12-04-2007, 03:18 PM
[black][size 5]An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran[/size][/black]
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here. [url "javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/03/washington/04assess_2ready.html', '04assess_2ready', 'width=720,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')"][font "Arial"][#004276][/#004276][/font][/url] [font "Verdana"][#000000][/#000000][/font] [/url]
An administration that had cited [url "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo"][#004276]Iran[/#004276][/url]’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.
The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion — that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses — will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.
It will certainly weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, as a senior administration official grudgingly acknowledged. And it will raise questions, again, about the integrity of America’s beleaguered intelligence agencies, including whether what are now acknowledged to have been overstatements about Iran’s intentions in a 2005 assessment reflected poor tradecraft or political pressure
sorry bushie, no new war for you and your buds to make huge profits off our servicemens blood . . .
[url "http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?hp"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?hp[/url]
sm
[signature]
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here. [url "javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/03/washington/04assess_2ready.html', '04assess_2ready', 'width=720,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')"][font "Arial"][#004276][/#004276][/font][/url] [font "Verdana"][#000000][/#000000][/font] [/url]
An administration that had cited [url "http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo"][#004276]Iran[/#004276][/url]’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy — as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago — now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach.
The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate’s conclusion — that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses — will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.
It will certainly weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, as a senior administration official grudgingly acknowledged. And it will raise questions, again, about the integrity of America’s beleaguered intelligence agencies, including whether what are now acknowledged to have been overstatements about Iran’s intentions in a 2005 assessment reflected poor tradecraft or political pressure
sorry bushie, no new war for you and your buds to make huge profits off our servicemens blood . . .
[url "http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?hp"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?hp[/url]
sm
[signature]