Update on Gaming Intelligence to Justify War

by emptywheel

I wasn't so disturbed by the news that DNI Mike McConnell had decided to reverse the recent practice of producing unclassified Key Judgments from an NIE ... until I read Scott Horton's take on it.

Michael McConnell started his first two months on the job with a solid record for candor and accuracy. He avoided political doublespeak. And then something strange happened. He became a shameless and irresponsible political propagandist.

[snip]

With that background, it should come as no surprise that McConnell now plans to keep America in the dark as to the national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Iranian nuclear programs. Pam Hess of AP reports:

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has reversed the recent practice of declassifying and releasing summaries of national intelligence estimates, a top intelligence official said Friday. Knowing their words may be scrutinized outside the U.S. government chills analysts’ willingness to provide unvarnished opinions and information, said David Shedd, a deputy to McConnell.

He told congressional aides and reporters that McConnell recently issued a directive making it more difficult to declassify the key judgments of national intelligence estimates, which are forward-looking analyses prepared for the White House and Congress that represent the consensus of the nation’s 16 spy agencies on a single issue. The analysis comes from various sources including the CIA, the military and intelligence agencies inside federal departments.

Now we know that the NIE has been done and gathering dust for more than three months. We also know that Vice President Cheney’s office, which promptly leaks NIEs when it finds them useful, absolutely hates this NIE and has been doing everything it can think to do to put it off. Why might that be?

Sources close to the NIE tell me that it would work at cross-purposes with the Administration’s fall roll-out of its new war effort against Iran. The NIE will apparently conclude that Iran is diligently pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and that Iran is pursuing a delivery system. It will also conclude that even on the fastest possible track it is still a couple of years away from having anything meaningful. Which means this threat does not become an acute one until some time after Bush and Cheney leave office. In other words, it’s an NIE that the Vice President badly wants to drop somewhere behind a filing cabinet. And the best way to do that is to declare it’s so super secret that no one can have a copy of that particular decoder ring.

Honestly, the last two NIEs did seem shaded for political reasons, so I suspect unclassified Key Judgments would be in any case. But the last several NIEs on the subject have shown that Iran is nowhere near getting nukes. And if Cheney wants to bury the latest version of "not yet," then it begins to piss me off.

Meanwhile, there are two new additions to the discussion about the scary satellite pictures that may--or may not--prove that Syria was trying to build nukes. First, via Noah Shachtman, the news from the NYT that the Syria location is at least four years old.

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

Of course, glued-to-Judy's-hip William Broad concludes from this that the nuclear program (and North Korea's purported cooperation with Syria on it) dates back to 2001. And even, perhaps, that this may exonerate John Bolton's warmongering from 2006 (the picture in question was taken on precisely the same day that Bolton testified that Syria was trying to get nukes--testimony he leaked pre-emptively to his buddy Judy Miller). While Jeffrey Lewis notes laconically for the article that it's surprising how little progress was made in the interim four years...

Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it was surprising from the photos how little progress had been made at the site between 2003 and 2007.

,,, No one seems to consider whether the inactivity at the site reveals ... inactivity.

And then there's Arms Control Wonk, comparing the story leaked to Martha Raddatz about the Syrian site with the story arising from the images.

ABC’s Martha Raddatz has some detail about the Syrian nuclear facility that suggests to me that she and her sources are confused about nuclear reactors:

But the hardest evidence of all was the photographs.

The official described the pictures as showing a big cylindrical structure, with very thick walls all well-reinforced. The photos show rebar hanging out of the cement used to reinforce the structure, which was still under construction.

There was also a secondary structure and a pump station, with trucks around it. But there was no fissionable material found because the facility was not yet operating.

The official said there was a larger structure just north of a small pump station; a nuclear reactor would need a constant source of water to keep it cool.

The official said the facility was a North Korean design in its construction, the technology present and the ability to put it all together.

It was North Korean “expertise,” said the official, meaning the Syrians must have had “human” help from North Korea.

A light water reactor designed by North Koreans could be constructed to specifically produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The problem here is that North Korea’s reactors are gas-cooled. You see, if there is a pump , the reactor can not be, as David Sanger and Mark Mazzetti reported, “modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons.” (A careful reader in the comments points out that the pump could be for a secondary cooling tower like the one at Yongbyon, a possibility that I neglected.)

So, one of the two stories is dead wrong. It either is either water-cooled or it resembles the reactor at Yongbyon, which is gas-cooled.

So let's see. We have Dick Cheney refusing to allow the information that refutes his warmongering to be declassified. We have these curious stories that both clash and happen to coincide with some of John Bolton's earlier warmongering. And we have Israel's and the US' choice to bomb this site rather than allow the IAEA to inspect it and tell us what it really was.

Also from ACW, the IAEA sounds a lot less sure this is a nuclear reactor than all the people leaking to glued-to-Judy's-hip William Broad.

AP’s George Jahn, by the way, reports that the IAEA is now looking at commerical imagery but hasn’t seen anything that screams nuclear reactor:

Two other diplomats said initial examination of the material found no evidence the target was a nuclear installation, but emphasized it was too early to draw definitive conclusions.

Yup, it's all beginning to look familiar.

Comments

[MarkC]

Yup, it's all beginning to look familiar.

What's a little different, to my mind, is its reception in the country at large. I remember how it wasn't until being part of a big pre-invasion march that I felt for the first time that there were other people who opposed going into Iraq. Today, I don't know anyone who is at all convinced that a pre-emptive strike against Iran is justified.

They may be convincing themselves of the inevitability of such a strike in Washington, but (heavens forbid!) if they do I think for the first time this will not have a galvanizing effect on the public's support for the administration.

[EH]

I still think the whole Iran thing is just market research, in effect, "if we can't find a way to bomb them now, we'll float some balloons and gauge the reaction in order to more effectively sell it later on." Of course, there could be some surprise event that catapults an attack against Iran into the realm of the possible, but Americans are so predisposed against Iran in general that I think bombing would be an easy sell in that case, obviating a lot of the current Iran rhetoric..

[emptywheel]

Mark C

Emphasis on might. The press certainly still seems happy to join in the warmongering. And I'm seriously worried how we can prevent the war when Bush has no interest in Congress, and thanks to Lieberman and Kyl, he's already gotten their okay anyway. At this point, it's up to the Generals (and, frigtheningly, Condi and Gates), and they tend to get fired when they don't do what Cheney wants.

[tryggth]

big cylindrical structure

I guess that structure isn't in the pictures we are looking at.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

I don't recall ever feeling the US military has such a key role as I do today. And if anyone is interested in what seems to be going on with the military, check out Joe Galloway at McClatchey this week: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/galloway/story/20809.html

I'm sure that more than one of us commenters at TNH have personal acquaintance who've left careers in the military. In my case, a young couple (both engineers, both Iraq War vets) who left the military last year.

Looks like the generals are going to have to do the heavy lifting, under extremely difficult circumstances.

[P J Evans]

MarkC
It might have a galvanizing effect, but not the one they want. People might start coming out against the government openly, because it's gone insane.

[John Lopresti]

Laura Rozen has posted a brief article about the foreign part of some of this.

[tryggth]

In trying to understand the Syria air strike it seems to me the big clue is the collective silence of Israel, US and Syria. The possibilities regarding the truth of the site breaks down these (and perhaps there are others) possibilities:

1) the site was in-process nuke facility
2) the facility was an abandoned possible nuke facility
3) the site was a conventional military facility
4) the site was a WMD facility

The silence of US and Israel, not to mention the much more useful mechanism of IAEA inspection argues strongly against #1. Nothing would be better for this crowd than to get it right for once.

The context for the attack includes:

* post Lebanon War (part deux) self-loathing by Israel
* neocon desire to bomb something (because its been awhile)

#2 might be plausible, and it would explain the silence by all parties involved. But it seems too risky in that if this were the truth of the matter Israel and US could not support the chosen action when the truth finally outed. To have violated international law in the face of no threat would not be supportable.

#4 might be the case, but it seems to be similarly problematic as #1.

So it seems to be #3. I'm going to guess the following:

* the facility housed missle tech
* the missle tech was from a 3rd country
* Israel bombed to let Syria know it didn't like the missles
* the target and timing was chosen to let Syria know it knew about the arrangment with the 3rd country
* Syria is silent because it doesn't want to admit the 3rd party arrangement

Thoughts?

[radiofreewill]

tryggth, the site certainly looks to have a perimter fence and perhaps a military building with a large antenna on an adjacent hill, but I'm still going with the Occam's Razor answer based on a (relativey few) number of photos.

The site looks like an open-pit mine with a large processing building, whose output is trucked to the railhead/riverway (google 'geoeye syria photo').

Why not postulate a purpose-built, state-sponsored Uranium mining operation? or secondarily a Mineral mining operation that also extracts any latent Uranium content?

Perhaps someone with 'mining-operation-know-how' can google earth known Uranium open-pit mines, such as those in Niger, and compare facilities?

[Elliott]

Mark C and PJ

but once Iran starts retaliating -- and one way will be terror attacks -- that will galvinize the public against Iran and benefit whoever is in power here, imo.

[tryggth]

radiofreewill -

Perhaps. But why no call by US/Israel to have the IAEA take a looksie? If true and verified it would strengthen the hand of US/Israel in any future negotiations.

[tryggth]

The other thing to keep in mind is that we now know this site was "suspect" since 2001/2002. Once something becomes suspect like that traffic in and out is most certainly traced to its many fingered destinations/origins. That is the state of overhead. And the film loop can probably be run backwards.

I don't have the link, but I saw an earlier article suggesting that a ship's cargo was tracked to this site.

In a nutshell, what possible legitimate reason can the admin have for not being more forthcoming with info?

[bmaz]

Well, I don't know nuthin about no nukular site in Syriana, but this New England Patriots football team might be real up and comers. Why they might even win a few Super Bowls if they could find a decent quarterback..... Oh, and a receiver he could throw to......

[Charles]

Here's an alternate hypothesis: could this be the intended site for the (proliferation-resistant) light water reactor that Syria agreed to buy from Russia in 1998?

That way, the Syrians couldn't deny that the Israelis bombed a reactor site, and the Israelis couldn't claim that there was any realistic possibility of the reactor site becoming a reactor capable of producing a nuclear weapon.

The proximity of the building to the Euphrates does suggest that water was involved in whatever it was doing. Missiles don't require large amounts of water

[phred]

bmaz -- I thought the Pats were pretty disappointing today, I was hoping for triple digits ;) Go Sox! By the way, my favorite sign at the protest march in Boston yesterday read "Red Sox Fans for Impeachment". Yep.

[Albert Fall]

EW--You are right that the press is going along with the war-mongering.

There is no shortage of critical reporting that COULD be done to frame this issue--your post is an example.

Republicans are preparing to campaign in 2008 on Bush's IRAN war, and the lack of patriotism of critics of his next attack. Same playbook. You run the play until the other side can stop it.

[radiofreewill]

tryggth, check out these links;

http://www-tc.iaea.org/tcweb/

Input syr/3/003 in the project information box at the top right and read the datasheet.

Syria Nuclear Facilities profiles:

http://www.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cnsc3syr.html

Do we know if any of the described locations match the bombed location?

[tryggth]

radiofreewill -

I couldn't find a match on the location using Google Earth. Right now I'm trying to track how this file was produced:

http://www.secretsituation.com/crap/OperationOrchard.kmz

I don't give much credence to the source site. But it is a weird thing for someone to produce.

[tryggth]

I'm also fascinated by the weird degree of detail Laura Rozen clips here:

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006657.html

[radiofreewill]

Good ArmsControlWonk article on Extracting Uranium from Phosphates in Syria:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1645/extracting-uranium-from-phosphates

---

Whatever the case with the Syrian 'facility', it certainly isn't an enrichment or conversion facility or anything worthy of Pre-Emptive Attack.

Cheney bombed a site that could only barely be called 'nuclear' - as an act of Lawless Warmongering. Pathetic, again.

[tryggth]

radiofreewill- this is an interesting link quoting someone far more knowledgeable than myself. My guess? Jr. has stepped in it again. I can just hear him fuming "Ooo, that Cheney did it to me again!"

http://e-whosawme.blogspot.com/2007/10/ray-close-on-israeli-sept-6-air-raid-on.html

[radiofreewill]

tryggth, we may not be NRO photo analysts or WMD experts, but I think we've run this story to the ground - it was just another Bogus Cheney Maneuver to elevate the Terror Level by flattening a 'nukulur' out house.

They're shameless!

William "I can write and suck at the same time" Broad takes dictation again...

[purpleOnion]

The purpose of the wars are the wars. A reason for the administration being so secretive is that Americans believe that a war should have a reason to begin killing and dying, followed by more killing and dying, and finally an end to the tragedy, preferably with victory as the end result. It is a little difficult to sell Americans on a war without end, which is what happens when a war is waged against 1.25 billion people, many of whom were not enemies until the U.S. waged a war that included the killing of "acceptable" numbers of foreign civilians, the application of torture, and imprisoning soldiers as if they were terrorists.

Terrorists are criminals who target civilians, normally unaffilliated with a nation's military. The only bond and ideology terrorists share is their hatred for the society or culture their leaders have demonized.

The war without end has several purposes, not the least of which is to support a failing economic model based on deceit. while this war would be unnecessary if Americans changed their lifestyles; I'm beginning to believe that is a sacrifice they are not willing to make.

Richard Cheney said that the American lifestyle is non-negotiable, which sounds tough, but is about the dumbest statement I have heard in a long time. Unless killing everyone who is not an American so we can have it all to ourselves is the goal. Then we will start killing each other for whatever is left. Now, that is what I think of when I hear the word "plan". Although, I have a distinct feeling that there will be resistance to a "plan" of this type.

[purpleOnion]

Oops!
Terrorists are criminals, normally unaffiliated with a nation's military, who target civilians.

[Nell]

It might be worth noting that Arms Control Wonk is Jeffrey Lewis, the same expert quoted in the earlier Schachtman post.

[MarkH]

Wingnuts and probably others are being told that we will have to take several hits (by nukes) if we don't act in the most extreme way. They also say the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

Taken together those two statements allow our 'leaders' to discard all restraint and do whatever they want with the full support of some people.

The question is, do we still have the Rule of Law or will they in fact be allowed to act without restraint of Law.

Where are the Leaders this country desperately needs?

[Mary]

Uh, why are we even debating whether he will or won't go into Iran? From the beginning it was clear this is the exact path this madman was intent on following - the only change that was needed for them was moving an "n" into a "q." Rather than tying up our brains with this "unknown known," can't we focus on other areas where debate is more needed? Is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that there's no question that this is the game plan?

[herefast123]

acer aspire 1600 battery

[herefast123]

acer travelmate 2500 battery