It is always important to know what you don’t know.

"It is always important to know what you don’t know," that's how Stormwarning started his latest post. When it comes to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, no truer words have ever been spoken. We are talking about intelligence reports that will determine our foreign policy toward Iran, so it seems to be any 'estimates' that our intelligence agencies produce should at least be somewhat reliable.

I submit that "What we don't know, is what we NEED to know." -- What we don't know, can get us and others killed." "What the NIE says it may know, with either low, or medium or high confidence, is not the same thing as what we REALLY know, backed up by facts." Americans expect better than this.

Stormwarning quotes from another BLOG, Haft of the Spear, in his article Gaming Intelligence:

● the latest NIE says Iran is up to suggests that either we have multiple, unimpeachable sources of intelligence that have shown us the light; or the information we have is all over the map and drawing definitive conclusions is next to impossible.

OK, how UN-helpful can intelligence reports like that possibly be? Haft of the Spear ends his excellent article with this (emphasis mine as always):

So the dramatic shift in the NIE may have less to do with any killer piece of new information and everything to do with the fact that the community is in a mindset that has them prepared to do anything (anything but apply a full-court intel press against hard targets – and pay the associated human cost) to avoid being exposed as ineffective. In an age of information, spending ~$40 billion a year for 150 pages of “maybe yes, maybe no” isn’t a situation that is going to stand for long.

In the end the real story of this NIE will not be known from some time, but that will not prevent those on either side of the political spectrum from using it to score political points. Ignore the hype and rhetoric and read the key judgments carefully for yourself. Assume everything used to construct the work is accurate and base your own assessment on the language used: do you feel highly confident?

Stormwarning says:

The confusion and change in direction of this NIE compared to previous leads to the conclusion of an IC either pitifully broken, or one that is acting to avoid making mistakes. (read the entire article here)

My other friend Political Pistachio reports "Iran Did Not Abandon Nuclear Weapons Ambitions in 2003" while others say that Iran did stop one program, but started up another program in 2004 and 2006. (WSJ)

... Israel has "incriminating" information Iran has continued its nuclear weapons program, directly contradicting last week's U.S. Intelligence Report. In fact, an Israeli security official who has access to classified Israeli defense material and intelligence reports on Iran says that Iran is also continuing the acquisition and development of missiles, and that the U.S. estimates fall way short. He also adds that he believes the U.S. intel is "politically motivated."

Join in the discussion with Aaron Klein who is the Jerusalem bureau chief for www.worldnetdaily.com and will be discussing the NIE and Iranian nuclear ambitions live from Israel on Political Pistachio Radio this coming Wednesday, December 12th, 2007. Read more about this interview and others here.

In Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans, via SANE Works, the author says, "British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons program ... timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government ... security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA." It seems bloggers are not the only ones questioning the validity of the NIE.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons. (more at The Telegraph)

Other comments on the NIE:

"US Military Assessing Impact of Latest Intelligence Estimate on Iran", via Global Security, hat tip Great Satan's Girlfriend. (see her article "The 007 in NIE 2007")

The German Marshal Fund of the United States says "Modest findings, revolutionary affects":

The new NIE has a number of strategic implications. The first is that Iran may well opt for a prolonged near-nuclear or nuclear ready posture, putting aside the weapon design and engineering elements most likely to trigger preemptive action by Israel or the U.S.

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) is planning to introduce legislation to constitute a bipartisan congressional commission to investigate the report’s conclusions and specific intelligence on which they are based., via Blogger News Network.

From Financial Times, via Political Mavins

... there may be no “grand bargain” to be had. Most of the evidence suggests that the determination to get a nuclear bomb is a national project in Iran – uniting different political factions. The Iranians are not necessarily in a hurry. They might be deterred for a while. But the nuclear programme has become a symbol of national machismo – and is also widely regarded as a strategic necessity, given that Iran is surrounded by hostile powers.

NIE was a “quasi-putsch,” says Bolton, HotAir

The NIE's Threat to Israel, at the New York Sun:

Practically every aspect of the National Intelligence Estimate report on the Iranian nuclear program raises questions about its methodology and conclusions, (more)

And there's always Anti-War's version.

Other reading:
Terror 2.0 - al Qaeda Moves Online To Recruit and Train, National Terror Alert

Security experts are warning that terrorists are using the Internet for much more than propaganda and it may be the newest front in the War on Terror.

Experts say that the West doesn’t comprehend or understand al Qaeda’s ability to recruit, organize and carry out it’s various operations online. (continue reading in Online terror camps cut overhead, teach Google Earth target acquisition)

Global Security Officials Warn Of Dirty Bomb Threat

The warning continues that it’s still not a question of if, but of when…

_____________________________________________________________
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Stormwarning]

That we only have read the four filtered pages is the point. And it is the opint of knowning what we don’t know. Haft was not suggesting that we had the right to know those things. That post was only saying that we need to read the NIE in the context of knowing what we don’t know.

As for the polarization and split and hatred that we experience in everyday life, and especially on the Internet, IMO, it often comes from very defensive and uninformed people (not suggesting you here) who find it essential to call people names and then to play censor.

[Debbie]

I think the Haft of the Spear article was balanced, and simply asking the questions. It suggested people to read the entire NIE (which they have no right to comment on if they haven’t read it).

The problem with the media and blogs has been that we/they are only talking about a very small portion of the report. There is negative information in the report for Iran.

Of course Ahmadinejad didn’t talk about that today in his speech. He only commented on the one sentence, that Iran had stopped it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003. Period. He sees this as a good thing and wants to be friends with all countries (except Israel who isn’t human to begin with according to him).

Frankly I think we’ve come to a very sad state of affairs when EVERYTHING becomes political, when the US is split with so much hatred on both sides, AND when people start destroying tapes and documents because they are afraid their co-workers will leak them to the media for political reasons. Very sad.

[Stormwarning]

First of all, the premise is that it is always essential to know what you don't know. That doesn't mean that "we" have the right to know those things. It does mean that considering the pieces of information that we are given, knowing what we don't know (and being able to either ask the questions and/or hypothesize the answers), helps us to better understand the situation. None of this suggests that we have a "right" to know what we don't know. That was not the point made by Haft of the Spear.

[Rastaman]

The report is just propaganda. It doesn't mean a thing. It's just more power-jockeying with the Arab states. Disinformation.

[Stormwarning]

What we don't know, is stuff that we don't necessarily have a right to know, even if not knowing the answer will kill us.