd been outrageously misquoted and denied ever making the statement Sherwell claimed.

Self-reference and the misuse of sources can be bad blogging - but coming from a highly influential warmonger like Rubin who's scholarship has been questioned in the past - for not revealing his involvement in Bush administration propaganda efforts in Iraq - they are positively dangerous. With such organisations as the AIE and the Heritage Foundation feeding him their highly-spun version of events and issues, Bush is living in a reality of their making. Thus comes the source of his delusion.

Pentagon Won't Let Fallon Testify

By Cernig

Despite requests from several members of Congress, the Pentagon has decided not to send retiring CentCom commander Admiral Fallon to the Hill to testify alongside Petraeus and Crocker in April.

Asked if the Pentagon was concerned that lawmakers would use Fallon's appearance to ask questions about Iran, [Pentagon Press Secretary] Morrell said, no.

And if you believe that, I've a bridge to sell you.

McCain will continue closed lip policy toward the nasties

by shamanic

According to McCain surrogate Lawrence Eagleburger, McCain "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah."

Well, now that we've categorically ruled out attempting to work with two of the countries that border our little Iraqi province, maybe McCain can suggest, I don't know, a plan or something for how we win in Iraq without destroying our military. And how do we handle other threats that will arise?

It really is a matter of new leadership or more of the same.

The "Absence Of Evidence" Logic Trap

By Cernig

Did Dick Cheney ever do Logic 101 in college? He keeps banging the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" drum over Iran's nuclear program.

Vice President Dick Cheney retained his tough stance against Iran on Wednesday and said the U.S. is uncertain if Tehran has restarted the nuclear weaponization program that a U.S. intelligence report says it halted in 2003.

..."What it (the NIE) says is that they have definitely had in the past a program to develop a nuclear warhead; that it would appear that they stopped that weaponization process in 2003. We don't know whether or not they've restarted," he said.

"What we do know is that they had then, and have now, a process by which they're trying to enrich uranium, which is the key obstacle they've got to overcome in order to have a nuclear weapon," he added. "They've been working at it for years."

It's also a key obstacle to having an indeginous nuclear power industry that the great powers can't turn off or on at will by controlling fuel supplies, Dick. Sometime a cigar is just a cigar.

Cheney must surely know by now - if he was paying any attention at all in the last five years of Iraqi invasion and occupation - that one cannot prove a negative. One can show it to be highly likely, sure, but there are still wingnuts who insist that Saddam sent all his WMD by FedEx to a postal box in Damascus and it's this little logical law that lets them do so. Cheney's probably one of them. And so he continues his push to waste yet more hundreds of thousands of lives, along with another $3 trillion and more, on yet another idiotic snark hunt.

Let's be clear - the "Cheney 1% Doctrine" is not logical or good foreign policy - it is paranoid sociopathy at its worse. In personal terms it's as if I decided to wade into my neighbour's house with gun blazing because he can't prove he has no anthrax and I've seen him using white powder (to make bread). My insanity plea in defense of murder charges would probably be accepted by the court.

Iran's Elections

By Cernig

Iran's parliamentary election results are coming in - and it looks like despite a massive attempt at rigging the vote in favor of conservatives, more reformists than expected will win seats. More, there are signs of deep splits in conservative ranks.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Conservatives took an early lead in an election for Iran's 290-seat parliament with 108 seats to 33 for their reformist opponents, Iran's state Press TV said on Saturday, citing unofficial results so far.

Friday's election was seen as likely to keep conservatives in control of parliament, while adding more voices critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's economic policies.

Many reformists, seeking political and social change and trying to capitalise on public discontent over inflation, were blocked from standing in the polls.

Conservative politician Shahabeddin Sadr said 70 percent of winners so far were "principlists" -- a label conservatives use to describe their loyalty to the Islamic Republic's ideals. He did not say how many seats had been decided.

Sadr is the secretary of the United Front, the biggest and most pro-government conservative group, which confusingly includes both backers and critics of Ahmadinejad.

Sadr, quoted by the state's IRNA news agency, said most of the "principlists" elected were United Front candidates.

Even if conservatives keep the upper hand in parliament, some reformists expected Ahmadinejad to face sharper scrutiny.

"The president will face more challenges with the next parliament than he did with the current one," said Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a close ally of reformist ex-President Mohammad Khatami.

An Iranian political analyst, who asked not to be named, also predicted that the next parliament would give Ahmadinejad a rougher ride. He said splits had opened up among conservatives jockeying for position before the 2009 race for the presidency.

A senior reformist politician said reformists, despite the hurdles, had done well in cities. He forecast they would win 50 to 70 seats, up from about 40 that they held before.

Reformists also say they'll be able to form alliances with independents and dissatisfied conservatives to pressure Ahmadinejad's government. This despite the fact that hardline international pressure has been widely acknowledged to have played to the conservative's nationalist strengths. The economy's troubles have trumped both nationalist drum-banging and, to an extent, gerrymandering of the election in favor of the conservatives.

That vote-rigging is what's being concentrated on by the US in official statements - further playing into Iranian conservative's hands. While it is doubtless true that Iranian votes are "cooked' as far as possible beforehand, it's hardly appropriate for the Western nation with the highest bar to entry for its own national elections - belong to one of the big two parties, be bigtime independently wealthy, or forget it - to be saying so. Maybe next time the U.S. could leave such pronouncements to an ally such as the UK where the entry bar is nowhere near as high.

But I digress. These current elections, I think, show that Ahmadinejad has problems in the run up to his re-election bid next year. Influential conservatives like former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani - who won a seat in Qom - oppose his nuclear truculence even as the ailing Grand Ayatollah apparently backs it. The economy is a mess, with massive inflation and deficit spending despite oil revenue windfalls, which is causing further splits in the conservative camp. A reformist is in charge of the council which will pick the next Grand Ayatollah and there's a fair chance they might be doing so soon. Finally, it's going to be harder this time around to keep reformist presidential candidates off the ballot and still keep a lid on public dissent. I have a feeling that the close of 2009 will see a new Iranian president in place, perhaps one who is more amenable to negotiation and less given to overblown rhetoric.

(Postscript - it should be understood that by "reformists" I mean comparatively moderate politicians. In Iran, no real moderate by, say, European standards gets anywhere near the ballot. Mind you, some would say that's true of the US too.)

Barnett On Fallon Resignation

By Cernig

Kevin Drum had one, fairly establishment-mainstream view of Admiral Fallon's abrupt departure and the spin being put on it at White House behest today:

There's a limit to how much public freelancing can be tolerated from a regional commander — or any other military officer. Although most liberals are probably sympathetic toward Fallon's views, it's worth keeping in mind that a year from now the shoe is probably going to be on the other foot. Do we really want the commander in Iraq in 2009 telling the press that President Obama's withdrawal plans are likely to lead to chaos and need to be slowed down? Even if that's his heartfelt professional opinion?

I don't think so. Bottom line: I'll stick with civilian control of the military, even if I don't happen to like the current civilians. It sounds like Fallon crossed the line once too often.

It's a take Matt Yglesias disagrees with - but also one Tom Barnett, author of the Esquire piece that catalyzed what seems to have been a long-running background turf fight, would take issue with. Barnett today writes:

the rules changed with this administration.

It's the secrecy by which decisions are made that has poisoned the well. If "outing" any opposition to the administration's line puts that person at risk, then is the journalist's choice simply to ignore the internal debate to spare the public such knowledge?

Cause if it is, then we're offering descriptions of our own government that historically are better leveled at authoritarian regimes, where America constantly needs to be careful shining a light on dissidents lest they fall under attack by authorities.

If we place our military leadership in that category, then this country is in a world of trouble.

The public's right to know of internal debates on matters as crucial as to whether or not we go to war with Iran is sacrosanct in my mind. Wars of choice have to be national choices, not just leadership choices.

Barnett should know if the rules changes under Bush - after all, he worked for him.

I have to say, my own preferences for the nation as a whole to exercise command and control of both civilian and military leadership agree with Barnett. The nation can only do that if it is well informed on differences of opinion and nuances of debate - something we've been very short on with the bush administration. then, both civilian and military leadership has to be willing to listen to and take direction from "the people" - again, something we've been short on this past seven years.

Meanwhile, we're being told by the administration that any suspicion this all means attacks on Iran have gotten more likely is just "ridiculous". Over at FP Passport, Mike Boyer notes an Israeli intel assessment that says 2008 is the "Year of Iran" and says we shouldn't relax just on the administration's say-so.

With Dick Cheney departing for the Middle East next week, this assessment is worrisome. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said that the Israelis would not consider unilateral action against Iran. But they would likely leap at the chance to conduct coordinated strikes with the U.S. And Cheney's ear is reportedly sympathetic to the argument that diplomacy with Iran is futile. "Full-scale" war with Iran is probably militarily out at this stage, but strikes conducted by air and sea -- with the Navy taking the lead -- are still a very real possibility before the Bush administration is through. And that does make Admiral Fallon's departure worthy of concern.

Indeed it does - let's hope Dem leaders actually carry through on their wish to have Fallon testify to a congressional hearing and ask him some pointed questions about it all.

Dems Call For Fallon Testimony, Investigation

By Cernig

The White House continues to deny that Admiral Fallon's resignation was because he was a roadblock in the path to war with Iran, with Dana Perino claiming against all evidence that Bush "welcomes robust and healthy debate". But Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others are calling for investigative hearings over Fallon's departure.

Today, Hillary Clinton called on the armed services committee to investigate whether Fallon had been pushed out for opposing military action against Iran.

"I am asking that the Senate armed services committee hold hearings into the circumstances surrounding his departure."

The committee did not respond to queries about Clinton's request. But former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has echoed her views, and two senior members of Congress had pressed the Pentagon to allow Fallon to testify on the Iraq war before his resignation.

"I am profoundly concerned that Admiral Fallon has decided to take this measure, and I'm hoping that we can hear from him in a more specific way in the future," Democratic senator James Webb said today.

I suppose this is her way of atoning for backing the atrocious Kyl-Lieberman amendment that made Bush's declaring war on Iran so much easier. Nor do I expect the White House to allow Fallon to testify. But at least Clinton and others are paying attention now.

One thing they should be paying attention to is the way in which the U.S. media have acted as stenographers for the White House narrative on Iran's nuclear program. Eric Umansky has a great piece for the Columbia Journalism Review today looking at that process and noting that several experts seemed to have been sidelined in the media precisely because they questioned that narrative. Like George Perkovich, a nonproliferation analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

In May 2005, Perkovich wrote a paper speculating that Iran’s leaders weren’t actually bent on making the bomb but rather wanted to keep their options open. In that scenario, he wrote, “as Iranian elites began to pay attention to nuclear issues,” they realized their best bet was an above-board civilian nuclear program. Such a path would still allow Iran to “gradually acquire” the know-how and technology to “produce nuclear weapons some day should a dire strategic threat arise”—all the while abiding by international law.

Perkovich wasn’t the only one to guess that Iran wasn’t bent on building the bomb. “I would see intelligence analysts over the last few years and ask, ‘Where’s the evidence of what Iran’s doing now?’” remembers Paul Kerr, formerly an analyst with the Arms Control Association, now with the Congressional Research Service. “And the answers I would get back were just really thin.” Kerr believed the evidence pointed in the other direction. In November 2006, he said so in a piece for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The very fact that Iran has previously offered several concessions, as well as curtailed some nuclear activities, should signal to the international community that Tehran has not necessarily committed itself to building nuclear weapons—and that there are those within the regime who are reluctant to risk political and economic isolation.

Perkovich, Kerr, and others had been questioning the administration’s many assumptions about Iran: about why Tehran might have an interest in a weapons system in the first place, about whether it had a program to build one, and, if it did, about whether it was willing to do a deal to halt it. The analysts didn’t have exact answers, of course; they were just raising basic questions. What’s striking is how rarely such questions were asked by members of the press.

...Even now, after the NIE changed the landscape, “There is an enormous selective amnesia regarding Iran in U.S. coverage,” says Ali Ansari, a historian at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews, who specializes in Iran-U.S. relations and has long criticized journalists for relying on “worn-out narratives” regarding Iran. “There’s this assumption that the U.S. has always been innocent partner in the relationship. But the two have been equally guilty of mismanaging the relationships and missing opportunities.”

Go read the whole thing. Mrs Clinton certainly should - as Umansky notes - after claiming in January 2006, that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons” and arguing that the White House actually “chose to downplay the threats.” Just another part of what Fareed Zakaria meant when he wrote “The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality.”

Admiral Fallon Out (Updated)

By Cernig

You'll recall that recently Tom Barnett wrote a piece for Esquire saying that Admiral William Fallon was soon to be replaced as the head of U.S. Central Command because he opposed the neoconservative narrative for war with Iran.

Today, Admiral Fallon resigned.

In a written statement, he said the article’s “disrespect for the president” and “resulting embarrassment” have become a distraction. “Although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there,” he said.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at the Pentagon that he accepted Fallon’s resignation “with reluctance and regret.” But he added, “I think it’s the right decision.” “We have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months, and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so,” he said.

So Tom Barnett was correct that Fallon would go - but the official reason is the exact opposite of the one Tom pointed to. Spencer Ackerman says that Fallon isn't even hanging around until he can be replaced - something he thinks is "highly suspicious" and sounds like a resignation over a matter of principle whatever the official spin might be.

Is it just me or does this smack strongly of official spin, enabling Fallon to be ousted without the embarassment of having to sack him for disagreeing with a Commander in Chief who "always listens" to his senior officers?

Now poor Tom Barnett will be seen as carrying a large can for his Esquire op-ed, which is highly unfair. And bombing Iran will be easier.

Update Our illustrious researcher, Kat, notes a report that Gates was refusing to take Fallon's calls. In a comment to this post, she writes:

Tonight, NBC Nightly News reported that Gates has been refusing to take Fallon's calls. Since the podcast of tonight's show isn't available yet, I can't quote the report precisely. But I'm not the only one who heard this. The blog 2008run.com just posted this:

"A voice on the tee vee says that Defense Secretary Gates gave Admiral Fallon the message - that he should resign - by refusing to take his phone calls. Refusing to take his phone calls? And if that didn’t work what was he going to do, Hold his breath?" I mean, seriously, is this the Sec of Defense and the Head of CentCom or characters in Mean Girls?"

Not taking Fallon's calls? That doesn't sound much like "reluctance and regret" to me.

Iran to Offer Enrichment Halt In Return For Cash?

By Cernig

Iran appears to be signalling that it is ready to offer a "halt for compensation" deal to Western nations worried about its uranium enrichment activities.

Today, Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said (again) that Iran now considered the Modality Plan agreed with the IAEA successfully completed - but also said that Tehran was ready to hold talks with the Group 5+1 members states about specific issues.

And yesterday the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili also offered further talks on co-operation in "fields like security, energy, and economy" with the international community and also said that Iran will ask for compensation in return for the halt of its nuclear activities for at least two years. At a conference on the topic of "Iran's peaceful Nuclear Activities", he said:

"those who made us stop uranium enrichment based on false accusations will have to pay for compensations as a result."

He added that he would not recieve Condi Rice for negotiations.

Both together might indicate a willingness by Iran to finally do a real deal - or it might indicate a plan by Iran to split off Europe from the U.S. on the issue by pointing out the Bush administration's belligerent rhetoric and roadblock manouvering in terms of international diplomacy.

But, oddly enough in the face of new sanctions and a America's determination to isolate Iran financially, the World Bank has just approved a new $250 million loan to Iran for water and sewage works. This under the presidency of Bush-appointee Robert Zoellick, who was previously Condi's deputy at State.

Signs of a break-through, maybe?

Update Then again, maybe not. Andy, in comments, offers his own translation of a Fars report and suggests that Kuna mistranslated the tense - which would mean Iran was demanding compensation for it's past enrichment halt from 2004-2006 rather than offering a new deal. Pity. A new deal of some kind really is what's needed.

Anybody seen Cheney?

By Libby

I've had this uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach for a few days now. It struck me that we haven't heard a word about our Dark Lord for a very long time. I was wondering what's going on in the secret reaches of our Fourth Branch of Government and I'm afraid this is the answer.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon “one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today.” Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ war-mongering “not helpful.” Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:

I don't find it beyond the realm of possibility that a strike on Iran could be the October surprise. If they really remove Fallon before then, I'd say the odds get better. I hope I'm wrong.

Update: This does nothing to convince that I am.

So Much For That NIE Fearmongering

By Cernig

The UN Security Council voted 14-0 to extend and increase sanctions on Iran over it's nuclear program, based largely on emerging tidbits from the Laptop Of Doom provided to U.S. intelligence by the MeK terror group.

But as Eric Martin points out, no matter how one may feel about that UN decision, it's worth noting that the last NIE on Iran, the one that deflated the warhype to the point where an attack seemed out of the question and therefore according to the neocons was going to make it impossible to get the UNSC to back further sanctions...well...seems to have had the opposite effect.

Score one for the rapier instead of the sabre. And the neocons were wrong again.

The Spin Cycle Of Doom (Updated With A New Rinse)

By Cernig

I said yesterday we'd be hearing more about the dreaded Laptop Of Doom and its alleged evidence of Iran's nuke plans, as provided by the MeK terror group to US intelligence. And lo and behold, today the WaPo has a report on exactly that, saying details contained on the laptop prove Iran hasn't been entirely honest about it's weapon activities. It's one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" situations. But the WaPo report isn't being entirely honest either, it seems.

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, the Arms Control Wonk, writes:

today, Warrick and Lynch have a story based on notes from Heinonen’s briefing — a good bit of reporting — suggesting that the IAEA had collected “corroborating evidence” from the intelligence agencies of several countries (echo chamber warning) and presenting some new information.

Unfortuantely, the example of “new” information that Warrick and Lynch provide, pertains to documents “described studies on modifying Iran’s Shahab missile to allow it to accommodate a large warhead, which would detonate 600 meters above its target.”

This is not new. Those details were first reported in March 2005 by Carla Anne Robbins and later recycled by Robbins in July 2005 and then David Sanger and Bill Broad in the New York Times.

Indeed, that information, as Robbins reported in 2005, was briefed to the IAEA by Bob Joseph.

So, two questions: What was in the 2008 briefing that wasn’t in the 2005 briefing? And, what else is in those notes?

I'm not sure where Dr. Lewis gets the impression that presenting old news as new and scarier news is "a good bit of reporting". Absent answers to Dr Lewis' two questions - and even more importantly, prehaps, knowing the identity of their source who supposedly took these notes at an IAEA briefing - it looks very much to me like yet another case of press stenographers catapulting the propaganda by a process of rinse and repeat.

Update I see the NYT's Sanger and Broad have their version of the story out too. Like the WaPo version, it concentrates on the warhead details that, as Dr. Lewis points out, were last recycled by Sanger and Broad in 2005.

At this point, the really big question is "who is this un-named diplomat who has so kindly let both WaPo and NYT use his notes -- and what's his agenda?"

Update 2 Siddharth, in comments at Dr. Lewis' blog, puts his finger on the real story:

And wonderful timing too, for all those “notes” being made available to NYT, WaPo and Reuters, just in time for Monday’s big UNSC sanctions vote. In my book – and I speak as a journalist – being handed over notes/documents etc (esp. by a party with a patent interest in the contents being reported) is not “good reporting”. What makes it even worse is that Schulte hands over shady documents to IAEA, gets old Oli to brief everyone, takes notes of said briefing, and hands over said notes to gullible hacks. Much more effective than directly plugging a line to the media.

Go on, someone in the press - ask Schulte if he was indeed the Masked Diplomat.

At long last, a warm welcome in Baghdad

By Libby

Hey the President was finally welcomed into Baghdad with sweets and flowers. Too bad it wasn't our President.

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.[...]

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Wow, what a concept. An announced state visit and quite a contrast to the way Bush sneaks in for his "surprise" visits. Has Bush even set foot in Baghdad since 2003?

Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

I see this guy is grumbling about why should Ahmadinejad worry? The terrorists love him. But it's the Iraqi government that's showering him with love and kisses. Marc apparently forgot that it was the invasion that made it all possible. I don't recall Saddam rolling out the welcome mat for Iranian heads of state.

Shaun has a photo and asks the $3 trillion dollar question. What does this say about the state of affairs in the Middle East?

The Laptop Of Doom

By Cernig

For the first time, Iran has openly said it believes the infamous "smoking laptop" to be full of MeK terror group propaganda. Gareth Porter does sterling work tracking the laptop's provenance - which is to say US intel just about got it from a guy in a bar.

those documents have long been regarded with great suspicion by U.S. and foreign analysts. German officials have identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organisation.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel's Mossad.

In its latest report on Iran, circulated Feb. 22, the IAEA, under strong pressure from the Bush administration, included descriptions of plans for a facility to produce "green salt", technical specifications for high explosives testing and the schematic layout of a missile reentry vehicle that appears capable of holding a nuclear weapon. Iran has been asked to provide full explanations for these alleged activities.

Tehran has denounced the documents on which the charges are based as fabrications provided by the MEK, and has demanded copies of the documents to analyse, but the United States had refused to do so.

The Iranian assertion is supported by statements by German officials. A few days after then Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the laptop documents, Karsten Voight, the coordinator for German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Nov. 22, 2004 as saying that the information had been provided by "an Iranian dissident group".

A German official familiar with the issue confirmed to this writer that the NCRI had been the source of the laptop documents. "I can assure you that the documents came from the Iranian resistance organisation," the source said.

The Germans have been deeply involved in intelligence collection and analysis regarding the Iranian nuclear programme. According to a story by Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer soon after the laptop documents were first mentioned publicly by Powell in late 2004, U.S. officials said they had been stolen from an Iranian whom German intelligence had been trying to recruit, and had been given to intelligence officials of an unnamed country in Turkey.

The German account of the origins of the laptop documents contradicts the insistence by unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who insisted to journalists William J. Broad and David Sanger in November 2005 that the laptop documents did not come from any Iranian resistance groups.

Despite the fact that it was listed as a terrorist organisation, the MEK was a favourite of neoconservatives in the Pentagon, who were proposing in 2003-2004 to use it as part of a policy to destabilise Iran.

You're going to be hearing a lot more about this laptop's alleged revelations, as it's the single biggest remaining item of "evidence" in the neocon war-hyper's arsenal. But it looks very like any real information contained on it relates to iran's now-defunct pre-2003 weapons program and that data has been spiced up by the inclusion of propaganda planted by one of the links in the provenance chain.

Experts - IAEA Successfully Disarming Iran

By Cernig

Nuclear non-proliferation experts Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione have penned an op-ed for Britain's Financial Times which says that the recent IAEA report shows that the Agency has been successful in ensuring that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program going forward.

The investigation and inspections – even the limited ones the IAEA is currently able to conduct – have, in effect, shut down direct weapons work and resolved many of the outstanding historical questions.

...the IAEA investigations have produced enough circumstantial evidence to support the view that Iran probably conducted nuclear weapons research in the past. But the evidence to date also indicates, as the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded last November, that Iran stopped this direct weapons work. The path now is to recognise this success, deepen it, find a way for Iran to come clean safely on its past work and to prevent Iran from developing capabilities that could allow it to produce weapon material in the next decade.

Mr ElBaradei has disproved the notion that Iran’s nuclear strategy is immutable. Despite its apparent solidarity, there are divisions within the theocratic regime on the urgency of the nuclear programme. It is true that President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad and his militant allies’ calculations are susceptible to neither offers of incentives nor threats of force. However, for the more tempered members of the ruling elite, the nuclear issue is considered within the context of international relations. Indeed, the fact that Iran has suspended the weapon design component of its programme since 2003 and is largely complying with the IAEA “work plan” reflects the propensity of the state to adhere to certain limits.

The best means of diminishing the hardliners is for the US and its European allies to offer Iran a chance for a resumed relationship...the west should appreciate that a nuanced diplomacy of reconciliation could both regulate Iran’s nuclear programme and help stabilise the Middle East. It is the much maligned Mr ElBaradei that has paved the way for success.

Others, including Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, had already come to the same conclusions about what is actually in the "smoking laptop" - that the data therein relate to that earlier and now cancelled phase of experimentation that never actually got as far as using nuclear materials and was, in many ways, deeply flawed in any case. That is, the Iranian designs as contained in the laptop wouldn't have worked. But this view stands in stark contrast to the opinions from the neocon mothership, the American Enterprise Institute, where they called the IAEA report a "whitewash"...mainly, it must be said, for not insisting on war with Iran right now.

However, Russia is now indicating that it may support further sanctions on Iran because it is worried about Iran's heavy water plant. Heavy water reactors can be used to breed plutonium (from uranium-238) or uranium-233 (from thorium-232) and actually make it easier to extract weapons-grade material than conventional uranium enrichment techniques, so they are seen as major non-proliferation risks. But they also enable natural, un-enriched, uranium to be used in reactors - making them ideal for a small nation with limited resources to spend which is worried about being forced into dependency on other states for fuel. It may be that Iran's heavy water plant is a worrying risk - or it may just be that Russia is keen to see Iran locked in to a very profitable dependency on the larger nation for nuclear purposes. As usual with Iran's nuclear plans, there's a best-case and a worst-case scenario and which one you believe will depend on your own opinion of Iran's motivations.

Marching In Lockstep

By Cernig

When the IAEA issued its latest report on Iran's nuclear program on Friday, there wasn't much noise about it from the right side of the blogosphere. They were too busy worrying about Obama's patriotism and McCain's "Cheney".

But now that the neocon mothership - the American Enterprise Institute - have spoken via the WSJ, they're all falling over themselves to get in lockstep and call it a "whitewash".

The truth, however, is that the IAEA's new report is a carefully parsed compromise between what the IAEA knows, what it's being told but cannot itself verify and political pressure from these very same neocons. It included an urgent call to Iran to agree implementation of a new Additional Protocol and gave the UNSC good cause to proceed with new sanction should it wish to. It repeated the good news that Iran's current centrifuges and their low-enriched product cannot be diverted to produce highly-enriched uranium useable for a weapon without IAEA knowledge.

It also connected the infamous "smoking taptop" to the Iranian nuclear program which ended in 2003 according to the last American NIE.

What the neocons are unhappy about is that it didn't contain a call for war. If any report on Iran's nuclear program doesn't contain that, it's a whitewash that makes the producing agency "irrelevant" according to them.

Could they be more transparent?

IAEA Iran Report Released Today (Updated)

By Cernig

There's no doubt about it - scary stories about Iran's nuclear program sell newspapers and encourage internet click-throughs. But the bubble of scary stories in advance of today's IAEA report has been unusually lurid.

Several hawkish blogs today are referencing an article from Der Spiegel magazine's science correspondent which purports to discuss a European study saying iran could have a nuclear weapon far more quickly than suggested by the recent American NIE or by the IAEA. In fact, Der Spiegel claims the study shows Iran could have a nuke by the end of the year. The key graphs:

As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.

For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency — just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.

For the purposes of the simulation, the JRC modelled each of the centrifuges individually and then hooked them together to form the kind of cascade necessary to enrich uranium. A number of variables were taken into account, including the assumption by most experts that Iran isn’t even close to operating its centrifuges at 100 percent efficiency. What is known, however, is that the Iranians are operating 18 cascades, each made up of 164 centrifuges. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself said last April that the country had 3,000 centrifuges in operation. At the time, most Western observers discounted the claim as mere propaganda. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Ahmadinejad’s assertion in November.

But there are a couple of problems with Der Spiegel's account.

Firstly, it sidesteps entirely the IAEA surveillance and seal on Iran’s centrifuges and LEU product. The IAEA guarantees those cannot be redirected to HEU production without its knowledge. It also says that the study produces a worst case estimate based on 100% efficient centrifuges when we know from IAEA reports that Iran has never managed better than 20% efficiency. You cannot get there (enough HEU for a bomb in the timeline the study suggests) from here, so any such estimates are working from null data.

But secondly, there are reasons at the moment to doubt Der Spiegel's characterisation of this study. The JRC is committed to a promise that reports are meant "to be accessible to interested non-specialists and the media," yet I cannot find any such study on their website.

The only "project to improve control of nuclear materials" currently ongoing is one run from their Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), which is indeed based in Ipsa, Italy. The webpage for that program - the 4th ESARDA Nuclear Safeguards and Non Proliferation course - doesn't mention any such program either. It's described as "a chance to all students to learn more about the general background of safguards legislation, nuclear fuel cycle, verification technologies and the evolution of safguards." That doesn't exactly sound like something such a major study would be prepared for, but it's the only current program which fits Der Spiegel's description.

The nearest I can find to any study like the one Der Spiegel describes is is a reference to study papers referencing an imaginary state and based on various actual nations’ nuclear programs - intended as an exercise for students of non-proliferation techniques in preparing an inspection regime to prevent said hypothetical nation from producing a weapon. Could Der Spiegel, in a zeal to print "news" have so mischaracterised a fairly innocuous study? I've emailled the JRC asking them if they can identify and provide a copy of the study the Spiegel article referenced. If they reply, I'll let you know.

In the meantime, I noted the other day that there's been other lurid accusations over Iran's nuclear program in the past week. At the UNSC, unaligned nations want to take the IAEA report into consideration before drafting the UNSC's next resolution on Iran's program, but the US and European nations have already drafted the resolution they want voted on before seeing the IAEA's report. It may well be that this rash of accusations is part of a PR program to gain US and European public acceptance for such a move.

The IAEA's report itself is pretty much as expected. It says that Iran has been co-operating more fully but not fully enough and that questions still remain. However, it also says - yet again - that no smoking gun or even damp squib has been found. The report doesn't seem to be available online just yet but El Baradei's statement is.

"Our task in Iran is to make sure that the Iranian nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. We are at it for the last five years. In the last four months, in particular, we have made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past. We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme. We have made good progress, with still one issue on our agenda and I call on Iran to act as actively as possible, as fast as possible, for me to be able (to ensure) that all issues, that have to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, have been clarified.

"In addition to our work, to clarify Iran´s past nuclear activities, we have to make sure, naturally, that Iran´s current activities are also exclusively for peace purposes and for that we have been asking Iran to conclude the so called Additional Protocol, which gives us the additional authority to visit places, additional authority to have additional documents, to be able to provide assurance, not only that Iran´s declared activities are for peaceful purposes but that there are no undeclared nuclear activities. On that score, Iran in the last few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran´s current programme. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient. We need Iran to implement the Additional Protocol. We need to have that authority as a matter of law.

Those alleged weaponization activities are the ones contained on the dodgy laptop US intelligence gained when an Iranian walked in with it, after supposedly getting it from a burglar. That, according to El Baradei, is pretty much all that's left available to those who continue to demonise Iran.

David "Judy In Drag" Sanger at the NYT describes that information as having "strongly suggested the country had experimented with technology to make a nuclear weapon". But other reports are more sceptical.

The newest U.S nuclear information, including some intelligence declassified for sharing with the agency, was handed over to IAEA Deputy Director Oli Heinonen last Friday, just a few weeks after a first batch of material was forwarded by the U.S., said the diplomats.

But much of it shed little new light on what the U.S. says have been attempts by Iran to develop nuclear weapons. "It's not the amount but the quality that counts," said one of the diplomats who was dismissive of the new U.S. file.

Another diplomat said senior agency officials also had dismissed the information as relatively insignificant and coming too late.

Several of the diplomats suggested the U.S. was disingenuous in providing such a large amount of what they described as questionable information just days before ElBaradei was to complete his report. But a diplomat familiar with the U.S. position said Washington was acting in good faith and trying to help the agency.

For its part, Iran did not respond to an invitation issued by Heinonen to its experts to look at some of the information the U.S. approved for sharing with Tehran, despite earlier pledges to do so.

One has to wonder whether that Iranian refusal points to skullduggery or just to Iranian hardliners being stupidly hardline. I'd suggest the latter simply on the basis of Occam's Razor.

Update Andy Grotto at The Arms Control Wonk has kindly provided a link to a PDF copy of the IAEA report. Andy's take is worth a read, as are the comments to his post.

I want to flag up what for me were key graphs in the report, though.

54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. This is a matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear programme. The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3–5 February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in response. Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated. The Agency’s overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions still not provided by Iran. The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to Iran on 15 February 2008. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency’s request of that same date for Iran to view this additional documentation on the alleged studies. In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard. The Director General has urged Iran to engage actively with the Agency in a more detailed examination of the documents available about the alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to show to Iran. [Emphasis Mine - C]

I'm going to suggest something a bit off the wall here - the infamous smoking laptop contains details of Iran's old weapons program, the one the NIE said had been shut down in 2003. It's been doctored by those who "donated" it to US intelligence to make it appear more contemporary and relevant. The pre-2003 program never got further than the beginnings of on-paper studies (for instance, the re-entry vehicle wouldn't actually work), which is why the IAEA have found no use of nuclear material which could be associated with these allegations. The Iranians, knowing all this, are now willing to play hardball because they know there are no new damaging revelations going to come out of investigations of the laptop data, even by accident - and so the hardliners have decided to be hardliners and cock a snook at the US. It's a theory that seems to fit the data and squares the circle between US and Iranian allegation and denial cycles.

If so, then at this point the hardliners in both camps need to climb down out of their trees. As Andy Grotto writes:

I can’t imagine Iran ever coming fully clean—or adopting the kinds of transparency measures needed to verify the peaceful nature of its program, such as the IAEA Additional Protocol—unless it is given a face-saving way out of this mess. Such a pathway cannot emerge until the United States gets serious about meaningful multilateral diplomacy with Iran that includes credible incentives to accompany the sanctions.

I'd only add that both camps need a face-saving way out of the corners they've painted themselves into - US hawks are just as unlikely to ever come clean about the ways they've spun the anti-Iran narrative or back off their insistence that Iran's program isn't now peaceful without one. That's probably going to take someone high up with the courage to change the game.

Next IAEA Report On Iran Due

By Cernig

According to IAEA officials, the next report on Iran is due out this weekend, either tomorrow or Monday. It's expected to say, yet again, that Iran has been cagy but co-operating and that the IAEA still haven't found a smoking gun or even a waterpistol.

So it must be time for those who would prefer the words "Iran" and "nuclear threat" to be conjoined in the public's mind to set out a new range of accusations. That way, they can point at the IAEA's report and say "but it doesn't answer these questions!"

Oh look, whaddaya know.

The MeK says Iran has a secret nuke plant in Tehran's suburbs. This, presumably, is different from all the other Iranian secret nuke plants the MeK have "revealed" since 2003 and passed to the U.S. - thence to the IAEA - but which turned out to be entirely non-existant when investigated.

And the Bush administration is pushing the laptop the MeK was given by some guy again.