This last post reminds me of something that was brought to my attention this morning: The Mossad aren’t the only intelligence source saying our latest NIE on Iran got it wrong (at least, the headline part that everyone seems to be talking about, anyway). This was in The Daily Telegraph today:
Iran ‘hoodwinked’ CIA over nuclear plans
British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.
The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA…
Related Posts
Is this the same British Government that Bush referred to in his 2003 SOU address when he said: “… the British have learned that Saddam Hussein is seeking large quantities of Uranium from Africa”?
It’s pretty clear now that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon before about 2012 at the very earliest. Let’s keep monitoring the situation closely but any talk of a military strike is completely ridiculous at this time.
Why all this fear over a nation that spends 1% of what we do on the military? They’re no threat to us. Isn’t that obvious by now?
Am I mis-remembering, or did the original wrong data on Iraq start in England? But for now, lets consider that Iran has a weapons-centered nuclear program. What are we gonna do? Our military is so tenuous now that we can’t sustain the forces that are needed in Afganistan and Iraq. Do we bomb them till they glow in the dark? Boy, would that be a great pre-emptive policy–win us lots of friends!. Do we refuse to speak to them? Then we have nothing but hearsay to go on? Or do we actively engage them, encouraging discussion of what each other really wants, and the alternatives (remember, at this point in time, we can make their entire country unfit for human, or any other life habitation–i.e. we can out-trump them and they know it). Can’t we choose diplomats who actually know the country/culture to talk with them (keep Mr. Bush away from them–he does not understand the concept of ‘other’ culture)? We surely do not want to start yet another war when our Vets are already burned to the ground. If we’re so proud of our vets, why are so many in homeless shelters?
Wait a minute.
How could the British be right when Bud’s sources say different?
Isn’t it impossible for Bush to be right about anything, even if he’s on both sides?
Personally, I like the Economist’s suggestion that the CIA is sandbagging its intelligence reports to keep Bush from starting another war. … or, my actual favorite, that the CIA is laying down now, in preparation for the General Election, at which time it will spring a new report with definitive proof of Iran’s bomb-building capacity, plus plans for a nuclear attack on Israel, thereby giving flight to a hawk in the White House. … Wouldn’t the first time the CIA fudged numbers to get their candidate elected.