Mossad Disagrees With US Intelligence About Iran
Given the recent record of US intelligence (Pakistan, Iraq, NK, etc.), I’m inclined to believe Mossad.
Israel’s Mossad spy agency estimates Iran will develop a nuclear weapon within three years and continue to provide rockets to regional armed groups, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Mossad director Meir Dagan, in an intelligence assessment presented to Israel’s powerful foreign affairs and defence committee on Monday, said the Jewish state would face increased threats on all fronts, Maariv daily said.
Dagan’s estimate of Iran’s nuclear ambitions differs sharply from an assessment by the US intelligence community late last year that said Iran had mothballed its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
That report compiled by 16 US intelligence agencies said the Islamic republic would not be able to attain a nuclear weapon until 2015.
Huh. Does this mean the last NIE could be wrong? Whodathunkit?
Posted by Tony Turner on February 06, 2008 at 0626 hrsI think you’d choose to believe whatever supported the most hawkish policies out there.
Posted by scott on February 06, 2008 at 0838 hrsUhh...ok. Perhaps instead of using your extensive knowledge of what I “choose to believe” to take this dialog exactly nowhere, perhaps you could comment on the actual story that Owen teed up for us.
Posted by Tony Turner on February 06, 2008 at 0922 hrsWhat I’ve commented on is Owen’s introductory comment about that story.
Posted by scott on February 06, 2008 at 0926 hrsWhich is better?
Thinking Iran isn’t developing nukes and supplying terrorists when they are.
Or thinking they are when they aren’t.
Posted by Matt on February 06, 2008 at 1040 hrsAnd Mossad does not have an agenda…
Posted by on February 06, 2008 at 1809 hrsI think you’d choose to believe whatever supported the most hawkish policies out there.
Rule number 12 - You’re an idiot.
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 1508 hrsIf that’s the most thoughtful and convincing rebuttal you can muster, then I think we can conclude that I’m absolutely correct in my belief.
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1559 hrsJust like the liberal crap you spout on your website doesnt have the same slant only the other way.
Jason, where do I get the rule book, because I agree with Rule number 12.
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 1633 hrsHey, instead of insulting each other, answer my question!
Posted by Matt on February 07, 2008 at 1649 hrsMatt,
I would think we are better off thinking they have them, and if they dont were better off. Putting our head in the sand and hoping is the wrong way to go.
How do you propose to find out one way or the other.
Do you think Ahmadinejad would allow anyone in to find out?
Well at least we have until 2015 until he hits the button..
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 1709 hrsMatt, I don’t think your question is as helpful as you seem to think it is. I mean, which is better? Thinking Iran has nukes and preemptively nuking them, killing millions of people and sending world politics into a tailspin the likes of which it hasn’t seen since WWII? Or thinking Iran doesn’t have nukes and it threatening Israel with destruction, potentially killing millions of people and sending world politics into a tailspin the likes of which hasn’t been seen since WWII?
I guess I won’t disagree with you if you say you have a preference! But can we really talk about one being “better”? Both options are almost unthinkable in their undesirability.
My earlier point was meant to suggest that Neocons don’t have a lot of credibility in terms of who he trusts for intelligence.
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1710 hrsScott,
Here’s why your argument is full of baloney. You said:
I think you’d choose to believe whatever supported the most hawkish policies out there.
OK, fine. You believe that I think that way. How am I supposed to disprove your assertion? I can tell you that your assertion is not true, but you will just think I’m lying.
But the truth is that the only one who can truly know what’s in my mind is me. I’m kind of an authority on it. And you have no standing to tell me that I’m thinking something that I’m not thinking.
So you can sit back in your smugness and declare victory all you want. You’re wrong and it’s pointless to argue with it because I can’t do a mind meld with you to prove that you’re wrong.
Posted by Owen on February 07, 2008 at 1728 hrsIt’s true, I can’t do anything but guess as to what you will or won’t believe in the future. But on the other hand, all it would take to prove me wrong is for you to cite a single example of you championing (or speaking favorably of) an intelligence assessment that was not citing an increase in danger (and thus presumably a more hawkish response).
I’m not going to beat a dead horse, though. You’re right, it was a throwaway comment. But it wasn’t really meant as a challenge to you. I wasn’t necessarily expecting a rebuttal. After all, I’m only expressing my private opinion about what you are likely and unlikely to believe.
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1734 hrsLike this?
Posted by Owen on February 07, 2008 at 1741 hrsYeah, I guess like that. You’re going to say that “it’s good news” amounts to “speaking favorably of,” no doubt. If we were playing dictionary, I guess I could go with it. But frankly, you looked at the report and said “let’s not get too complacent,” saying that their inside track is not too far off. Still urging a more aggressive response.
What would really have impressed me is if you’d said “whoa, this report seems to be saying things aren’t so bad, therefore maybe we should ratchet our saber rattling down a notch.”
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1749 hrsFurthermore, I object to the “guilt by absence” tactic used by both sides. For example, I have not posted anything about the recent revelations about abuse in the Miwaukee Catholic Church. Does that mean that I don’t condemn the abuse? Or you haven’t posted anything about the Hsu fiasco. Do you not think his corruption is important?
The truth is that each of us are just a person. We blog about what catches our eye within the confines of time and energy. One should not take the lack of a post on a particular topic as proof of anything.
Posted by Owen on February 07, 2008 at 1750 hrsYeah, shame on me for reading the whole report and not cherry picking it.
But impressing you is not one of my life goals. I can live with that.
Posted by Owen on February 07, 2008 at 1752 hrsI guess what I’m trying to say, Owen, is that you’re so hawkish by nature I bet you’d take any intelligence report and read it in a more threatening way than I would--or when faced with conflicting reports you’d go with the scariest one and you’d urge the most aggressive response. That’s how you strike me. i’ve been reading your blog and discussing things with you for a while now, and that’s how you seem to me.
If you want to say I’m wrong, say I’m wrong. But that’s how I perceive you. And I bet I’m not alone on it.
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1756 hrsScott, this is why I brought up Rule #12. You have proven that you are. Sorry that you don’t like it, it’s understandable, but until you prove that you aren’t, it’s not going to change.
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 1801 hrsWell now that’s a slightly different opinion. Yes, I’m less likely to ignore the warnings written into those reports. I’m also guessing that I perceive the threat of a nuclear Iran to be a greater threat than many people. So when a report says that Iran could be nuclear within 2 years, I am more likely to take that prospect seriously.
That’s a far cry from “I think you’d choose to believe whatever supported the most hawkish policies out there,” which insinuates that I only believe the negative data and disbelieve the positive data. The first scenario is just that we see the world and its relative threats differently. The second scenario suggests that I am blinded by my belief system and not capable of believing anything that doesn’t fit within that system.
I’m OK with the first scenario. That’s just human nature. I take offense at the assertion of the second scenario, because that portrays me as an unthinking robot for the VRWC.
Posted by Owen on February 07, 2008 at 1803 hrsJason, rule number 13 is shut the fuck up if all you have to contribute is an insult.
Posted by scott on February 07, 2008 at 1932 hrsOvertaxed- Iran has term limits, he will not be President in 2015.
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 1950 hrsIsn’t this the same kind of BS that got us into Iraq?
And then there is this kind of thing to keep in mind.
A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, “The Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the US is a high priority target.”
Fox quoted a spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington who issued a denial saying that any suggestion that Israelis are spying in or on the US is “simply not true.”What is Pollard in jail for?
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 2032 hrsOops forgot the link to the whole thing.
http://www.rense.com/general18/israelinewsreports.htm
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 2034 hrsJason, rule number 13 is shut the fuck up if all you have to contribute is an insult.
Well, if you had followed that rule, this wouldn’t have happened, right, idiot?
Posted by on February 07, 2008 at 2208 hrsI’m inclined to believe Mossad as well. And the Jewish state have reason to fear if this report is indeed true since Israel would or is a target of Iran.
Posted by Humus on February 08, 2008 at 0212 hrs
Ol' Army
