Bolton on Fatally Flawed Iran Report

" Part of the President's problem in Washington is fighting against  permanent bureaucracies that have a very different point of view from his. And I think that's a real problem for the American people." John Bolton March 22, 2007 The Jon Stewart Show

When John Bolton was Ambassador to the UN, American loyalists knew there was no greater American to represent us. Men of reason drew succor knowing we had absolute representation of US interests on the world stage. Many of us grieved when John Bolton resigned his post as US Ambassador to the UN.  In hindsight, it was a blessing. It was, in fact, a very good thing for us that Mr. Bolton left the Bush administration. If not for him, who could the American people turn  to in these dark days to to tell us the truth ?  One British newspaper recently referred to Bolton's "vulcan thinking" and I thought, yes, that's it, isn't it?

Who better to assess the latest NIE propaganda ploy than Bolton? Bolton called it. Bolton warned us. Bolton said in so many words that this would happen. His book Surrender is not Option is a stunning indictment of the permanent bureaucracy that undermines the policies of those elected by the people, for the people.

Here is his unerring analysis and observation in today's Washington Post;

The Flaws In the Iran Report John R. Bolton

Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.

All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified.

First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout."

The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause.

Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence."

Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was "possible" but not "likely" that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions. One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda.

Fourth, the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data. In the bureaucracy, where access to information is a source of rank and prestige, ramming home policy changes with the latest hot tidbit is commonplace, and very deleterious. It is a rare piece of intelligence that is so important it can conclusively or even significantly alter the body of already known information. Yet the bias toward the new appears to have exerted a disproportionate effect on intelligence analysis.

Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.

It's a freakin nightmare.

UPDATE: Ed Lasky writes, "as opposed to State Department bureacrats, this op-ed is written by a man who has devoted his life to specifically controlling nuclear arms and a woman who has focused her life in Iran and the threats it poses." In Iran We Trust? 

UPDATE: Yidwithlid:  They based the Iran nuke findings on NOTES written by Iranian soldiers (according to the NY Times of all places)

Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, U.S. Says

UPDATE: It is curious to me that Bolton expresses deep admiration for James Baker (his role model, no less) and it is Baker that is behind much of the foreign policy that Bolton rails against.

Comments

[biorabbi]

In the recent past there was an obtuse report about the vanishing of an Iranian general in Turkey with rumors about his defection and his being a treasure trove of intel. Bolton makes the point about disinformation as an intriguing possibility here. Could this, or other, defections have been a means to deceive the west by being 'used' as a means to probe the psychology and intent of Iran? Not to slander anybody, but I doubt that any Iranian General or intel chief could pass a polygraph, so that's a given. Also, exactly how many people would have to be involved in a nuclear weapons program in Iran. You would have tract 1. with the "civilian" cloak of enrichment and the crap concerning the peaceful uses of the atom. This would be a large, public area with easy transfer to the tract 2. with a smaller number of scientists clustered in bunkers working on the bomb, talks with N. Korea et al. What is vital here, but extremely difficult to come by would by the human intel(humanit).

[x_dhimmi]

For more on Revolutionary Guards Gen. Alireza Asgari (the defector), read Ken Timmerman's analysis here:
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html

"But intelligence sources in Europe told Newsmax in late September that Asgari’s debriefings on Iran’s nuclear weapons programs were “so dramatic” that they caused French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his foreign minister to speak out publicly about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran."

[jjmurphy]

The knowledge that Mr. Bolton is out there fighting for the USA and our true allies is comforting. However, I can say with "high confidence" that it is incredibly discouraging that the Boltons of the world, both male and female, are not in positions of power. The blithering idiots in the White House and Congress, as well as the traitors in the "intelligence community", are the ones that will cause the train wreck that is coming. The problem is, with this train wreck, it may not be possiblt to clean up the mess.

[Your Jewish Master]

Wow, do we ever need a massive purging in the American intel institutions. You'd think the September 11 would have been inspiration enough.

[john Ryan]

The ultra right wing is already calling for mass hangings of the traitors in our intelligence agencies ? Treason ??? Traitors ?? This seems to be the normal response to anything that conflicts with their world view.
In 8 months the Democratic nominee will begin having personal detailed briefing on the NIE perhaps then the White House will be forced to stop its lies.

[ibfamous]

bolton is such an international force that he has been relegated to a life of writing for a newspaper, just like a cartoonist.

[jjmurphy]

John Ryan - The intelligence community over the past few years has consistently leaked information that has given aid and comfort to our enemies. That is traitorous behavior. And,yes,that does conflict with my world view, which is NOT ultra right wing.

And just how is the White House lying? I consider Bush a fool, but not a lier. If you are part of the "Bush Lied,People Died" crowd, it is your world view that is questionable.

[Pamela Geller]

I love how terrified the leftards are of Bolton. He is a brilliant thinker and a great American statesman. For the left that's considered toxic.

Churchill was also sidelined until the great war was foisted upon the Brits, I expect the same will be said of JB.

[epaminondas]

Bolton and Baker...we have to remember that Baker put Bolton into the Fla battle to win the count for Bush, thus earning also the undying enmity of the 'high minded' even after death. Thus Bolton will always show graciousness in not slamming him around, even though he is one of the bigger douchebags ever to escape the Summer Eve section, AND would no doubt agree with the French Ambassador about that 'shitty little country' ...

If he ran, I'd work for him without cessation, and BACK IN NH (thus terrorizing every one of our friends who have those Obama signs in their yards right now)

JOHN......plan now... it's going to be that she-person and Sandy Berger is going to be in charge of our security. 2012 is going to be here in a snap.
RUN JOHN RUN.
And make them like it.

[Randy]

Oh, yeah Bolton. Wasn't he the genius who was in charge when North Korea reinstated its nukular (sik) program? They're just now getting back to the point where they were when he took over. This is one of those pot-kettle-black moments the neo-cons are so fond of. Politicizing intelligence... Hah! Coming from the people who needed to create a separate agency (Office of Special Plans) to cherry pick dubious evidence in support of their political goal of attacking Iraq. I don't believe a word coming from any mouth connected to this administration and neither should anyone.

[Pamela Geller]

uh no. That genius was Bill Cliton and Madeline not at Albright.

I know, I know the old leftard mantra, FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT!

[Randy]

Sorry, when Clinton left office the rods were in storage and cameras were on them 24/7. You just can't make history go away just because it doesn't support your miopic world view.

Mr. Clinton was a study in procastin-atio over attention to duty.
Had he acted at any one of the 6-7 junctures many more americans would be alive today.

It was Clinton Carter who in 1994, Randy, CREATED the framework of cheating, and Carter who famously told of the trustability of Kim and sold it to a Clinton less concerned with foreign dangers than his own weapon.

Likewise, it remains the democrats today who cast the votes over the florida vendetta to deprive the US of the men and women the ONLY NATIONALLY ELECTED OFFICIAL WE HAVE wanted.

SOrry to tell you but the rods had nothign to do with teh HIDDEN U235 enrichment program which resulted in the nuclear weapons Korea had. Cameras weren't there.

Does this scenario sound familiar Randy?

[Surak]

Your Jewish Master: "You'd think September 11th would have been inspiration enough."

In 2004, New Yorkers had a chance to vote on the man who avenged the unprovoked atrocity perpetrated on their city by overthrowing the government of the country that harbored the attack's masterminds. New Yorkers told the Prez to get lost.

Ms. Geller, I'm not knocking New Yorkers. It's most of the professors and reporters and NPR subscribers too.

My point is that the 9/11 attack wasn't enough to wake people up; nothing would be. If, G-d forbid, a WMD went off in New York City, I guarantee you that in less than a month, the professors, reporters, and NPR subscribers would follow the lead of MoveOn.org, which would follow the lead of United for Peace and Justice, which would follow the lead of International ANSWER, a communist front group, and blame the attack on ourselves.

As Michael Savage likes to say, liberalism is a mental disorder. After reading Atlas Shrugged, I finally understand it.

From Rummy, in 1999, on the ICs:

Pincus, Walter. “Rumsfeld: Intelligence ‘Need to Know’ Smacks of Not to Know.” Washington Post, 5 May 1999, A29. [http://www.washingtonpost.com]

“Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other members of a commission weighing new missile threats saw something that seemed strange as they got briefed recently at CIA headquarters in Langley.

“According to a participant in the meeting, intelligence analysts constantly got up to leave the room when certain questions arose outside their specialty. The reason: The answers included highly classified material that the analysts were not cleared to hear....

“For Rumsfeld, that briefing illustrated the little publicized but serious problem that compartmentalization has created in the government. Highly sensitive intelligence is so compartmentalized, Rumsfeld said during a recent interview, that wrong information is sometimes being given to policymakers because analysts do not have access to correct secret data.

“The situation so concerned Rumsfeld that he included it as a major issue in a classified report sent in March to Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet.”

http://tinyurl.com/399unb

Tom