Recently in intelligence Category

More from the U.S. War of Terror. Two years ago officials of the Central Intelligence Agency purposefully destroyed taped evidence of its torture program.

They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

The CIA guys were put in a difficult position: more or less ordered by their President to torture prisoners suspected of belonging to al Qaeda in an moment of history--the tapes were made in 2002--when many Americans were willing to look the other way. But it should go without saying that torture is never okay, never justified. Many studies have proven it generally doesn't provide reliable information as the victim says whatever they think their captor wants to hear just to end the pain. How many court cases against real al Qaeda agents are going to have to be thrown out now that we know the evidence is a product of abuse?

There are times when men and women of honor have to say no to their superiors, no to their President and no to the American people, when they must draw a line in the sand for the sake of decency and humanity. That would have been hard enough in 2002. But to destroy the evidence is 2005 is pure obstruction of justice. The CIA is hiding the acts it performed in our name from us. Everyone involved in the cover-up and destruction belongs in jail. Let's hope for democracy's sake that they end up there.

Fascinating details coming out about the new U.S intelligence estimate on Iran. It was released two days after a major meeting of world powers in Paris, a meeting where sanctions and Iran were discussed. So what's with the timing? Did Condoleeza just not get it back from Kinkos in time? If you're about to release a major report that will reshape half a decade of U.S.-Iranian relations, maybe you whip up a quick power point presentation for the weekend powwow in Paris?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is touting this as a victory for his country: "This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue." I'm not sure it's exactly a victory but it is a confirmation of what he's been claiming for years: Iran is not building a bomb. The victory is in the Bush Administration implicit acknowledgment that it's not always right. Of course Bush is not the kind of guy who can really ever admit he's wrong and he's still throwing snipes out: Condi "told reporters in the Ethiopian capital Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence report's public release showed the Bush administration was committed to transparent democracy while Iran was not."

Now I actually agree that we can't downplay Iran. The country doesn't have the kind of openness and democracy that should be a basic human right. If it could get the bomb, I'm sure it would. What major regional power wouldn't want it? With all the internationally bullying going around it's not a bad thing to have in your back pocket.  President Bush declared a de facto Cold War against Iraq in his 2002 State of Union "Axis of Evil" speech.

But one thing about Iran is that it's Iraq twenty years later. If Iran's civic structure is broken, then the West is largely to blame. The British and Soviets invaded Iran in 1941 to secure oil supplies and it was they who put in power Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran. When Pahlavi lost power in the early 1950s, the U.S. Central Intelligence agency led a covert operation called Operation Ajax to put him back in power (the project was led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Teddy's grandson). In 1969 the so-called Nixon Doctrine formalized the Shah's Iran as a key American ally. The Iranian Revolution changed all this and along with the brutal Iran-Iraq War created the Iran we know today.

It's easy to forget that we've long supported dictators who promised us a steady supply of oil. Saddam Hussein was our buddy until he threatened Kuwaiti oil fields. If the United States had spent the last thirty years working on building strong democracies in the Middle East then both Iraq and Iran would most likely be peaceful, strong nations without any great strong incentive to put in the massive investment needed to develop weapons of mass destruction. Might oil cost a few dollars more a barrel? Sure. But isn't that worth the thousands of American, Iraqi and Iranian lives that have been destroyed in twenty years of near-constant warfare? 

In a stunning turnaround, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran has not been trying to build atomic weapons since 2003:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

First thoughts: what would the world be like if we had seen a statement like this regarding Iraq in early 2003? We know now that Saddam Hussein had long since abandoned nuclear aspirations and that his military infrastructure was so weakened by years of embargoes that it was a threat to no one. A number of us challenged the Bush Administration's experts, pointing to the weaknesses in the evidence publicly presented. It's hard to hide a major weapons program or a major alliance like the Saddam-Al Qaeda partnership. If these had been real we would have had more convincing evidence.

Sanctions and international pressure successfully stopped Saddam Hussein's ambitions against Iraq's neighbors. If the world had just waited him out, he might have eventually been deposed or even come around--who would have thought that Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi would still be around in 2007 and that the U.S. would have full diplomatic relations with him!

Second thoughts: we've been rattling the sabers of war for four years? What if Bush had actually started a war with Iran?

Third thoughts: all indications were that the U.S. intelligence agencies have been under intense pressures to deliver assessments that fit with Administration policy: Bush wants to fight Saddam and the CIA gives him lame reasons that Congress is too weak to challenge. Does today's turnaround signal the waning of the Bush powers in these last years of his Presidency so that the National Intelligence Estimate is finally credible? Or has the White House decided it doesn't want to continue threatening war? The conspiracy-minded will note that the Iowa Caucus is exactly a month away and will ask which Republican candidate stands to gain from a stand-down with Iran.

Finally, for now, the fourth thought: Iran has had a vested interest in looking tough. What will happen there now? Fortunately this latest report paints an Iranian leadership that's rational, saying that its "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." Iran is still a dangerous country (as is the U.S.) so what happens now?