The West's intelligence deficit on Iran
John Stokes 4:46pm
At the headquarters of the Defense Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, there are no cardboard mockups of Iran’s nuclear sites that can be used for briefing the military on plans of attack. Instead, there is a very cool 3D map table that allows the viewer to fly into and through the many layers of the nuclear facilities.
A movement of the hands can expand or contract the view from an image of an individual room to the perspective from an overhead satellite. On the basis of that briefing, an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites looks easy, right down to the dialing in of the depth at which a new line of bunker busting bombs would have to detonate to do the maximum damage.
If only the reality of intelligence was so simple. The harsh facts on the ground are that neither a single intelligence agency, nor the collective wisdom of the Brits, Israelis, French and Americans, has given us a full picture of what is going on either in Iran’s nuclear program or in the minds of the leadership in Tehran.
It is that lack of confidence in the intelligence that has constrained all western diplomatic activity so far. Behind all the rhetoric designed to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions lies one simple question: if diplomacy fails, would a military strike succeed?
The answer, as in so much military planning, is an equivocal ‘maybe’.
For the last decade, intense effort has been put into trying to understand the extent of Iran’s nuclear program. There have been some successes: the discovery of a laptop which revealed a great deal about the programme and the recruitment of some spies have both been helpful.
However, there is nobody who will confidently predict that a military attack by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be effective. Certainly the known sites could be destroyed but one depressing scenario suggests that Iran has a much more developed nuclear weapons programme than is thought, that the really secret sites remain undetected and the consequences of a preemptive strike by the US might be a retaliatory strike against Washington, Paris or London with devastating consequences.
The wild card in all this is Israel, which has good intelligence sources inside Iran. The Israelis have made clear that they will have no hesitation in launching a preemptive strike to safeguard their homeland. They argue that even if Iran has a more extensive nuclear programme, an attack is worth the risk.
If Iran agrees this week to a Western proposal to ship its uranium to Russia for reprocessing, there is no guarantee that the nuclear program will end. On the contrary, US intelligence is certain that Iran has other hidden and still secret nuclear sites where work on developing a nuclear bomb could continue.
Current estimates suggest that Tehran could have a nuclear bomb by the end of next year or early 2011, although other estimates place the date somewhere in 2014. But, then, those estimates have always been wrong before. Israel, South Africa, Libya, Pakistan and India all had secret nuclear programs the extent of which were a surprise to US intelligence agencies once they were exposed. And, on the other hand, where US intelligence believed that Iraq had a nuclear program, there was none.
Previous
TomTom
October 27th, 2009 5:02pm Report this commentThe Shah had a nuclear weapons programme also until persuaded to stop. Gordon Brown's new friend Ghaddaffi is quoted in German press as saying every Arab country should have nuclear weapons - even the Palestinians. So much for MI6 diplomacy !
It is not the topology of nuclear weapons sites that is the problem, but the mindset of the Muslims with them. If Iran is attacked what does Pakistan do ? What does India do ?
This is the key issue. Should India eradicate Pakistan ? Will it be imperative if Pakistan reacts to an attack on Iran ? How far is 'Shaheed' a political concept in the event of nuclear war....in short how mad are these men really ?
The Cold War worked because Russians play chess sand had experienced Wehrmacht devastation but it still did not stop the CinC on Cuba in 1962 demanding sole authority to attack US cities in the event communications with Moscow were disrupted.
So, who knows what lies ahead ? Obama is on the job so probably nothing from our side
Bocephus
October 27th, 2009 6:06pm Report this commentWhat the hell is the "EU Naval Task Force?"
JONNY
October 27th, 2009 6:36pm Report this commentI thought America was trying to get out of its 2 existing unwinnable wars.
Now you seem to be suggesting they should embark on another even riskier even more unwinnable one. In alliance with Israel, the pre-emptive strike experts. And in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition.
This is Domesday Stuff. I hope people realise it.
God help us if they're thinking like this in the White House.
George Steiner
October 27th, 2009 11:09pm Report this commentThe arogance of simpleminded scriblers. Do you think the Israelis or the Americans would tell you what they really know?
Amadeus Plonquer
October 28th, 2009 3:51am Report this commentWhat is the point of any country having a nuclear deterrent if it's not willing to use it? The idea of attempting to use surgical military strikes to take out certain facilities is no deterrent. Iran must be faced with complete anilhilation from which there will be no return. Starting with Tehran and progressing on a daily basis until they conform.
That's how deterrents work.
Alastair Henderson
October 28th, 2009 6:18am Report this commentVery interesting article but could you please stop using the derogatory term 'Brits' for British
daniel maris
October 28th, 2009 8:50am Report this commentTom Tom has it completely right (unfortunately). And in these circumstances the precautionary principle has to apply (and should have applied to Pakistan as well - recently we had the Taliban 50 miles from getting their hands on some nukes - nice prospect).
We have to have regard to the intransigence of the Muslim world - its refusal to make peace with Israel, to allow religious tolerance, to accept universal human rights (the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, representing all Muslim countries refuses to endorse the UN human rights declaration and has its own version which is anything but).
And it is entirely reasonable to conclude that such intransigence will translate into the world of nuclear-orientated nuclear diplomacy.
Don't forget Ahmadinejad believes in the imminent return of the Mahdi, an end time, the destruction of Israel, the oppression and torture of his own people to cling on to power, the coming triumph of the Shiahs over the Sunnis and the impending death of America. You couldn't have a more incendiary mix.
Anyone displaying insouciance in this context is definitely playing lead trombone on the Titanic.
logdon
October 28th, 2009 9:40am Report this commentAlastair Henderson
October 28th, 2009 6:18am
Gerry Adams and his bunch of kneecapping merry men referred to us as Brits. However, respond with Paddy and watch what happens.
Pakistanis call us anything from kuffar to ghorra, both derogatory in intent. Use the word Paki ( a shortened Pakistani as Brit is an abbreviation of British) and you're being racist.
The whole thing is make it up as you go. Feign outraged sensibillity and the world and it's brother is coo-cooing. As long as you're not a white European or American, that is.
As that sage, the most reverend Al Sharpton once said..
Hey ho, hey ho
Western civ has got to go.
The fact that 'western civ' was paying his wages was beside the point.
Abe eastwood
October 28th, 2009 9:59am Report this comment"if diplomacy fails, would a military strike succeed?"
Succedd in what? Massive death and destruction, creating more hatred towards the west. Eventually being told that the inteligence was "faulty", just like Iraq.
The west needs to stop messing in Irans affairs.
daniel maris
October 28th, 2009 6:35pm Report this commentAbe Eastwood -
Perhaps we would if they hadn't been promoting terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, the UK, Argentina and a few other places we could mention. Iran loves nothing more than interfering in other people's affairs and daily prays, literally, for the death of Israel and the death of America. Charming people. Another case of "do as we say, not as we do". They could easily but out of everyone else's affairs: they choose not to.
We need less intelligence as in military knowledge and more intelligence as in brain power.
Back to top