Iran Intelligence Report to Ahmadinejad Intercepted

Here's a link to a recent report to Ahmadinejad by the Iranian Intelligence Service:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html?emc=eta1

Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html

hhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.htmlttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Does Iran pose an imminent nuclear threat to it's neighbors in the Middle East and to the United States? Or does it have trouble making light bulbs that last more than a couple of weeks?

Is Iran the puppeteer behind Hezbollah in Lebanon? Or is Hezbollah calling it's own shots independent of Iran? Has Hezbollah become a liability for Iran?

A couple of articles on these issues are linked below. One an op-ed from a Tehran journalist and a front page article from this morning's New York Times.

Maziar Bahari: "...Iran definitely uses the the threat of its influence over Hezbollah to further its objectives. And its prime objective is the survival of the Islamic regime at any price. The clerics and non-clerics in power in Iran are not the old revolutionary zealots the Americans tend to imagine. They are pragmatic men who have enjoyed the fruits of power for 27 years and don't want to lose them...

"Up until the start of the war in Lebanon that (Iran government doing nothing) was fine. Iran benefited from a series of victories without doing much. First the Americans got rid of the Taliban, Iran's enemy to the east. Then the Americans got rid of Iran's archenemy to the west, Saddam Hussein. Finally, with Americans mired in both countries, the price of oil went through the roof, and Iran started enriching uranium again, knowing that the West could do nothing. The regime was intoxicated with oil money and regional influence.

"But the war in Lebanon has made it impossible for the Islamic Republic to enjoy the same calm. Hzbollah has become a liability for Iran. Weakened, it now needs Iran's petrodollars and rockets to regain its strength."

"WANTED: SCARIER INTELLIGENCE

"The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state.

"That's what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush's policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Peter Hoekstra, of Michigan releashed a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to "helping the American people understand" that Iran's fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States.

"It's hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the GOP to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering we've heard lately--like Predisent Bush's attempt the other day to link the Iraq war to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former CIA official known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire.

"While the report contains no new information, it does dish up dire-sounding innuendo, mostly to leave the impression that Iran is developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit. It also tosses in a few conspiracy theories, like the unsupported assertion that Iran engineered the warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. And it complains that America's spy agencies are too cautious, that they "shy away rrom provacative conclusions."

"Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, put it even more bluntly in explaining some Republicans' dissatisfaction with the CIA reporting on Iran: "The intelligence community is dedicated to predicting the least dangerous world possible."

"All in all, this is a chilling reminder of what happened when intelligence analysts told Vice President Dick Cheney they could not prove that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon or had ties with Al Qaeda. he kept asking if they really meant it--until the CIA took the hint.

"It's obvious that Iran wants nuclear weaqpons, has lied about its program and views America as an enemy. We enthusiastically agree that the United States needs every scrap of intelligence it can get on Iran. But the reason American intelligence is not certain when Iran might have a nuclear bomb is because the situation is so murky--not because the agencies are too wimpy to tell the scary truth.

"If the Republicans who control Congress really waqnted a full-scale assessment on the state of Iran's weapons programs, tehy would have asked for one, rather trhan producing this brochure.

"The nation cannot afford to pay the price again for politicians' bending intelligence or bullying the intelligence agencies to suit their ideology."

[Lead editorial, The New York Times, August 24, 2006.]

Deeds comment: " Michiganders should be ashamed at Congressman Pete Hoekstra's blatant use of the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, for GOP political purposes. The report that he issued this week echos the doctored and politicized intelligence used to lead this country into its reckless and ill-advised invasion of Iraq. His distinguished Michigan Republican predecessor, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, must be rolling over in his grave in Oak Hill Cemetery in Grand Rapids!"