Now Admiral McConnell:Reversing NIE on Iran

Reversing NIE on Iran

Now Admiral McConnell is clearly trying to repair the damage, even if he can’t say so directly, reports the WSJ of remarks made by the Director of National Intelligence to the Senate Intelligence Committee: “I think I would change the way that we described [the] nuclear program,” he admitted to Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) during the hearing, adding that weapon design and weaponization were “the least significant portion” of a nuclear weapons program. Read more of the coverage of McConnell’s testimony before the senate committee, which the WSJ describes as amounting to a reversal of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of last December.

SOURCE:

Barb
Expect Admiral McConnell's resignation after he reverses the Iranian NIE.
.

Bush on NIE

....
Bolton on NIE
....

G

.

Decoding the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate

NOT
Decoding the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program

Great Article from: "Yid with Lid"

Gerald M. Steinberg

The U.S. government's latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has "high confidence" that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the program.1 In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is "apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," nonetheless, he adds that "in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."2

This assessment contrasts sharply with estimates that, if left undisturbed, Iran will cross the threshold in the next year or two - and the evidence for the NIE's sweeping claim is unclear. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed official Iranian claims to have completed construction of the 3,000 centrifuges necessary to produce enough highly enriched uranium for at least one nuclear weapon per year. This is also the basis for the statements from Israeli military and intelligence officials which view the next year - 2008 - as critical for stopping Iran before the finish line.

A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a "worst-case" analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.

Using this approach, when Iran reaches the technological potential to produce enough fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, it will be considered to be a nuclear weapons state, capable of threatening Israel with annihilation. And while the details of Iran's weapons fabrication efforts can be hidden and are less likely to be known to intelligence agencies, the operating assumption is that there are secret facilities where this may be taking place. Indeed, Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel "black" Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.

The consequences of a small, secret Iranian nuclear program are less significant for the U.S., given its massive military superiority over Iran. Therefore, there is more room for political factors and influence in the official U.S. estimates. After having warned of a massive Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction in 2003, and then finding no evidence following the invasion, the U.S. intelligence agencies may be trying to restore their image by going to the other extreme and underestimating the pace of Iran's nuclear weapons program. And Iran may very well continue to face difficulties in operating a very complex system of thousands of centrifuges spinning in unison and moving uranium to ever higher levels of enrichment without contamination.

However, from the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not only on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor. While the construction of a massive centrifuge facility at Natanz to produce weapons grade uranium may not be the optimum path to nuclear weapons from an American perspective, this may be the best option open to Iran, and cannot be discounted. The scale and cost of the Natanz nuclear complex, as well as the plutonium production reactor and other facilities are not consistent with a program limited to producing low-enriched uranium for energy production. This makes no economic sense.

The NIE report touches on the Iranian plutonium program: "We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015." But the NIE also takes into consideration that such materials might be imported: "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad - or will acquire in the future - a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon." U.S. arms control experts specializing in North Korea have indeed warned in the past about the scenario of North Korean exports of plutonium products to Iran as a possible shortcut to producing an Iranian bomb.3

Although President Bush responded to the NIE report by reconfirming his determination to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the threat of attack from the U.S. in the next five years is now much less credible. Given the disquiet in the U.S. over the status of the situation in Iraq, and with an official assessment stating that Iran gave up its program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, the president would face very strong opposition to any decision ordering U.S. forces into battle again. And the fear of a potential Iranian counterattack, in the form of mass terror and possible missile attacks against American assets in the region, would increase this opposition.

As a result, a number of Israeli analysts and officials have expressed concern and even dismay over the NIE report and its implications. Israeli officials reject the NIE conclusions, and, as noted, view the threat as far more imminent. If Israeli intelligence concludes that the red lines are closer than those perceived in the U.S., Israel could still use force unilaterally (as was the case in Prime Minister Begin's decision to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor in 1981). But Israeli officials have sought to avoid a situation of needing to act unilaterally again.

For Iran, the sudden change in the U.S. assessment contained in the NIE report is a mixed blessing. The good news for the Islamic regime is that the odds of American military action have declined, at least for the time being. Iran can apparently continue to develop its centrifuges and reactors without fear of a sudden U.S.-led attack, and the odds of overt Israeli action have probably also declined.

However, the intense Iranian effort to be seen as a nuclear power that can no longer be stopped has been clearly exposed as a bluff. President Ahmedinejad and other officials have invested heavily in the attempt to portray the Iranian nuclear capability as a fait accompli that must be accepted in the region and around the world. And they have been aided at times by Dr. Mohammed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA.

Now, however, the Iranian leadership and an increasingly restless public face at least five more years of sanctions, international isolation, and pressure. And Dr. El Baradei has pulled back from granting Iran immunity from sanctions by highlighting the history of deceit and calling for full cooperation from Teheran. Indeed, following the U.S. report, the leaders of Europe, as well as China and Russia, have reiterated the dangers that would result from an Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Thus, the celebrations in Iran may be short-sighted and short-lived. The economic and diplomatic pressure is likely to continue and even increase.

The bottom line, as noted in the NIE report and by President Bush, is that Iranian nuclear efforts remain dangerous, and that there is still time to prevent this radical regime from acquiring these weapons. How much time remains the subject of debate, and the NIE conclusions are tentative and subject to revision at any time as new information becomes available. To its credit, the NIE report admits the limitations of the U.S. intelligence community with respect to its ability to determine that the 2003 halt in the Iranian weapons program is permanent: "We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely." Clearly, the NIE conclusions now appearing in the press are not the end of the story.

* * *

Notes

1. "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," National Intelligence Estimate, National Intelligence Council, November 2007, http://www.odni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

2. Steven Erlanger and Graham Bowley, "Israel Unconvinced Iran Has Dropped Nuclear Program," New York Times, December 5, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05webreact.html

3. Siegfried S. Hecker and William Liou, "Dangerous Dealings: North Korea's Nuclear Capabilities and the Threat of Export to Iran," Arms Control Today, Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/heckerliou.asp
SOURCE:MORE:


XXXXXXXXXXXXX


If mike McConnell is wrong this will be the end of his career.

Gerald

.

New NIE & Iran

We think these are some of the best minds in Civilian counter terrorism analysis .
And present them here for your education.

From the Counterterrorism Blog

email discussions:

Larry Johnson

Now we know why some in the Bush Administration-Dick Cheney’s folks in particular-fought like hell to keep the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program under wraps. IRAN HALTED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN 2003. Here’s what CNN is reporting:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says. A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic halted an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

This report was ready to go in December of 2006 but Cheney and his allies pushed back hard to stop it. They knew, as they know today, that this headline does not help them in their rush to start a new war. Damn it all!!! How dare those pesky Iranians prove malleable to diplomatic initiatives and pressure. You mean we can solve things without starting a war and killing civilians?

Boy there are going to be some grumpy neo-cons. This is probably part of the war on Christmas. This kind of news will make it very difficult for the agitators for war with Iran to hoist a glass of eggnog and toast bombing ragheads in Tehran.

Don’t be surprised to hear about how the intelligence community is now filled with partisans intent on undermining the Bush Administration. They’ll sound an awful lot like Hugo Chavez, who also is whining about the vagaries of democracy and insisting he only lost the referendum in Venezuela-which would have allowed him to become President for life-because of a nefarious CIA plot.

There are some unsung heroes in the National Intelligence Council who insisted on the integrity of the product. In the face of enormous political pressure to tailor information and pull punches that undermine Bush Administration talking points, the intelligence professionals did their job. They told the truth based on the facts in hand.

Now we need to wait and see-will the Bush Administration and the Congress take no for an answer?

Victor Comras

It seems to me that we are all missing the real questions here:

At what point did the Iranians halt their Nuclear Weapon program? How advanced are they? How close are they to Nuclear weapon capability if and when they recommence? Is uranium enrichment the last remaining component needed? Did they put their NW program on hold to await sufficient enriched fuel? What other explanations for putting enrichment on such a fast track? At what point in the NW development program do we consider them so close that intervention is necessary? How far are they from that point? Can we tolerate them having enriched fuel on hand? Can we tolerate them having Nuclear weapon fuel enrichment capability? These are just some of the questions that need answers before we can truly pronounce on how best to secure our national security interests.

Read More »

Larry Johnson

Iranians with a nuke is not a threat to us. At least not as long as our extensive nuclear arsenal is intact and available for use. I find it amazing we can live under the threat of Soviet nukes for 40 plus years without collapsing into a puddle of sweat, but mention Iran and we go all wobbly. Iran is seeking parity in the region. The key for us is finding those steps or gestures that will reassure both Israel and Iran that they have nothing to fear from each other. As long as that fuse is lit there is the potential for gross miscalculation by either side.

Victor Comras

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masksherebecause of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

Larry, I disagree with you on this one.

Global leadership comes with being the Global Leader. I do not agree that we can tolerate a Nuclear armed Iran in any case. Rather, I agree with France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that a nuclear armed Iran would make military action inevitable.

I do not believe that Iran's nuclear program is directed at achieving the same basic balance of terror that underscored US-USSR relations. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and US interests in the Gulf and worldwide are all potential targets of a Nuclear Armed Iran.

I do believe that using nuclear weapons is scarily consistent with Iran's current leadership's fanatical religious ideology (although such ideology is not shared by all of Iran's top leaders). We cannot rely on deterrence only as a strategy for dealing with Iran.

I also believe that it is incumbent on us to take the steps necessary now to head off such a situation, and that our best hope for doing so is well targeted and effective economic sanctions that put sufficient pressure on Iran's leadership to suspend enrichment.

Larry Johnson

Do you seriously believe Iran contemplates, somehow, someway, attacking us in the United States with nukes? If they had ICBMs, not to mention megaton warheads and a stated intent to attack us, then I would share your concern. But we have spent as much time threatening Iran, perhaps more so, than they have us. If Iran was conducting military operations in Canada and Mexico along the lines of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you believe we would act with the restraint Iran has so far?

The heart of the matter remains the relationship, or lack thereof, between Israel and Iran. Israel has nukes, Iran doesn't. Israel has a record of launching military strikes against other countries. Iran doesn't. Now, I understand why Israel did what she did, but let's not kid ourselves create Iran as a modern version of Nazi Germany intent on Lebensraum. Even under the "religious fanatics", Iran has never invaded a neighbor. Iraq did (with our encouragement and support). So I have trouble buying the Hitler analogy.

Iran has been a consistent sponsor of terrorism and has used terrorist attacks to great effect to strengthen its political position in the region. But that said, Iran, even with the mullahs, has not demonstrated a crazy commitment to escalate without regard to its own future. To the contrary, Iran has been very savvy from what I have seen of avoiding trip wires that might elicit a large military strike by us.

I think arguing that Iran can't have a nuke is silly for us on several fronts. First, we do not have the means of stopping it without the cooperation of Russia and China. Second, we've been able to live with nuclear states in Israel, Pakistan, India, and South Africa. Third, Iran's primary concern is and has been securing itself from external attacks. Undertaking measures that ensure Iran's internal security (while maintaining our ability to subvert them with capitalism) strikes me as a far more sane strategy rather than bellicose, empty-handed saber rattling.

Victor Comras

Thank you for your message.

Let me make it clear that I am not so much concerned about a possible nuclear attack on the United States, as on the implications of a nuclear arm-backed Iran projecting its power and influence in an already unstable region that is now so critical to the perceived interests of so many countries, including those that also possess nuclear weapons.

I also remain less convinced than you that Iran’s current leadership can be counted on to make rationale decisions concerning its national interests, as separate and distinct from its fanatical theology/ideology. I fear that we must take their own religious declarations and writings in this regard seriously.

I also disagree with your assertion that Iran has not exercised, nor does it harbor aggressive attitudes towards its neighbors. Iran exercises tight reign and control over Hizbollah, which has been quite aggressive in Lebanon and against Israel. They retain active surrogates in Iraq, and they retain a deep hatred and rivalry vis a vis the Saudi Royal Family. We must all recognize that we are already at the very cusp of a religious civil war between fundamentalist Shiites and Sunni.

The United States, Europe, Russia and China all continue to have major vested interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions. And the Global economy remains very dependent on these areas as principal sources of critical supplies of gas and oil. The US and Europe have particularly exposed crucial interests in these regions that must be protected. The United States also remains solidly committed to the security of Israel - a principle of US foreign policy that I fully support. These interests remain very vulnerable to an aggressive nuclear arm-backed Iran.

I believe that it is clearly in our foreign policy interest to take the steps necessary, in conjunction with other like minded countries in Europe and elsewhere, to dissuade Iran, and its leaders from holding to their present course. Iran’s leadership is not homogeneous, and there are different religious and political currents running through the leadership. Unfortunately, this includes a powerful segment of Mullahs now in key positions of authority that espouse an apocalyptic theology that could well envisage the use of nuclear weapons.

You point out that we have come to live with the fact that several other countries now possess nuclear weapons capability. This represents past international diplomatic failures, and has already increased the risks of nuclear catastrophe considerably. The current situation in Pakistan alone should cause us all sleepless nights. Nevertheless, in my view, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, under its present leadership dwarfs these current risks and concerns.

Re Sanctions as a tool. Yes, I believe they can still be effective in either dissuading this regime (for its own survival) to suspend/stop its uranium enrichment, or for deposing this regime. Unfortunately, we have not put together the sanctions appropriate to this objective. I believe that, here, Europe holds the key.

Europe is still Iran’s largest trading partner by far and still exports to Iran much more than it imports from Iran. European banks still remain critical to financing this trade, funding critical infrastructure projects in Iran, and Iran’s oil/gas transactions. European banks are still the principal repository of Iran’s middle class overseas money caches. This commercial class plays a growing critical role in providing urban employment opportunities, and from preventing urban unemployment from plummeting further. In my view this represents Iran’s Achilles Heel. Appropriate European pressure on these pressure points would cause very considerable economic pain to this Iranian urban commercial/middle class. Russia and China would not be able substitute here quick enough to stave off the economic consequences of such European sanctions measures.

Neither Russia or China have an interest in seeing Iran develop nuclear weapons. But, they are well positioned to allow the US and European to do the heavy lifting here. They like being able to enjoy the short term trade benefits from this situation. China is also in this to secure long term energy supply sources. We need to focus our diplomacy on convincing Russia and China that their long term interests are best secured by assuring also that Iran does not develop Nuclear Weapons. Re China, this means also assuring them that they will have assured access to needed energy supplies.

I could go on for a long time re a suggested workable sanctions strategy, but won’t tax you with that here.

Last point - Re Oil -- It’s a two-edged sword - Iran’s government cannot survive without exporting oil which accounts for 80 percent of Iran’s export earnings and 50% of the Government Budget. Even with great windfall oil profits, Iran’s economy is still a basket case. They simply cannot afford a significant cut-off or downturn in these revenues.

All for now, Best regards, Vic

Larry Johnson

Vic,

One final point worth noting. You and I agree that Iran wields significant influence over Hezbollah. However, Iran's grip has weakened over the years as Hezbollah has emerged as a substantial political movement with significant military clout of its own. It is far less dependent on Iran than was the case in the 1980s. Iran meddling in Lebanon to secure its own interests is no different in principle from U.S. efforts in pursuit of her interests in various countries in the region. And a significant difference remains between the U.S. and Iran--it is the United States, not Iran, that has committed major military forces--ground and air--to invading countries in the region. We have convenient memory loss of our significant commitment of support to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war. It is not like the Iranians reflexively hate us for our freedom. We do have a history and our role in Iran puts us more in the category of the wife beating husband rather than the beaten wife. We certainly feel justified in those actions we have pursued but my point is that we should not assume that Iran does not have the same level of moral certainty about the "righteousness" of its actions in pursuit of its national interests, no matter how reprehensible we find those actions to be.

Best
LJ

December 4, 2007 11:00 PM Link

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NON CIVILIAN ANALYSIS:

Israeli intelligence believes Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, Israel's defense minister said Tuesday, disputing a U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has halted its program.

"It's apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a time. But in our opinion, since then it has apparently continued that program," Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio.
SOURCE:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paradigm testing:

Several of those involved in preparing the new assessment said that when intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration on the intercepts, beginning in July, the policymakers expressed skepticism. Several of the president's top advisers suggested the intercepts were part of a clever Iranian deception campaign, the officials said.

Intelligence officers then spent months examining whether the new information was part of a well-orchestrated ruse. Their effort included "Red Team" exercises in which groups of intelligence officers tried to punch holes in the new evidence, substantially delaying publication of the NIE.

The estimate noted that Iran continues to enrich uranium for a civil nuclear energy program. But the intelligence experts said they did not consider this a weapons program because it is being done at openly declared facilities under international supervision.

But the report also depicts Iran as cleverly preserving its options, by making steady strides toward a civilian nuclear energy capability that both complies with international law and puts the country on a course that will allow it to easily develop nuclear arms if it so chooses.
SOURCE:


NIE Report, Our View, and Backgrounder here:
At first we thought Bush had blessed the NIE, which of course he didn't.

Gerald


.

NIE = Cover?

Paradigm Intel:
( NOTE: When our bots picked up the NIE, we had assumed George had Blessed it,
he had not; as we learned later. We have left up our original post with updates, notice how IMPORTANT just knowing if a leader backs an Intel report or NOT makes to the Paradigm conclusions. )

#1) Iran capitulated, they just blinked but is pulling a JFK, secret deal, USA backs down and they give up N. BOMB.
or
#2) Top level insider spying, How could they trust him?
or
#3) NIE is wrong, not likely after Iran WMD and N. Korea problems.

It has to be hard and fast Intel to get a NIE to do a 180 degrees, something certain.
If they are wrong it would cost the Republicans the election, so they are very sure. ( UPDATE: THIS DIDNOT COME FROM THE ADMIN, NO VOTER RISK )
Iran broke, if Iran quit Nukes back in 2003 why not avoid all the sanctions?

NO just doesn't fit.

This is very good news, if Iran just blinked, and Iran should back off on many fronts now.
And some face to face meetings soon with Iran IF they blinked.

Set out bots to collect evidence.

UPDATE: Bush is not pushing this.


#4) Some Press thinks its a split between Bush and US intelligence community.
SOURCE:

Intel agency's Flip flopping? Munity or Truth?
2 Agency's deferred from this analysis, which ones?
If my staff blindsided me like this I'd be firing someone, Michael McConnell.
....

Note Georges facial tics, he was Pimped. And how he smiles when reporter says Iran not a danger.
....
Follow up: Our View:

USA should have a House and Senate Intel committee Investigation of the NIE and Michael McConnell. He just upset the diplomatic apple cart
with this surprise move and blindsided the administration and diplomatic efforts. Very unprofessional and suspect. ( We are re-thinking this..)

Gerald
anthropologist

Why is George Waiting? For a Nuclear Iran?

Why is George Waiting?
Iran's Government has said diplomacy will not work, Iran will not negotiate on their nuclear program. Iran vows never to stop pursuing atomic plans (Reuters) .

George has to attack Irans nuclear facilities before he leaves office, or risk going down in history as the president that could have stopped Iran's nuclear weapon and didn't.

Iran's leaders have made negative assurances about Israels existence, and have demonstrated its willingness to attack American forces with Qods forces, subrosa, and by proxy.

IRAN CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Their leaders have expressed the desire to destroy Israel.
And they are Sate sponsors of terrorism already and have been so designated by the State department.

USA should not delay like they did in Korea, till after they demonstrate their use of a Nuclear weapon. USA must strike before Iran gets a nuke.

Iran has stated they have 7 million suicide bombers, USA must be prepared to kill 7 million suicide bombers if they are sent against USA troops. It is not USA's desire to kill any Iranians, but a desire to stop their stated objectives regarding WMD use.

If Iran gets Nukes it will be the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the middle East.
Which will end in millions dead, many Muslims. Look at how many Muslims are killed now by Muslims. They are killing Islamic women and children, bombing Mosques even.
Action now will prevent a Nuclear war later in the Middle East.
A strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities and Military will save millions of lives later.
An electromagnetic bomb will take out most of their capabilities.
And every tank in Iran should be taken out/destroyed for the IEDs they sent to Iraq and Afghan.

The only alternate option is untenable, a nuclear armed Iran is inviting a second Holocaust, millions of dead mostly Muslims.

The Sunni/Shiite blood bath would be without precedent.
Persians slaughtering Arabs by the Millions, not to mention the Jews.

Irans wet DREAM.

enable java to see video
Is George waiting for this?
What is he waiting for?

Or is George's legacy to include this potential, like Clinton and his chances to take out Bin Laden which will forever haunt the Clinton's legacy.

There are no tenable options.


Gerald

.
update:

December 3, 2007

Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

By Matthew Levitt

Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the unclassified key judgments of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities. The new NIE updates the intelligence community’s understanding of Iran’s capabilities since its 2005 assessment on Iran, and begins with the startling judgment that “we judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The NIE acknowledges that Iran has continued to pursue a civilian uranium enrichment program as well as research and development projects with both commercial and conventional military applications. Some of these R&D projects would be of “limited use” for nuclear weapons.

The NIE is controversial in that it appears to downplay Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It underscores current policy, however, by underlining the utility of targeted financial and political measures to induce Iran to alter its behavior.

Read More »

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What did the NIE on Iraq's WMD say?

That Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," and that "all key aspects--R&D [research and development], production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." It also said that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents." The key judgments section--or executive summary--of the 90-page NIE has been declassified; most of the rest of the report remains classified. An unclassified version--similar to the classified version but lacking many of its caveats and details--was released to the public in October 2002. SOURCE: Council on Foreign Relations

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God I hope they got this RIGHT....

Update:

gerald
anthroplogist

.

Jahidist online chatter,NIE

Reading Between the Intel Estimate's Lines

By Noah Shachtman July 17, 2007 | 11:35:52 AMCategories: Cloak and Dagger

Homeland security scoopmaster Shane Harris, on his new blog, says "there was one tantalizing bit at the end" of the new National Intelligence Estimate.

The estimate seemed to say that the intelligence agencies need to better position themselves to counter the Internet as a tool for terrorism...

The ability to detect broader and more diverse terrorist plotting in this environment will challenge current US defensive efforts and the tools we use to detect and disrupt plots. It will also require greater understanding of how suspect activities at the local level relate to strategic threat information and how best to identify indicators of terrorist activity in the midst of legitimate interactions.

Let me read between the lines here a bit. "The ability to detect broader and more diverse terrorist plotting in this environment..." Here, they're talking about picking up on the signals of an attack--online chatter, rhetoric on jihadi Web sites, but also message traffic, probably money transfers. We've known for a long time that the intelligence agencies focus on the Web and online transactions to detect terrorist patterns.

But to the second point, this "will challenge current US defensive efforts and the tools we use to detect and disrupt plots;" that strikes me as a pretty candid admission. It's not like the intelligence agencies are saying, "We can't detect plotting on the Internet," but they're clearly pointing out this is an area of concern, and one that's going to keep putting counterterrorism specialists through their paces.

In light of this challenge, the agencies will need "greater understanding of how suspect activities at the local level relate to strategic threat information." This strikes me as a clear reference to the use of fusion centers, which are supposed to marry local intelligence with the global threat picture. This could be seen as a shot at the Homeland Security Department. Theoretically, it's DHS' job to put those two pieces together--local and global--but it has never really worked out that way... This is a clear signal that the intelligence community sees fusion centers, and in the integration of local, national, and global threat reporting, as a vital part of domestic security.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/reading-between.html