US and Israeli Intelligence Claims

In an interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel on September 1, 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte responded to questions regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Most Significantly, Negroponte reaffirmed his estimate from last year that Iran is five to ten years away from having a nuclear weapon. Negroponte also discussed Israel’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program and why it is that in their estimate Iran is only two years away, even the US and Israel share intelligence.

Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister was on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on September 17, 2006 also discussing Iran’s nuclear program. Livni claims that Iran is only a few months away from mastering enrichment. Livni also said he thinks this is the time for sanctions.

Key portions of both these interviews follow. Thanks to Paul Kerr from Arms Control Wonk for pointing them out.

NPR Interview with DNI John Negroponte:

MR. SIEGEL: ...According to U.S. intelligence agencies, how soon will Iran have a nuclear weapon given its present program? Well, Negroponte says the US made its estimate a year ago.

AMB. NEGROPONTE: These are estimates. These are judgments. They’re not hard and cold simple facts. But our best estimate at the time, and it continues to be the judgment of the Intelligence Community, is that sometime beginning in the next decade, perhaps out to the middle of the next decade would be a good time frame, a good estimate of when they might have such a capability.

MR. SIEGEL: Sometime between four and 10 years from now you would assume they could achieve a nuclear weapon.

AMB. NEGROPONTE: Five to 10 years from now.

MR. SIEGEL: The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on its inspections this week. They reported on rather little progress by the Iranians. Does that conform to U.S. intelligence or does it in any way alter your estimate?

AMB. NEGROPONTE: This is a judgment that was formed over a period of time based on all sources of intelligence that we have, and I think those basic pieces remain in place today, both the determination to acquire such a capability, and the efforts that are under way to achieve that. Now mind you . and this was why I was careful to say at the outset that these are estimates and judgments, because you don’t know what you don’t know. And Iran is by definition, from the point of view of the Intelligence Community, a hard target. They engage in denial and deception. They don’t want us to necessarily know everything that they’re doing. So we don’t, for example, know whether there’s a secret military program and to what extent that program has made progress.

On Israel:

MR. SIEGEL: When Americans hear of, or read of, say, an Israeli estimate that the Iranians are two years away from a nuclear weapon, do you think the Israelis are just making different inferences from the same evidence you see.

AMB. NEGROPONTE: No.

MR. SIEGEL: or they know differently?

AMB. NEGROPONTE: No, I don’t . I think that we basically operate from the same knowledge base. We also happen to consult with the Israelis quite closely. We have intelligence-sharing arrangements, procedures.

I think that sometimes what the Israelis will do. and I think that perhaps because it’s a more existential issue for them, they will give you the worst-case assessment.

We would agree that perhaps an equally valid assessment would be the same one that we put forward.

MR. SIEGEL: But you’re talking about differences in assessment and analysis of information.

AMB. NEGROPONTE: Correct.

MR. SIEGEL: not differences in information?

AMB. NEGROPONTE: That . I would say that, yes. I think that’s fair.

Blitzer Interview with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni:

BLITZER: How much time do you believe the international community has before Iran crosses into an area of no return, in effect has a nuclear bomb?

LIVNI: The crucial moment is not the day of the bomb. The crucial moment is the day in which Iran will master the enrichment, the knowledge of enrichment.

BLITZER: And how long is that?

LIVNI: A few months from now.

BLITZER: What does that mean, a few months?

LIVNI: A few months, I mean…

BLITZER: Six months?

LIVNI: No, I don’t know for sure, because it takes time and this something that they have to try, in doing so…

BLITZER: Because other Israelis have said that would be the point of no return.

LIVNI: I don’t want to use the words “point of no return,” because the Iranians are using it against the international community. They are trying to send a message that it’s too late; you can stop your attempts because it’s too late.

It’s not too late. They have a few more months. And it is crucial because this is in the interests of the international community. The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran. It’s not only a threat to Israel. The recent understanding, also, of moderate Arab states is that Iran is a threat to the region. And I believe that this is time for sanctions.

BLITZER: Is this the biggest threat facing Israel?

LIVNI: Well, unfortunately, even though Israel was established about 60 years ago, it is still fighting for its existence.

And we just saw what the threats from Hezbollah, which is the long arm, the proxy of Iran in the region, and we have the Hamas and the terrorist organizations, and the global terrorism, and the Palestinians, and Iran.

So should I choose between the threats? I don't think so.

To the People of Iran from President Bush: Sounds like Regime Change in Your Future

Speaking at the opening of the 61^st United Nations General Assembly on September 19, 2006, President George W. Bush focused his speech on the war on terrorism and extremism and democracy in the Middle East. Bush countered criticisms that US bringing democracy to the Middle East has destabilized the region. He said this criticism “overlooks the fact that the Middle East was stable to begin with.”

Directing comments to the People of Iran, Bush said:

"To the people of Iran: The United States respects you; we your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom -- and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

And to the people of Syria, President Bush says: Don't continue to let your government turn your country into a tool of Iran.

Voices from Iran

The Foreign Policy Centre, based in London, recently published its latest publication, Voices from Iran, in Parliament. Based on a series of interviews with civil society actors in Iran, this publication seeks to showcase the spectrum of opinion amongst Iranians on the direction their country is taking. This new report argues that human rights, democracy and civil liberties in Iran must not be sidelined during the discussions on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The report seeks to flesh out the spectrum of opinion amongst Iranians and draws upon interviews with opinion formers as diverse as a feminist, a government official, a human rights activist and a young entrepreneur. “Like a Persian hall of mirrors, the diplomatic strategies of the neoconservatives in America, are reflected by the neoconservatives in Iran. The risks of engagement are real but a good case can be made that the risks of not engaging with Iran are greater – sanctions and isolation have not brought any positive change; vile human rights abuses continue and the reformist forces in Iran are weak. The US hard line provides Iranian hardliners with a perfect alibi for their own failures.” The report concludes that, whatever the style of debate, and however tense the discussions may be, engagement is the only means to avert a military conflict.

France Not in Favor of Sanctions

In what may be a split from the Bush adminsitration, French President Jacques Chirac said on September 18, 2006 that he is “never in favor of sanctions” and suggested that the United States and other nations could begin talks with Iran on its nuclear program before Iran formally suspends its nuclear activities. In a 45-minute interview on European radio, Chirac appeared to upend the diplomatic drive and signaled a widening breach on Iran between the United States and European partners, reminiscent of the debate over the Iraq invasion four years ago. He also noted in his interview that the difficulties in Iraq showed he had been right to oppose that war in the first place.

In an apparent reference to setting up an agenda for talks with Iran, Chirac said: “I believe that on the one hand that Iran and the six countries must first establish a schedule for negotiation, then must embark on negotiations. And during these negotiations, I suggest that on the one hand the six give up on referring the matter to the Security Council and that Iran should give up the enrichment of uranium for the duration of the negotiations.”

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani have been continuing discussions to find a face-saving solution for all sides that would allow diplomacy to proceed. One of the formulas under discussion would have the European Union countries begin the talks, and then the United States would join them once Iran suspended its programs.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said on September 19 that all parties involved in the Iran nuclear issue should maintain diplomatic negotiations and dialogue, and promote a peaceful resolution. He said all sides should make the most of the opportunity provided by the negotiations between the European Union and Iran, which were making progress. Qin also called for all parties to show patience and calm, and maintain the momentum of diplomatic negotiations and dialogues.

Negroponte Responds to Questions on Fleitz Report

During a Sunday Morning Stakeout, Sam Husseini asked John Negroponte: “Ambassador, why did your office approve the Fleitz Report on Iran's nuclear program, even though according to the IAEA, the report contained ‘erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated information’ about Iran's nuclear program?”

Negroponte responded: “We did not...of course, as you know, that report was written by a staff member of the House Intelligence Committee, we did not originate it, and we weren't commenting so much on the content, as we were…we dealt with it from a declassifcation point of view, what could be published in an unclassified format, so I wouldn't associate us one way or another, we didn't comment one way or another on the conclusions that were drawn by that report.”

Talking Heads

Speaking at press conference in Senegal on his way to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Cuba before heading to the annual gathering of the United Nations, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on September 14 that Iran was open to “new conditions” on the subject of his country’s nuclear program. “We are in favor of dialogue and negotiation and we believe that we can resolve the problems in a context of dialogue and of justice together,” he said, “I am announcing that we are available, we are ready for new conditions.” He declined, however, to say whether Iran was prepared to suspend uranium enrichment.

Back in Tehran, foreign ministry spokesperson Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said the US is “poisoning” the course of nuclear negotiations. “The US intends to poison the course of the negotiations through constant antagonism, although Iran has constantly stressed negotiations for realizing its nuclear rights," he said.

Meanwhile, a meeting between European Union foreign policy head Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani set for September 14 was postponed, apparently because more work is needed before formal negotiations can begin. EU diplomats had said they would discuss a tentative offer by Larijani last weekend to consider temporarily halting enrichment of uranium. Solana's spokeswoman did say that senior aides to Solana and Larijani met in Geneva on Thursday.

While US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice said that the canceling of the meeting demonstrated that Iran would likely not meet international demands to halt uranium enrichment, she also kept open the possibility of halting efforts at the UN Security Council to enact sanctions, provided of course that Iran complied with the demands. On a visit to Germany, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao commented that world powers should be careful about imposing sanctions on Iran because they could be counter-productive. Indeed, in comments to the press on September 14, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said, “If there were to be, on the part of one or two members of the Security Council, an absence of dialogue and a rise, on one side or the other, in the will for confrontation, the international community would split. If the international community were to split, Iran would continue.”

The US should be careful not to conflate the interests of other countries, particularly when it comes to pressing for sanctions on Iran. The more the US talks about sanctions, the more other countries that have a stake in Iran will become involved. One need only to look, for example, to the split in the European countries on how to proceed: the Spanish foreign minister has asserted that “for the moment, we should keep talking” and the Italian foreign minister has stated his support for “a real negotiation offer” by the EU.

Cooking Intelligence Again

UN inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program sent a letter to the Bush administration and to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan) on September 13 regarding a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities. The letter called parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offered evidence to refute its central claims. The report, Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States, was written by Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA officer and John Bolton’s former Chief of Staff and henchman at the State Department.

The letter sent by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency and was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador. The letter said that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." After no WMD were found in Iraq, the IAEA has been under criticism from the White House for taking a cautious approach on Iran. The letter sent on September 13 is the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed US allegations about the agency’s Iran investigation.

Below are a few of the five major errors in the House Intelligence report pointed out in the letter:

• The IAEA called the report’s assertions that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.
• Among the allegations in the report is that IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised "concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program." The IAEA said the inspector has not been removed.
• The report also suggested that IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei had an "unstated" policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program. The letter called the assertion particularly "outrageous and dishonest," according to the IAEA letter.

Here is the full letter made available by the Washington Post.