Without debating whether the Central Intelligence Agency has become a bastion of mush-brained liberalism, politicized to a fare-thee-well, it is instructive to consider a maxim of operational intelligence:
In the absence of knowledge of an enemy’s intent, one must plan based on his capability.
There are several points of concern about this maxim. Is Iran an enemy of the United States? Do we have knowledge, or absence thereof, of Iran’s intent? Do we have an understanding of Iran’s capabilities?
The ‘people’ of Iran not withstanding the hyperbole of its rulers, Mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem to be decent people trapped in a overbearing, self-destructive and intolerant political system. The ongoing efforts of the reformists, the continuing saga of student political prisoners, and the jailed media representatives suggest that the ‘enemy’, if in fact it is an enemy, consists solely of the Mullahs, the government and its direct representatives [Iranian Revolutionary Guards]. Any people will, from time to time, express nationalistic pride, and one can hardly hold that against a population— the fact that Ahmadinejad stands up against the US and postures has some component of this. The fact that Ahmadinejad was directly responsible, in that he participated in the 1979 hostage situation at the American Embassy, is of more concern. As are his continual tirades against the US, comments advocating the extinction of Israel, and his participation in conferences with Hugo Chavez — participation which brings potential consequences of an alliance much closer to home. Given Ahmadinejad’s public stance, his history with the US, and the general antipathy of the Mullahs for western civilization, categorization of Iran’s ruling class as ‘enemies’ is certainly warranted. And since the ruling class is in control of its military, weapons program and a delivery means, caution is warranted.
Do we have knowledge of Iran’s intent? Iran has publically supported Hezbollah and delivered arms and ammunition to them in Gaza. Iran has publicly stated that the destruction of Israel is on the agenda. Hezbollah has initiated attacks, using Iranian provided weapons, including advanced missiles, on Israel displaying a general pattern of consistency: I say X, I do Y in support of X. This pattern is repeated in Iraq where advanced IED and self-forging projectile weapons were provided by the IRG for use against American troops. The pattern is repeated again with regard to the Persian Gulf and the capture of a British patrol boat.
Iran has repeatedly stated its intent to obtain nuclear weapons, has demonstrated before the IAEA the capability to produce weapons grade material, has increased its capacity to produce that same material, and has tested complex explosive devices and detonators whose only purpose can be to trigger a nuclear weapon. Again the consistent pattern: I say X, and I do Y in support of X.
Consequently, overt intent appears to be in place. Now consider the absence of intent. We have an bureacuracy of the United States, tasked with the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence stating that it appears that Iran has suspended (not given up) its weapons program in 2003 in the face of international pressure. If, in fact this is the case, why would Iran not make statements in an international venue designed to reduce pressure on the trade and financial restrictions already imposed. Further, given the decision was made in 2003, why maintain the hyperbole through the last several years? The CIA’s finding doesn’t state that the intent is not to obtain weapons — just to suspend the attempt to do so. The CIA’s finding in its NIE doesn’t establish absence of intent.
But even so, say that it did. The maxim states that in the absence of intent, use capability. What are Iran’s capabilities? Iran has already obtained fissionable materials. They have already obtained designs and working models of separation centrifuges. They have already designed and tested critical explosive components. The only thing that hasn’t been mentioned is any attempt to obtain tritium. [No modern weapons designer would forgo the yield improvements a boosted core would provide.] A quick Google search reveals an attempt to do just that with their ARAK heavy water facility.
Add to these specific components the general component of physics and engineering education. Iran has certainly produced its share of PhDs, some at American Universities. Iranian designers are clearly as capable as other national designers, especially augmented with information from Pakistan’s A. Q. Khan.
Finally, Iran as demonstrated the capability to deliver weapons with their 2000 km range Shahab-4 missiles. Delivery is most often neglected in the analysis of nuclear weapon systems overshadowed by the physics package of the bomb itself. Iran has tested a trans-stage bus design. This is the component that allows a (heavy) payload to be successfully launched. In short, Iran has the capability to design, manufacture, and deliver a nuclear weapon. The only thing missing is the weapons test, which would be a dead giveaway.
As such, given the maxim, the only prudent thing any administration can do is to assume based on the capability, and plan accordingly. Many political pundits and international optimists have fixated on the poorly written NIE and it’s assertion that Iran has stopped WMD fabrication and have pushed for policy to reflect that misguided belief. Our allies in the region are waiting to see how the administration will respond in policy statements (often in bewilderment as to how an administration could even allow such a document to be released). Our only reasonable reaction is to continue to assess Iran as the threat that it is. Deriding this administration, or any administration for that matter, for proceeding in accordance with a capability assessment, is policy suicide.
January 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm
what about the Soviet Union?
January 9, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Consider the following scenario. There is a large, nuclear capable nation. It spends more money on its military than anyone else, by an order of magnitude. Although the governmental structure is stable, the leadership changes, on average, once every 4 years. The same leadership is never in place for more then 8.
They invade and occupy your neighbor (who you hate).
You don’t really understand their intentions (sometimes they don’t themselves) but you know they have 1000s of nukes. I guess you have to go with their capability.
January 10, 2008 at 11:54 am
I guess you have to go with their capability.
That’s exactly right. And you should roll over and show your belly with remarkable speed (unless you enjoy never needing a flashlight to find your way around at night).
Especially since one of the other things you know about that large nation is that there’s one sovereign method to foil their aggressive and imperialistic approach: put down your weapons and walk away.
Even if you just do it metaphorically: Keep to yourselves, never go closer than 100 ft of your borders and invite lots and lots of foreign journalists from that aforementioned big country and its allies to wander around your border area.
Unfortunately, of course, left out of the scenario is the fact that you’re run by fanatic troublemakers with delusions of grandeur and a desire to dominate your neighbors. Making it hard to admit that you should probably not keep poking the large nation with a sharp pointy stick…
January 10, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Sigh!
You forgot to mention that the large nation had already used nuclear weapons and incinerated 100,000 Nipponese. The moral calculus of 1945 was different from today and hopefully we will never again see warfare as indiscriminant, although one wonders in the case of certain African nations. Richard Rhoades makes this point over and over in “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”.
Also you should consider that the nature of warfare has changed considerably. I don’t have the citation on hand, but a recent Air Force study compares the targeting precision and battle damage assesments for WWII and the Gulf War. What took 200,000 tons of bombs on B-17s in over 2500 sorties was accomplished with less than 20 sorties and 400,000 lbs of bombs in the Gulf War. So the large military budget is actually leveraged quite a bit through precision and stealth. Additionally, after the Gulf War, most nations completely changed their war-fighting doctrine after the ‘demonstration’. So while your scenario might apply to nation-on-nation, the rules are somewhat different on nation-on-superpower. Oh, and that large nation didn’t become a superpower by relying on agressive wars.
…keep poking the large nation with a sharp pointy stick.
An interesting article by Walter Mead in today’s Wall Street Journal points out that in the majority of cases where the US has gone to war, the casus belli has been related to shipping, military or otherwise: Thomas Jefferson sent the navy to battle Barbary pirates in the Med; the War of 1812 arguably was caused by British attacks on American commerce shipping; Andrew Jackson retaliated for Sumatran attacks on shipping in 1830; the USS Maine sinking in Havana started the Spanish American War; Pearl Harbor led the US to enter WWII; 1964 Tonkin Gulf led Johnson to request use of force for Indochina; the USS Pueblo seizure in 1968 by North Korea led to a near crises; Ford send combat troops back to the Vietnam area after Cambodia siezed the container ship Mayaguez; Regean dispatched forces to Libya in 1980 when Gadhafi tried to seal international waters; and even Bill Clinton moved forces when China fired missiles into the straits of Taiwan.
For Iran to send patrol boats to irritate US Naval forces in the Straits of Hormuz is definitely classified as ‘poking with a large pointy stick’ and in addition is just plain stupid.
One other item that comes to mind is that Iran is an Aryan nation and the driving fundamentalists are Whahabi Muslims who are Arab. Little love is lost between them. So some of the posturing may be an attempt to deprive the Whahabis of their position — who can out-fundamentalist the other, which keeps attention centered away from Iran, which as I mentioned has its own internal dissent elements.
Nonetheless, Iran is tacking into a dangerous wind and perhaps should study a little history with its fatwas.
January 12, 2008 at 1:34 am
As such, given the maxim, the only prudent thing any administration can do is to assume based on the capability, and plan accordingly.
The very idea that any maxim that the CIA holds is insightful and truthful is defied by the history of failure that organization can be so proud of. By the way, how many more times are we supposed to fall for this fake, they shot at us first trick?
January 12, 2008 at 10:03 pm
..any maxim that the CIA holds…
This is a maxim of operational intelligence, which is not attributed to the CIA. In fact, that maxim has been around since Sun Tzu and known by Niccolo Machiavelli, Carl von Clausewitz and B.H. Liddell Hart, as well as modern military commanders.
Also, if I were an intelligence organization, and had no choice in the matter of whether my ops were public, it would be pretty good cover to make like I was incompetent and ‘defied by the history of failure’.. Just sayin….
January 15, 2008 at 2:58 am
I Got What America Needs Right Here
By Jimmy Carter
January 9, 2008 |
The Onion Issue 44•02
Original comment deleted for blatant misuse of intellectual property and copyright violations.
January 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm
underdog says:
what about the Soviet Union?
I’m not sure what Underdog was trying to say but this is a good point. “Capability” may be very hard to define. The CIA was notoriously bad at assessing the Soviet Union’s capability. This is chronicled in a chapter in Nicholas Eberstat’s book The Tyranny of Numbers:
http://www.aei.org/books/filter.all,bookID.266/book_detail.asp
In short, the CIA’s estimates were WAY off, grossly incoherent and biased very high. So while capability is the thing to look at, one has to be very careful about measuring it.
March 6, 2008 at 10:05 am
[…] they probably don’t. Nevermind. As the Angry Political Optimist pointed out, the NIE can be conveniently ignored because we know Iran’s history as a bunch of very bad […]