• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Analysis: Mixed Signals on an Atomic Iran

Council on Foreign Relations

February 11, 2008
Author: Greg Bruno

Drafters of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iranian nuclear capabilities might have intended for their document to clarify debate on Tehran’s long-term nuclear ambitions. It’s safe to say they missed their mark. Three months after the unclassified conclusions became public—including the contention Iran likely halted its nuclear-weapons program in late 2003—the report’s fallout continues to cloud U.S. efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. U.S. weapons experts have expressed shock at the report’s findings; Iran’s leaders say it vindicates their claims that their nuclear program is peaceful; and Washington’s allies in Europe and the Middle East have reportedly questioned its intelligence. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has been left scrambling to convince the world Iran remains a nuclear menace.

David Kay, a veteran weapons inspector who led the Iraq Survey Group in 2003, sees the NIE as an irresponsible document with contradictory conclusions. “I came away from this really, deeply concerned about the process of writing national intelligence assessments,” Kay tells CFR.org in a new interview. He says the “high confidence” determination that Iran “halted its nuclear-weapons program” was “frightening” and poorly conceived. Equally confounding for experts has been the intelligence community’s unwillingness to back away from its assertions. Testifying to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 5, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell defended the intelligence estimate but acknowledged that, if given the chance, he “would change the way that we described nuclear program.” The Wall Street Journal termed the admission “a reversal of the previous judgment”; Israeli and British press have been equally dumbfounded.

The administration’s careful diplomatic language stands in stark contrast to the depiction by some reporters, like the New Yorker’s Seymour M. Hersh, that it has been gearing up for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.

Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.