Let’s get this into the clear air of reason already. The Bush haters are once again arming themselves with only half of the knowledge they need to come to an intelligent conclusion. They write and spout things like this to people who are not going to take the time to find out that they are being fed a bunch of crap.

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration has long pushed the “laptop documents” - 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop - as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear program.

But those documents have also been regarded with great suspicion by US and foreign analysts. German officials 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.

Mujahideen e-Khalq is a Marxist organization which began as an opposition to the Shaw and his pro-western government. Because of their Marxist ideology, they also are at odds with the theocracy of the current government. However, you need to understand that the US considers MEK to be a terrorist organization, as does the EU. The source of these documents makes them no more or less suspect than if they had come from any other source in the Middle East. Although it is reported that German intelligence captured the laptop and disclosed the existence of the documents in 2004, it is equally likely the MEK documents could have come from one of two other places.

1) The US Forces in Iraq, when they raided the MEK compounds during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

2) The French security services raid on the Paris headquarters of MEK.

So make certain you understand. The MEK and the US are not in bed together on this and there is nothing to indicate MEK would have known their offices in either country would be raided.

If you are going to question anything, question the age of the documents. The thing most people who have not done intelligence work miss is that information is perishable. If these documents were captured in November 2004, the claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003 could still be valid. How many documents do you have on your hard drive that are over a year old?

The issue here is not the documents themselves. Those documents simply raised questions. The issue is regarding how Iran responded to the questions. They have refused IAEA requests to interview scientists who’s names appeared on the documents and they have refused the IAEA the ability to inspect the locations mentioned in the documents. Suspicion is not based upon the documents themselves, but Iran’s reaction to them.

The IAEA has some questions, which may be difficult for Iranian President Ahmedinejad to answer. The answer I anticipate is some revisionist history piece that gets us all giggling at how stupid he is, while Iran continues to make bombs.

VIENNA/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. investigators want Iran to explain an organizational chart linking projects to process uranium, test explosives and modify a missile cone for a nuclear payload, diplomats briefed on the matter say.

They said a top U.N. nuclear watchdog official last week gave a detailed presentation of intelligence alleging illicit atomic “weaponization studies” by Iran and naming the man who ran them for the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.

In a written summary given to Reuters of the presentation, they said Iran had refused to let inspectors interview Mohsen Fakrizadeh or visit sites where the experiments took place.

The summary also confirmed leaks that the briefing for the first time indicated Iran continued the three projects into 2004, calling into question a U.S. intelligence estimate in December that said Iran shelved weaponization research in 2003.

Any takers on a bet this is going to be yet another CIA failure?

Hey, guess what? You can’t continue to talk about President Bush’s suspicion of Iran as being unilateral. I told you how the Dutch feel about Iran right now and now we have indications that Germany has a similar view.

  BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday a U.S. intelligence report saying Tehran had stopped an active nuclear weapons program in 2003 was not an excuse to give the Islamic Republic the “all clear”.

I am sure you will come up with something else to extend your vilification  of our President over, but this won’t be it.

The die is cast for me now. I have heard enough.

Iran’s president has stated clearly enough that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. This interview took place on Iranian TV in July 2007.

Interviewer: But the international public opinion cannot prevent this?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Today, international public opinion is the main power in the world…

Interviewer: I don’t want to draw comparisons, but if I recall what happened with regard to Iraq before 2003, there were many anti-war demonstrations, but Bush did what he wanted.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Demonstrations and public opinion are two entirely different things. At the time, international public opinion was against Saddam.

Interviewer: True.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: They considered Saddam to be a dictator.

Interviewer: But they were against the war as well.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: No. The international public opinion wanted to topple Saddam. You should not make this mistake – even if there were some demonstrations. But now the situation is different, because international public opinion believes that justice lies with the Iranian people. That is why hundreds of articles are published daily throughout the world, none of which [supports a war]. Even the top officials in the world are in our favor.

[...]

We must bear in mind that we are becoming a nuclear country. When Iran becomes nuclear, it’s not like any other country becoming nuclear. It means that Iran will automatically become one of the nine [nuclear] countries of the world. That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.” It is not the bomb they are worried about…

[...]

Interviewer: You took several measures during the first months of your presidency, but now it seems that you’ve cut down on them, and you don’t send letters to anybody, and you don’t say things that are meant to shock the world, with regard to international relations.

It sounds innocent enough, as nuclear fuel is used for the generation of electricity in nuclear power plants - except for one small detail.

Ahmadinejad mentions that there are 8 nuclear countries, and Iran will become the 9th. Well, there are some 30 countries who a “nuclear” from a power generation standpoint. There are only 8 other countries, which have nuclear weapons.

Here is the admission

That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.”

Don’t take my word for it - see for yourself.

It looks like the US isn’t the only country in the world worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons. In fact, other countries are taking a harder line on Iran than we are. Perhaps not in the world of diplomacy, but take a gander at this:

 Iranian students are not welcome at the Technical University Twente in the town of Enschede. At the request of the Education Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the university has agreed not to admit any Iranian students. The government fears that Iranian students and workers would steal sensitive nuclear information to help their government develop nuclear weapons. The university’s decision is the direct result of a 2006 UN resolution calling on member states to prevent Iran from gaining access to nuclear knowledge.

That’s right! There is such suspicion in Holland that Iranian students are secretly working for their government - remember, it was supposedly Iranian Students who took over the Embassy and held Americans hostage for 444 days - they are not welcome in Twente. What interests me in this case is that Holland is not known for their hard line geopolitics. Equally interesting is the lack of outrage from the American Leftists over this issue. They certainly have been plenty vocal about President Bush’s comments about Iran’s nuclear work.

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran expressed with some confidence that Iran had in 2003 halted active work on building a nuclear warhead.

There are still questions on whether or not this is actually solid intelligence, but I assume for now that it is. It does not obviate our need to be cautious with Iran. We should be investing a great deal of resources into better intelligence, as well as active diplomacy with Iran. This includes the gamut of options from sanctions to bi-lateral talks. It does not, at this time, include military operations - in my opinion.

That being said, I found this article interesting. It coincides with my views on Iran generally and the course the US should take with regards to the NIE.

Foreign Policy: How has the release of the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program changed the tenor of the Iran debate?

Dmitri Trenin: It allows for a broader range of views. I think that the importance of this debate is not to discuss the technical issues, but rather to use the technical issues as a platform to a higher plane of strategizing about Iran. I’m not an American and I can only say so much being a foreigner, but I think the focus should be on U.S. policy, rather than on what Iran is doing. I am struck by people debating what Iran is doing, and not thinking enough, in all due respect, about what the United States should be doing. In other words, people are prepared to give Iran the initiative, rather than to seize the initiative.

FP: What’s the view from abroad about the new estimate?

DT: I think the view from here is that the intelligence community, heavily battered over Iraq, has thrown a monkey wrench into what they believe could be the possibility of another major blunder. [That possibility] is that strong-willed persons within the administration would persuade the president to finish business, and not pass the Iranian issue onto his successor. But there’s only so much that you can see from several thousand miles away from Washington.

The emphasis is mine. I point this out because I respect a view from this standpoint. Trenin holds views much in line with mine on several topics, and I am an American. Much to the distaste of some of my acquaintances, Trenin and I share views on Putin.

I predict emails and comments regarding Trenin’s motives, qualifications, or integrity, however, we often judge a person’s intelligence by the amount one agrees with us. Trenin is obviously a genius.

It is quite possible Iran has halted nuclear weapon construction in order to garner favor with the US. This does not mean to suggest Iran is going through any radical shift in ideals - but we have to focus on the goal of Iran in the Middle East. Iran wants to be the influence in that region. If America gains enough support in the international community, that goal is finished for Iran. Especially in light of the vast amounts of US money going into Iraq. Iran coming into the fold geopolitically, so to speak, is a possible strategy to ensure Iran is not bypassed as the Mid-East power base.

On the other hand - it this is going to take some very hard work to find out - this could just be a way of defusing the pressure being brought to bear on Iran, while they secretly finish their weapons work with enriched uranium.  Time, and hopefully better intelligence than we currently have, will tell.

Russia has planned to double its testing of inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and the number of test launches is slated to double in 2009 to 2010.

VLASIKHA (Moscow Region), December 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will double its test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles after 2009, the Strategic Missiles Forces (SMF) commander said on Monday.

“The number of launches will almost double after 2009 or 2010,” Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov told a news conference.

There are a lot of folks out there in denial about the geopolitical intentions of the Kremlin, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. I would like to see comments on this: What material differences do you see between the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia in the geopolitical arena?

The only material difference I can detect is the Kremlin is ensuring they will not be toppled economically, as they were in the 1980’s.

Admiral Michael Mullen is the first CJCS to visit Israel in a decade. It appears Israel is greatly concerned about American political reaction to the most recent NIE on Iran.

 Israel thinks that an American National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, published in an unclassified version last week, is unduly optimistic and focuses too narrowly on the last stage of weapons development — the fashioning of a bomb out of highly enriched uranium.

Let’s remember, Iran has never stated they are no longer enriching uranium - they have actually refused to stop enriching uranium. The intelligence gathered for the NIE talks to whether or not Iran is likely pursuing the construction of a nuclear weapon, using the enriched uranium.

The Secretary General of the UN stated Iran must provide the United Nations with a confidence that their enrichment of uranium is  for civil, peaceful purpose.

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) — Iran hasn’t proven to the world that it has been developing nuclear technology exclusively for peaceful purposes, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today.

“We still do not have full confidence what the real intention of the Iranian government is up to as far as their nuclear programs,” Ban said in an interview.

Now, this is not going to be easy for Iran to do at all - I’m not sure how it is possible. There is certainly no way to prove you are only using enriched uranium as fuel in your power-generating reactors without a great deal of oversight. The level of oversight Iran has bristled at in the past. Inspections alone will not be enough to accomplish this. The implication here is the United Nations - certainly most western governments - are going to remain suspicious of a nation which opens its parliamentary sessions with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”; which supports terrorist organizations; and which has materially contributed to activities to perpetuate instability in Iraq. This is especially difficult when the “vindicative proof” Iran has stopped making weapons is coming under question (again - enriched uranium is dual use - take the questions with a grain of salt).

My thinking is that this statement by Secretary-General Moon has less to do with the extent of Iran’s nuclear ambition and more to the intent of Iran’s geopolitics in general. I am not a nuclear materials expert, but it would seem Iran is in the same boat Iraq was in. They have dual-use programs which have the capacity to produce weapons. Since their rhetoric is extremely violent in nature, it must be reasonably assumed they intend to make good on their threats.

What might clear all of this up - inject some confidence in the international community - is for Iran to make some definitive overtures of peace. Sign a peace agreement with Israel or the United States - and offer to re-establish full diplomatic relations. Iran could display a “we are sovereign, Islamic, and in disagreement with much of your western values - yet we are a nation at peace” relationship within the international community and the burden of proof of their peaceful intentions for enriched uranium would diminish greatly.

However, that would be like asking the KKK to make an overture of good intent to the NAACP, wouldn’t it? Things like this don’t help much either.

I recently wrote about changes in data driving changes in opinion or policy. Here is another example - although there is a slight difference in this instance.

The intelligence community in the Unites States rarely has indisputable evidence to present to our leaders. They operate in a world of indications that are “confidenced” based upon the quality and quantity of intelligence sources. From the NIE document, I took the major differences between the old data and the new.

In 2005, the intelligence community reported:

• Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.
• We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade.
• Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful progress than we have seen to date.

Combine that with tough talk from a nation becoming increasingly theocratic and supportive of terrorist organizations, and you have a basis for a foreign policy concern about the Middle East becoming even more unstable than it already appears.

A recently published National Intelligence Estimate, based upon information gathered between 2005 and mid-2007, draws a different picture:

• Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

Notice the differences in language between the 2005 and 2007 estimates. The confidence of the judgment suggests a great deal more intelligence resources were able to contribute to the NIE. By no means does the NIE present proof that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. This is an estimate based upon the US intelligence communities ability to detect through technology and human sources the presence of uranium enrichment activities and activity connected with securing nuclear material. However, unless a smoking gun emerges, the assessment is strong enough to warrant a different tack in working with Iran.

In any case, Iran benefits from the ability of not having a nuclear weapon, yet having everyone think they are close to being capable of producing one. What this gives Iran’s Ayatollahs is bargaining power and an elevated influence in the region. This also does not remove the fact that Iran is led by an extreme theocracy which hates the west and supports terrorism in the region to undermine peace between Israel and Palestinians - in the best case. Diplomacy itself seems woefully inadequate, but there is no case for pursuing a change from Iran by a threat of military force.

Here is a good question: Why did Iran halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003?