Common Knowledge VS Rational Thought.

We live in a soundbite world, and sadly, many of us have soundbite "wisdom". Rather than looking at issues, doing the research, and coming to our own conclusion, most people simply internalise whichever soundbite conforms to their own preferred narrative and repeat it endlessly like a parrot with tourrette's syndrome.

Take Stephen Grant of "Permanent Damage" fame for example. Stephen, a lovably ignorant leftist loony, recently commented thusly on the recent NIE (National Intelligence estimate) on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Just to continue the theme, it was like Christmas early today. I woke to
the dulcet tones of THE TODAY SHOW, just in time to watch The Ghost stammer and stumble through his explanation of why the National Intelligence Estimates
declaration that Iran has no functioning nuclear weapons program, hasn't had one
in at least four years, and isn't likely to have one for the foreseeable future

And chances are if you've listened to any of the major media coverage concerning the issue you have heard the same basic story. "Iran suspended its Nuclear weapons program in 03, and is no longer seeking nuclear weapons. The Bush administrations push for sanctions against them was nothing more than fear mongering, and Iran is not a nuclear threat. Furthermore this proves that Iran will respond to diplomatic pressure". There's just one problem with this particular narrative; the facts don't support it.


First of all the Key Judgement of the NIE is as follows.

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

OK so, as reported, the assessment is that Tehran did suspend its weapons program in 2003. However as we all know it has maintained its Uranium Enrichment program under allegedly "civilian control and goals" Given that the most difficult stage in developing a nuclear weapon is obtaining the fuel, it is easy to see why the NIE believes that Tehran is "at a minimum keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" However its not merely their uranium enrichment program which makes intelligence agencies suspicious. For example the NIE also states that;

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities
that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to
do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.
We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been
conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional
military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear
weapons.

And that;

We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to
forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given
the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives,
and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to
develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

and finally the NIE states that

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.

In summary, while its true that Iran has suspended Overt weapons programs, it is still continuing to enrich uranium under an ostensibly civilian program while also engaging in a number of programs that have use both for nuclear weapons and other purposes (known as Dual use technologies) Further more, given a more than 20 year history of attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, the Intelligence agencies involved believe this suspension is inherently temporary in nature, and that the Iranian regime is still committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. Finally the NIE confirms that Iran does in fact have the know-how to build a Nuclear weapon given the necessary materials.

So we know that Iran wants Nuclear weapons and that the Iranian regime has spent more than two decades pursuing them. We also know that Iran has the technical capabilities to build a nuke once they obtain the fuel. Finally we know they are currently creating enriched uranium which can be used as fuel for a nuclear weapon. So then why did Iran suspend its active weapons programs?

Well according to the NIE

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in
response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by
a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the
political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some
combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures,
along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and
goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s
leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its
nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination
might be.

Now, on first reading it sounds as if it was diplomatic pressure which caused Iran to suspend its programs. I have no doubts that this is in fact at least partially true. However there has been diplomatic pressure placed on Iran to end its pursuit of a Nuclear weapon for decades with little effect. So what made 2003 so special?

By the end of 2003 the US and its coalition partners had armed forces on two of Iran's borders and the Bush administration had rebuke their efforts to "begin a dialogue" Keep in mind this is the exact same development which probably caused Libya to Suspend its own weapons program. I say probably because while it can not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the invasion of Iraq is in fact what prompted Libya, the fact that;

Libya initiated the dialog in mid-March 2003 when it requested the UK to broker
talks with the US on weapons of mass destruction. A team of American and British
intelligence officers spent about two weeks Libya in October and again in
December 2003

makes this hypothesis highly compelling given that the invasion happened on March 20th 2003. In the same way, the timing of the suspension of Iran's Nuclear Weapons program, after over 20 years of covert efforts, shortly after our invasion of Iraq, makes a strong case that it was in fact our military efforts in the region which convinced Iran to suspend the program.

In other words, it wasn't diplomatic efforts which convinced Iran to "play ball" but the (from their perspective) justified fear that we might invade them as well. In other words it was the very "bellicosity", "arrogance", and "war mongering" of the Bush Administration which lead to this drastic change in stance.

And therein lies the problem. Until this NIE was released, many people supported Bush and Cheney in their "aggressive stance" regarding Iran. Not all by any means, and probably not even a majority, but enough to make his continued stance tenable. However, given the nature of our soundbite world, it seems likely that much of that support will fall away. The vast majority of people will never actually read the NIE, instead preferring to be told what it says in 30 second snippets. Just as Steph-O did, most will come to the (mistaken) conclusion that not only is Iran not a threat, but that the Bush Administrations posture towards it was unnecessary and overly aggressive.

What is truly ironic is it was that very same "aggressive posture" which lead to Iran suspending the weapons program in the first place. In many ways, in this case at least, the Bush administration is actually a victim of its own success. Had we not invaded Iraq in 03, then neither Libya, or Iran would have ended their respective weapons programs, and the "aggressive posture" of the Bush administration would have greater support than it does.

Even more troubling, is that now that this NIE has come out, and support for Bush's "aggressive posture" will crumble, its seems reasonable that Iran is more likely now, then even two weeks ago, to restart its weapons program. Already Russia and China have backed off of supporting sanctions they were recently inboard with, using the NIE as a justification for doing so. In addition, the "common knowledge" that Iran is not a threat, will preclude the Bush administration from making credible military threats against Iran. This is doubly ironic given that it was the perceived threat of invasion in 2003 which compelled Iran to suspend the program in the first place.

All in all in just goes to show how accepting "common knowledge" without critically examining the evidence or thinking for yourself hurts not only yourself but others as well.

And Ragnarok inches yet another day closer.



Additonal links on the subject
State Department Skeptic: Be careful about Iran
NIE not political
How did 2005 NIE go awry?
NIE report is a propaganda victory for Iran
Israel Challneges Report on Nukes.
Spinning the Iran Report
Facts Derail Bush Iran Plan