The Best Opinion Piece on the NIE

December 12th, 2007 By: Marc Schulman | Tags:

If you’re going to read just one opinion on the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, read this one by Dennis Ross. Because it should be read in its entirity, I’m not summarizing it, except to cite his final paragraph:

Sadly, it’s now easier for Iran to proceed unimpeded with its nuclear plans. It is far less likely to face the economic (or potentially military) pressures that in 2003 might have persuaded those in the Iranian leadership that the costs of developing their nuclear capabilities were too high. Who in the Iranian elite will argue that or oppose Ahmadinejad’s approach to nukes now? No doubt, that is not what the authors of the NIE sought, but here poor statecraft has trumped our improved efforts at spycraft.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  1. Chris
    December 12th, 2007 at 23:16
    Reply | Quote | #1

    From the Onion:

    Iran
    A Possible Likely Threat To The Free World, Maybe

    This Middle Eastern nation could potentially be poised to possibly launch a full-scale attack on the Western world. Perhaps.

  2. James Spark
    December 13th, 2007 at 11:18
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Chris, it’s the one percent doctrine all over again, ain’t it.

    As for this article; weaponizing isn’t particularly difficult or expensive?  Tell that to North Korea, who with posession of plutonium for decades, nuclear weapon plans courtesy of Dr. A.Q. Khan, an economy devoted almost entirely to its military it still couldn’t produce a definitive experimental nuclear explosion.

    Poppycock.  This article is nothing much more than whinging over blueballs.

    Iran, signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, fully compliant subject of inspections by the Internation Atomic Energy Association and (save for the possibly inflammatory rhetoric of a powerless figurehead) demonstrated rational state actor, gets to proceed with its nuclear program unimpeded now that it is found it has been telling the truth for four years?  Call me crazy but I can think of much, much greater threats to world peace.

  3. Kevin Sullivan
    December 14th, 2007 at 01:37
    Reply | Quote | #3

    uh…when did they sign the NPT?

  4. Rudi666
    December 14th, 2007 at 04:07
    Reply | Quote | #4

    KS - Iran signed and doesn’t have nukes; Israel, India and Pakistan didn’t sign and they all have nukes.

    JS - The Norks had Pu for a decade, not plural. For all their work and money spent, while the population starves, only could produce a fizzle. Tell the US, USSR and other original nuclear countries that a a-bomb program isn’t cheap.
    http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/manhattan.aspx

    Site/Project Then-year Dollars Constant 1996 Dollars OAK RIDGE (Total) $1,188,352,000 $13,565,662,000 —K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant $512,166,000 $5,846,644,000 —Y-12 Electromagnetic Plant $477,631,000 $5,452,409,000 —Clinton Engineer Works, HQ and central utilities $155,951,000 $1,780,263,000 —Clinton Laboratories $26,932,000 $307,443,000 —S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant $15,672,000 $178,904,000 HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS $390,124,000 $4,453,470,000 SPECIAL OPERATING MATERIALS $103,369,000 $1,180,011,000 LOS ALAMOS PROJECT $74,055,000 $845,377,000 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $69,681,000 $795,445,000 GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD $37,255,000 $425,285,000 HEAVY WATER PLANTS1 $26,768,000 $305,571,000 Grand Total $1,889,604,000 $21,570,821,000

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/intro.htm

    Since their introduction in 1945, nuclear explosives have been the most feared of the weapons of mass destruction, in part because of their ability to cause enormous instantaneous devastation and of the persistent effects of the radiation they emit, unseen and undetectable by unaided human senses. The Manhattan Project cost the United States $2 billion in 1945 spending power and required the combined efforts of a continent-spanning industrial enterprise and a pool of scientists, many of whom had already been awarded the Nobel Prize and many more who would go on to become Nobel Laureates. This array of talent was needed in 1942 if there were to be any hope of completing a weapon during the Second World War. Because nuclear fission was discovered in Germany, which remained the home of many brilliant scientists, the United States perceived itself to be in a race to build an atomic bomb.
    (snip)
    At an intermediate level, the Republic of South Africa constructed six quite simple nuclear devices for a total project cost of less than $1 billion (1980’s purchasing power) using no more than 400 people and indigenous technology.

    Site/Project Then-year Dollars Constant 1996 Dollars OAK RIDGE (Total) $1,188,352,000 $13,565,662,000 —K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant $512,166,000 $5,846,644,000 —Y-12 Electromagnetic Plant $477,631,000 $5,452,409,000 —Clinton Engineer Works, HQ and central utilities $155,951,000 $1,780,263,000 —Clinton Laboratories $26,932,000 $307,443,000 —S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant $15,672,000 $178,904,000 HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS $390,124,000 $4,453,470,000 SPECIAL OPERATING MATERIALS $103,369,000 $1,180,011,000 LOS ALAMOS PROJECT $74,055,000 $845,377,000 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $69,681,000 $795,445,000 GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD $37,255,000 $425,285,000 HEAVY WATER PLANTS1 $26,768,000 $305,571,000 Grand Total $1,889,604,000 $21,570,821,000

  5. Project Engineer Manager
    March 11th, 2008 at 12:38
    #5

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.


Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500