DENIS
I did not attempt to make an analysis, so your opening is a non sequitur. The gist of my argument is that when it's difficult to make an 'objective analysis' one might not have an avenue other than to rely, because of a great danger, on the logic of the situation and lock ones' actions on a set of probabilities that emanate from this logic.

For a votary of 'objective analysis' you surprise me. The Pakistani military regime is not a theocratic regime like Iran's. On the contrary it has strong elements of Ataturkism within it. It can be compared with Iran only if you lay it conceptually on a Procrustean bed as you obviously attempt to do.

It's not a matter of 'Sunnis could be intimidated into accepting Shiite "leadership"'. It's a matter that all Muslims, because of their proud culture, accepting Iran as an Islamist POWER that achieved its goal to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of all Western nations, including the U.S.

Indeed, 'Caliph' is an Arabic term which I used only as a metaphor for the more unknown twelfth imam Mahdi of whom many Westerners may not be familiar.

DENIS

I did not attempt to make an analysis, so your opening is a non sequitur. The gist of my argument is that when it's difficult to make an "objective analysis" one might have no other avenue but to rely, because of the great danger, on the logic of the situation and lock ones' actions on a set of probabilities that emanate from this logic.

For a votary of "objective analysis" you surprise me. The Pakistani military regime is not a theocratic regime, on the contrary it has strong elements of Ataturkism. It can be compared with Iran only if you can lay it conceptually on a Procrustean bed, as you obviously attempt to do.

It's not a matter of "Sunnis could be intimidated into accepting Shiite 'leadership'". It's a matter that all Muslims, because of their proud culture, of accepting Iran as a POWER that achieved its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons in defiance of Western nations as well as a superpower.

Indeed, "Caliph" is an Arabic term, which I used only as a metaphor for the more unknown twelfth imam Mahdi of whom many in the West may not be familiar.

Iran is happy with the NIE. That should make everyone nervous.

Why ?

Because the US big-stick is now gone. The NIE if correct states the Iran weapon program was suspended in 2003 at the same time Saddam was removed, Libya agreed to de-nuke, and the Khan network was exposed. Those pressures are now gone thanks to NIE.

Iran gets to negotiate for a few more years while it continues to develop its ballistic missle program and the most critical step for nukes.. the spinning of high-grade bomb-making uranium. If you are a Jew-hating, lets-nuke-Israel Ayatollah.. whats not to love about the NIE ?

No doubt Bin Laden is smiling too. His dream to get a Sunnis nuke into New York City's harbour just got easier. Iran has no problem arming and training Hamas Sunnis, Hizbolah Shia, and Syrians. It can now continue with even the threat of sanctions receding !

Iranian nukes will now be the next Presidents problem. And thanks to liberals... the next President will have fewer tools to hunt (wiretapping) and interrogate terrorists (waterboarding) !

As Christopher Hitchens suggested this week, its really time to abolish the CIA.

"America is the only country in the world that has "Nuked" another country and its non-combatant citizens."

Please. The Japanese as non-combatants? I'm not happy we "nuked" them, but to pretend Japanese civilian innocence within a non-combatant status is disingenuous.

Dear Kotzabasis:

What you're advocating is the substitution of political pseudo-analysis for objective evidence, which is as dangerous as it is misleading.

Leadership of the largely Sunni Muslim world isn't obtainable by posession of nuclear weapons: otherwise Pakistan would be in a position to lead global Islam. No one familiar with Islam can believe that Sunnis could be intimidated into accepting Shiite "leadership." By the way, "Caliph" is an Arabic term, not Persian, and to my knowledge, a "Caliphate" is the objecctive of Sunni al Quaeda, NOT Persian Iran, its geopolitical adversary.

I don't care WHO says WHAT about the Middle East...I just want it to be said based on the available data and without a pre-ordained agenda, be it left, right or center. The Middle East, just like Gillette, Wyoming, is a very complicated place. Like Dana, Indiana, different agendas exist among the populace. Like Philadelphia, PA it has a long sense of history without any real desire to move off from it (I happen to be a son of Philly...I can say that). And like NYC, it has an animal sense of raw and unstoppable power. It is a complicated place with tribal hatreds extending over millenia and peoples hating each other for no real reason...just like most any other place in the Old World.

Lets get it right this time...lets go with numbers and leave the emotions behind. No more agendas....lets run to the numbers and see what they say and then make policy based on that.

Whenever Intelligence fails to find the truth logic comes to its rescue. The Iran theocratic leadership is not concerned with not jeopardizing its people's progress by a confrontation with the U.S., but in not jeopardizing its LUNGE for power in the region. This is its number one priority, to become the leader of the Muslim world. And the acquisition of nuclear weapons, especially in defiance of all Western powers, opens the way, in the thinking of its leaders, toward its irreversible dominance of Islam.

All the conclusions therefore of Intelligence whether Iran has stopped or not its nuclear program is secondary before the geopolitical logic that Iran has not renounced its eschatological goal to be the new Caliphate.

The calculus of cost-benefir analysis must be replaced by the COST-POWER analysis, as it's by the latter that one can answer the conundrum whether Iran is building nuclear weapons or not. That is why the option of a strike by the U.S. cannot be off the table.

Con George-Kotzabasis

We must thank the 16 Intelligence bodies which joined to prevent Cheney from starting the III WW.

I can not imagine that this report is characterized as a preemptive strike. Intelligence should be apolitical to the extent possible. If that had been the case prior to Iraq we could have saved thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousand Iraqi lives. We need the Intelligence Community to call em like they see em. Intelligence information should be shared with the public to the maximum extent possible without giving up important security secrets about means and methods. Thank God we live in a country where an NIE can be made public. This is despite the best efforts of Bush and Cheney. This gives me hope for the future of our nation.

I don't believe that CIA is operating independently of the Bush administration. By releasing the NIE they are protecting both themselves and Bush from criticism that he and they once again "lied us into war". Bush will proceed with his plans for war with his lies neatly put away and behind him through exposing them in advance. He will have already paid the piper. War on Iran is still quite possible. Bush could launch a strike based on his issues with Iran over supplying aid to Shiite militias. The new UN sanctions he is hoping to impose against Iran are based on precisely that. Bush needed to be rid of his lies about Irans nuclear program. They succeeded in the purpose of getting support for the war and are no longer necessary to his goal.

this is the balance between the different branches in the administration, the intelligence community does not become the scapegoat again.However, the information from the intelligence aommunity is also skeptical because Iran's nuclear activities are not not transparent. the intelligence community cannot get more information than IAEA actually.

One more well written article by Mr. Konstantaras !

Dear Sir The tendency to judge American foreign policy by using the foreign policy of a President who's approval rating is at 30% is fair and unfair.Of course the President conducts foreign policy but with a little over a year left in his term I am quite confident that the new Administration will more accurately reflect the American people who are hungry for a dialogue with Iran.What the NIE did was put this administration in a position where they will have more difficulty creating problems for the next administration.

Beg to differ...the NIE was agreed to by the 9 defense intelligence units of the total of 16 in the unananimous "vote" AND Hayden had the thing "red-teamed" i.e. double-checked by independent covert operations to make damn sure (wouldn't YOU if you were tell Bush's Boys publicly how wrong they are?)...sorry, don't buy it...Cheney et al just want to start another fight (that we can't win, thanks to their previous screw-up!)

Bush's handlers concluded that the NIE that Cheney had sabotaged for about a year had to be released to the public or else it would be leaked by sources in the intelligence community. It was indeed a pre-emptive strike.

It is very troubling that it has become necessary for sane officials to organize pre-emptive strikes against a war-mongering president and his administration but there seems to have been little choice. Choosing between the truth and another illegal war really isn't hard; once bitten, twice shy.

Unfortunately, Bush continues to beat the war drums with no obvious embarrassment nor with any less fervor. Conventional wisdom would be that even Bush would not start another unnecessary war after having his lies and machinations leading up to the invasion of Iraq exposed and now an NIE that concludes that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program, which belies his war-mongering threats against Iran. But Bush and company are neither wise nor conventional so those of us, us being a great majority of Americans, who for a brief moment hoped we could relax because the dogs should be leashed may well be in for a shock. Nothing Bush does should surprise anyone.

I, for one, don't understand this manufactured fear of Iran. Iran is not and will never be a threat to America, nuclear weapons or not. Even if they were to obtain a nuclear weapon, they know if they threatened to use it, we could and would turn their country into a sheet of glass.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a couple of thousand years. Their animosity toward America is understandable in view of our history of overthrowing one of their elected governments, an on-going effort to overthrow their present government, and acting as a sponsor of their jailer and tormentor. Nevertheless, they marched with candles by the tens of thousands in sympathy with America after 9/11.

Others mention that they sponsor terrorists but one must understand that the "terrorists" they are accused of sponsoring are those such as Hezbollah who have the gall to resist Israel's conquests and brutal occupations. There is no quicker way to earn a "terrorist" designation.

Finally, there is much discussion and consternation among Democrats as they find that their party leaders have acquiesced or overtly supported Bush's wars and torture. How can Hillary, Nancy, et al, go along with Bush against the wishes of their constituents, they ask. There is only one entity with enough power to make liberal Democrats into right wing uber crazy neonut Republicans when it comes to Middle East matters....AIPAC.

One need look no further for an explanation.

I think I'll just suspend belief in anything which oozes out from this administration until the day it ends. The people in this administration have done immeasurable damage to the community of nations. Considering the scale of their murders and the extent of the destruction they have brought about through the prosecution of their objectives, they are war criminals, pure and simple.

The famous opening sentence of the NIE's Iran assessment, flatly asserting with "high confidence" that Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003, is the most fatuous piece of wishful thinking in a long time. As a simple matter of project scheduling, the critical path elements of Iran's nuclear project are still underway. The production of the delivery system and the fissile material are moving forward, with a high priority. The last steps, machining the explosive components, and assembly, which the NIE presumably concludes have been stopped, in fact can't be started until sufficient HEU has been produced to drop into the lathe. Given Iran's many public statements of hostility to the existence of Israel, and Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, Israel can't reasonably indulge in the wishful thinking of the NIE authors, that Iran does not intend to develop and use a nuclear weapon, after building the missiles and producing the HEU. It's not reasonable to ask the people targeted by this threat to ignore the public pronouncements by leaders from Khomeini to Ahmadinejad. The authors of the NIE will in the near future look as silly as the authors of the Kellogg-Briand pact. In the interest of crass partisan politics they are willing to put at risk the lives of millions of innocent people in Israel and throughout the Middle East.

A few observations:

1. The NIE was not conclusive and is only being taken as such by partisans of Iran.
2. The U.S. intelligence community has made mistakes in the past for the good and the bad.
3. It doesn't matter if Ahmadinejad leaves office. He isn't the leader of Iran. Khamenei will continue as dictator and obviously supports the nuclear program.
4. Bush will leave office thanks to a democracy in the U.S.. Remember that doesn't exist in Iran - please. :)
5. Iran's aggression in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq are much more serious matters at the moment than the nuclear problem.
6. I don't like any unstable dictatorship to have nuclear weapons whether some currently do or not. It isn't healthy for the world.
7. And yes, I hope that the U.S. and Iran will talk but the U.S. tried under Clinton and saw the paranoid radicals lock up Iran to any breath of freedom.

The intelligence community's "preemptive strike" possibly signals an end to its obedience to the administration's MO of demanding that it produce "evidence" to back its policies. They've left Bush and the neocons sputtering as their war hysteria loses all credibility.

These professionals deserve credit for putting their loyalty to the nation above careerist ambitions and fear of reprisals. Would that top military figures would do likewise!

Iran's ascendency is thanks to Bush's elimination of Saddam and a united Iraq. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, (although the war is a catastrophe for Iraq and possibly the worst US foreign policy blunder, ever) unless we choose to turn it into a problem. Amenijad's intemperate statements may irritate the Israelis, but they are meaningless: Iran can scarcely afford a nuclear exchange.

This is a good opportunity for the US and Iran to discuss our common interests, including our mutual dislike of al Quaeda.

The intelligence community's "preemptive strike" possibly signals an end to its obedience to the administration's MO of demanding that it produce "evidence" to back its policies. They've left Bush and the neocons sputtering as their war hysteria loses all credibility.

These professionals deserve credit for putting their loyalty to the nation above careerist ambitions and fear of reprisals. Would that top military figures would do likewise!

Iran's ascendency is thanks to Bush's elimination of Saddam and a united Iraq. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, (although the war is a catastrophe for Iraq and possibly the worst US foreign policy blunder, ever) unless we choose to turn it into a problem. Amenijad's intemperate statements may irritate the Israelis, but they are meaningless: Iran can scarcely afford a nuclear exchange.

This is a good opportunity for the US and Iran to discuss our common interests, including our mutual dislike of al Quaeda.

In the 1950s, the U.S. through the CIA got rid of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh, because he was going to nationalize the country's oil industry. The CIA helped to install the Shah, who promptly unleashed a repressive regime in the name of "progress", including his dreaded secret police force, SAVAK, which operated the way secret police forces always do. The result, 25 years later, was the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the theocratic regime we have today. The CIA and the US government were shocked shocked SHOCKED! when the Shah was deposed - they had NO IDEA there was so much resentment of the strong man they instituted to suit America's short-term economic needs!!!! Fat lot of good it did us over the long-ter,, didn't it?

How true it is that those who ignore history's mistakes are bound to repeat them. Not that anyone expected the Bush/Cheney regime to do anything as sensible as look back at history where the Middle East was concerned - after all, they're the ones who sent Paul Wolfowitz into a Senate hearing on the proposed Iraq war in early 2003 to contradict Gen. Erik Shinseki's assessment that we'd need 250,000 troops just to control the post-conflict issues. Wolfowitz told the hearing that Shinseki was wrong, because "Iraq has no history of sectarian strife." Well, with people like this in charge I suppose it was ludicrous to expect common sense and caution and a sense of history on the part of this administration when dealing with Iran, let alone the rest of the Middle East.

There are still plenty of Iranians around today whose relatives were tortured or killed or at best imprisoned by the Shah's regime that the U.S. foisted upon Iran for its own economic interests - just as 25 years from now there will be plenty of Iraqis around who lost relatives to this immoral venture, also entered upon for nothing more than a poorly through out strategic advantage in the Middle East - which will bring about pretty much the same poor return for the effort that getting rid of Mossadegh and putting the Shah in did 35 years ago.

When will they learn? Why is our leadership so hopelessly intellectually, historically, and morally bankrupt?!

Bush has never let the truth prevent him from stupid acts. The report, as far as Bush is concerned, means nothing. The question is how long will the American public condone Bush's every move.

The Iraq war which is based on lies and deception, instead of punishing Bush for starting it, was the basis for Bush's reelection. The majority of Americans relish the bully role and would love to see America go to war with Iran (as long as they do not have to fight in the military).

Bush, the Monarch, being controlled by Cheney, will start a war against Iran before leaving office in 2008. Israel and the American public will rejoice while thousands of Arabs will die. Woe to the Arabs.

END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

The NIE is an *estimate* - and given the secrecy of Iran it is at best a wild guess. It changes nothing. As a former intelligence staffer we called these things WAGs (wild a** guesses).
No one in authority is standing down - and rightfully so. I am amazed at the number of posters wo seem to accept Iran having nuclear weapons - as if it their right. It is against International Agreement - not just the US position.
By the way - I keep hearing US is *threatening Iran*. Haven't seen or heard it. Bush is warning the World that if Iran gets nuclear weapons we are dangerously close to WWIII.
Some of the posters appear to want to help Iran - to show Bush and Cheney a lesson.
That's sick!

I basically agree with the author except for the talking part. Though I agree Iran and the US need to talk, the leaders of each nation are simply not mature enough to do the talking. I think in the end they would do the world a better service by not talking to anyone anymore until they are each out of office.

Each should stay at home, watch TV and let the bureaucrats and technocrats run their respective countries until real leaders replace each of them. Its simply to dangerous to let either president make decisions or negotiate with anyone.

The U.S. treatment of North Korea did not threaten a pre-emptive strike to remove a nuclear military facility. Of course, North Korea has regional friends. Also, the U.S. response to Pakistan's nuclear deployment was tolerant. So why does the U.S. threaten Iran, when there is comparatively less nuclear military technology? If we think of U.S. policy in the Middle East, as strategic, and principled, there is one obvious conclusion: OIL. The U.S. wants to guarantee access to OIL. The global politics of energy consumers, and energy producers has lost its moral compass. If we think of U.S. policy in the Middle East, as personal, and human, another conclusion: broken relationship. While the world calls out for diplomacy, Bush's policy is stuck in full-throtle coercion. The aim is world domination.

Agreed

There is not one iota of need for the US to be concerned about Iran in any way, except in some misguided need to protect the US Occupation forces in Iraq. Removing the "troops" from Iraq will eliminate this fear and further enhance American security. Let the very rich states of the ME protect themselves if there is any legitimate need! Iran, like Greece, is small country will no ability to attack America or any of its interests; why are we playing in the game at all? Delusions, delusions!

Common sense tells me that the most dangerous "reactionary forces" in the Middle East are Israel and the United States, both spoiling for an unjustified attack on oil-rich Iran.

As a strategic ally/client state of the United States, nuclear armed Israel with its fundamentalist regime and absence of accountability toward the global community, is free to defy United Nations resolutions and decisions of the World Court calling for an end to its genocidal occupation of Palestinian territories and colonisation of Arab land.

The U.S. is currently building its biggest embassy in the world, in Baghdad and has no intention of ever, relinquishing its control of Iraq's oil.

There will never be hope for peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians achieve justice and the U.S. ends its disastrous meddling in the region.

Common sense tells me that the most dangerous "reactionary forces" in the Middle East are Israel and the United States, both spoiling for an unjustified attack on oil-rich Iran.

As a strategic ally/client state of the United States, nuclear armed Israel with its fundamentalist regime and absence of accountability toward the global community, is free to defy United Nations resolutions and decisions of the World Court calling for an end its genocidal occupation of Palestinian territories and colonisation of Arab land.

The U.S. is currently building its biggest embassy in the world, in Baghdad and has no intention of ever, relinquishing its control of Iraq's oil.

There will never be hope for peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians achieve justice and the U.S. ends its disastrous meddling in the region.

The American spies pulled out the carpet under Bush's feet. This is very similar to Ukraine's spies staged a coup during the Orange Revolution and helped elect pro-western Yushenko as Ukraine's president.

Forget,Ahmadinejad and other reactionary forces intervening in Iran. Instead, deal with the Iranian leadership,who cannot afford to jeopardize its people’s progress through an ignorant loud mouth.

In the past we have dealt easily with Iran ... and should work hard to become friends in the future. Do not allow blow hards like our Vice President screw things up as he did in Iraq!

America is the only country in the world that has "Nuked" another country and its non-combatant citizens. America recently invaded a country that did not attack it, deposed its' leader and destroyed the country's infrastructure, and in the process destabilized an entire region. Iran has a "right" to engage in the activities it is engaged in. Who are "we" to "DICTATE" to other nations how they should secure the sovereignty of their nation. If I remember correctly we lost the right to tell them how to live when we installed and backed the "Shah of Iran".......Oh I'm sorry, I forgot about the OIL.

Iran can cause enough headaches for US policy in the Middle East regardless of whether or not it is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It still has the potential to be a major destabilising factor in Middle East politics through the funding and arming of Shiite extremist groups, and through the threat posed by its conventional armed forces.

Finally...finally, a well formulated and reasonable article on the topic. Shows that we have some smart journalists among the crazies out there. Thanks.