You know, this sure does sound familiar.
Some senior [tag]Bush[/tag] administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the [tag]threat[/tag]s that they say [tag]Iran[/tag] presents to the United States.
Some policy makers have accused [tag]intelligence[/tag] agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.
The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
In other words, there are a number of high-ranking Republican officials who want a [tag]confrontation[/tag] with a Middle Eastern country they believe is an imminent threat. Intelligence officials consider the foreign foe a problem, but haven’t produced the evidence the Republicans want to see. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the intelligence officials — they’re getting in the way of a perfectly good war. Sound familiar?
As Matthew Yglesias put it, “After all, last time there was a dispute like that, the alarmist politicians were completely vindicated and the skeptics in the intelligence community definitively refuted. You all remember that. Right?”
GOP leaders have drawn their conclusions, so naturally, it’s time to find evidence that supports those conclusions. Of course, since we know bupkis about the current state of the Iranian threat, that might be a problem.
“American intelligence agencies do not know nearly enough about Iran’s nuclear weapons program” to help policymakers at a critical time, the report’s authors say. Information “regarding potential Iranian chemical weapons and biological weapons programs is neither voluminous nor conclusive,” and little evidence has been gathered to tie Iran to al-Qaeda and to the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, they say.
Noting “significant gaps” in U.S. intelligence, Fleitz’s report suggests that the United States could not effectively engage in talks with Tehran.
As Kevin summarized the situation, “It’s not just that we don’t really know anything about their nuclear, biological, etc. programs. We don’t even know enough to talk to them intelligently.”
I find it more than a little disconcerting that we’re seeing the exact same drama being played out, step by step, despite the tragic mistakes that unfolded the last time. What makes these guys think they have any credibility left on assessing foreign threats?
Of course, if they stick to the script, the next scene will feature a generous dose of cherry-picking, behind-the-scenes chats with the British about “fixing” intelligence around a policy, and media allies bolstering conservatives’ talking points. That last point has already begun in earnest.
Today on MSNBC, Chris Mathews hosted a segment entitled “Is Iran Next?” Matthews said that Bill Kristol and other neoconservatives “may be right” when they argue that Bush “has to hit” Iran militarily.
It’s like deja vu all over again.