In a report issued on Monday, the National Intelligence Estimate, which is comprised of members United States intelligence agencies, said with "high confidence" that Iran halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. This brings new light to the discussion of Iran's intentions, especially after a similar report which was issued in 2005 stated that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
The Bush administration, in a fashion not unlike that which it used with statements regarding Iraq, is now trying to cover for its prior erroneous statements. President Bush stated on Tuesday that he still sees Iran as a threat to produce nuclear weapons, saying that, "They had the program. They halted the program. It's a warning signal because they could restart it." This comment came despite the assessment's statement that, even if Iran were to resume its nuclear weapons program immediately, it would not produce enough highly-enriched uranium (one of the key ingredients in a nuclear weapon) until the middle part of the next decade, at the earliest.
Earlier on Tuesday, Democratic leaders criticized Bush's continually hyped-up rhetoric regarding the "threat" posed by Iran, despite his knowledge that an investigation into Iran's nuclear capabilities was, and had been, underway for the past year. Bush tried to claim that, in August, he had only been informed that there was "new information" present about Iran which would "take a while to analyze," but he did not know the substance of this information.
Maybe it's just me, and maybe Hopkins has just fueled my intellectual curiosity so much that I was taken aback by this statement, but wouldn't any logically-thinking person, not to mention the leader of the free world, be curious to know what this "new information" pertained to? And I have a strong hunch that his intelligence advisor would not have told him that it was privileged information. Shouldn't the president seek to be as informed as possible about the situation regarding Iran, especially in the wake of the false lead-up to the Iraq war?
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) echoed this sentiment, not restraining his opinions in the slightest: "Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" Biden said in a conference call with reporters. He went on to say, "I refuse to believe that. If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history." Preach on, Joe Biden, preach on.
While I do not disagree with the notion that Iran is hostile to American interests, it seems that the administration's constant warnings regarding Iran's supposed nuclear program were fully intended to again mislead the American public. Fortunately for us, the president cannot deny the facts this time and seems to be digging himself into quite a hole in regards to the situation with Iran.
The president feels that the sanctions which have been imposed in the past, both by the United States and the international community, have been the most effective in causing Iran to halt its pursuit of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
While it is impossible to know, without further investigation into Iran's halted nuclear program, what the exact cause was, Bush may very well be correct in this assumption. However, this is no reason to, as he urges, continue to press Iran with even stricter sanctions. Shouldn't we give them credit for not misleading us?
I don't believe we should relinquish all sanctions, as Iran is still a potentially hazardous threat to U.S. interests, but we must give some type of credit where credit is due, all the while ensuring, through continued vigilant surveillance and investigation, that Iran does not again begin to pursue a nuclear weapons program.
