A “Highly Confident” Friday Sermon from Iran

James S. Robbins wrote yesterday at NRO:

“The NIE has presented Iran with a major strategic opportunity. Iran’s best move at this point is to open some form of dialogue with the United States. Promote the idea that the “grand bargain” to settle the major issues of the region is possible, play into that instinct on our side. This will serve as a useful shield against attack by third parties, because if negotiations are afoot, we will strongly discourage any other country from taking military action. Keep the talks going for as long as possible. Periodically hint at breakthroughs, settle some minor issues, feed the vanity of diplomacy. Meanwhile move out vigorously on developing a nuclear-weapons capability. When the time comes to test the weapon, foment some kind of small crisis, break off talks (though not too belligerently), conduct the test, and blame the United States for making it necessary. Then call for a new round of talks, particularly about limiting nuclear proliferation in the region. Once Tehran has the Bomb, non-proliferation will be Iran’s number one priority. At least to anyone who might fight back.”

Oddly enough in today’s Friday Sermon, Expediency Council Chairman Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani “the Swell” spoke of the U.S. intelligence community and the recent NIE regarding Iranian “peaceful” nuclear intentions.

“the West should benefit from the positive points in Iran's nuclear case. "Why are you trying to distort the report presented by your own intelligence units? Why are you trying - based on your diversionary analysis - to consider the positive move of Russia, which has acted on its duty, in delivering the first fuel consignment of Bushehr nuclear power plant as an ultimatum?" Referring to positive moves taken in Iran's nuclear case, Iran's enhanced cooperation with the IAEA and providing answers to questions of the UN nuclear watchdog, and the report of the US intelligence units have on the whole been to a large extent in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

In what could be considered an “even chance,” which “almost certainly,” though if only “remotely” is a page taken from the NIE the Friday speaker said:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is the responsible party; is not after tension and sabotage and favors peace, calm and tranquility.”

I'll agree Iran is "responsible" for this mess, but how does an extremist government achieve the favored "peace, calm and tranquility?" Nukes? After all, he didn't say when and how.

In “Rafsanjani the Swells” closing (bold mine):

"To sum up, ever since the US president started speaking of the axis of evil, Americans have suffered the most damage. Americans raise their military budget annually. Their war casualties are high and they have many physical and psychological war disabled. This has turned into a disaster for them."

That the U.S. has “suffered the most damage” and “war casualties are high” is difficult to reckon what is being used “subjectively” by the bloodthirsty man of the soiled cloth; however “WITHOUT DOUBT (my intelligence estimate) he is not using the Iran/Iraq war of the 80’s casualties of Iran at roughly 1 million as his benchmark.

The Vindication of Iran

From the National Intelligence Estimate of December 3, 2007:

“What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language:

“We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate—and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely—to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge. These assessments and judgments generally are based on collected information, which often is incomplete or fragmentary. Some assessments are built on previous judgments. In all cases, assessments and judgments are not intended to imply that we have “proof” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.”

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"

Raymond Ibrahim, author of “The Al Qaeda Reader” wrote yesterday at NRO regarding language that couches the findings in the “estimate” along with the juxtaposition of the 2005 NIE and this newest (italics mine):”

“A ‘high confidence’ judgment is not a fact or certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong” — such as when NIE stated in 2005 (two years after “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”) that “[We] assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons.”’

We’ll have to assume this year’s estimate was not based on “assessments (are) built on previous judgments.”

It would appear that “intelligence estimates” serve the purposes of many on both sides of an argument and as much as none of the individuals involved would bet their lives on the finished report we should all pass on the “take your pick” NIE and consider Raymond Ibrahim’s closer on the subject of “intelligence” and common sense:

“When it comes to all things human, such as politics, “objective” science cannot always help; the irrational is, and always will be, a predominant factor in human relations that cannot be quantified and analyzed. But a little cognizance of human nature — common sense — goes a long way.

Bottom line: Yes, Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.”

At least Iran is making good use of the NIE.

For further consideration in what might be used as a guide in defining "common sense" give Great Satan's Girlfriend a visit and enjoy "Divine Intervention and the Date Police" (they don't just live inside of your head)

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Rambama Will Take Musharraf Down!

Al Qaeda drew "first blood," they don't know who they were messin' with...

Yesterday, we all got a good laugh when it was revealed that Democrat Presidential aspirant Barack Obama announced he would “invade Pakistan,” if necessary. My post with limited comments didn’t add much as what is there to add to the already ludicrous?

This morning, James S. Robbins has a great take over at NRO on Obama and acting on “actionable intelligence.”

“So President Obama would invade Pakistan? Who would have thought? “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” Obama said at a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.” Obama was pinging off a recent New York Times report of an early 2005 mission to apprehend al Qaeda leadership figures in Pakistan, including second banana Ayman al-Zawahiri. The mission was aborted by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld because the operation had grown too large. This alone makes it a good case-study in the failings of bureaucracy; too many components looking to get involved, not enough risk being accepted, not a shining moment for the partisans of Defense Transformation.”

If anyone wants, link back with an image of "Rambama" let's see what we can put together.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/3488352678629803121

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Martyrs, Jihadists Are NOT the Brightest Bulbs on the Porch

Interesting reads today from NRO from three very good writers. The overall impression put forward by the media has been that these latest attacks by terrorists are not really al Qaeda linked because the skillset of the "would bes" lacks a certain proficiency or professionalism; this of course is due to the fact the intended outcome failed.

We wouldn't want to discount their abilities obviously by suggesting they cannot succeed again. Yet when they have not had a successful attack, in the U.S. especially the public and media tends to discount that as though there were no threat. When they fail, the failures are looked upon as lacking that 007 aspect, so of course these cannot be real terrorists, al Qaeda or not.

While the main thrust of these articles, with the exception of Ledeen's may not be on the subject of "IQ" the reader does get the underlying sense that the terrorists/suicide bombers/martyrs aren't all that quick on the uptake.

Michael Ledeen takes the question of "smarts" as main thesis in his article this morning, ‘“Stupid Terrorist” Is it any surprise?”’

"Did you really expect high-I.Q. martyrs? Maybe clever killers, but somebody should have pointed out — long since — that it isn’t very smart to blow yourself up. And for the most part, the martyrs haven’t come from the best-educated sectors of the population. But so many scribblers have been impressed by the deep faith of the suiciders, that they’ve shied away from this fairly obvious point. And one could go further. Indeed one should go further: All those parents and siblings who speak with reverence of their exploded child or brother or sister or cousin or uncle, they should be ashamed of themselves. Because they’re fools."

Andrew McCarthy speaks this morning that “Islamic Terror Strikes the U.K. … Again” so ultimately does it really matter whether al Qaeda, an off-shoot or even unrelated as far as the underlying belief system?

"Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has been explicit in his public statements that this new series of attacks is linked to al Qaeda. The nature of that linkage is has not been revealed, and many experts have expressed skepticism about the possibility because the explosive devices here were poorly constructed. This, though, gives way too much credit to al Qaeda. Yes, several of its operations have been highly professional, but its operatives are not all ten feet tall and they have produced their share of amateur-hour moments."

Finally, James Robbins considers that it is not all about Iraq, with "Club Bombers - Jihad runs deep"

"There are several lessons to be learned from the failed terrorist attacks in Britain. Some are obvious, such as the fact that the terrorists are still a threat, the war is still on. Also that the terrorists are seeking softer targets, which speaks to the effectiveness of hardening others. The Glasgow airport attack in particular illustrates this — despairing of actually getting on an airplane, the bad guys just rammed the gate with a Jeep Cherokee with a bomb in the back. It was not a well-planned or thought-out attack; the vehicle was hung up on the static defenses, which worked as intended. And did one of the perps really as was reported pour gasoline directly on an open flame? No wonder he ignited. These are not superstars."

It shouldn't take much of a stretch for those that either don't see it or refuse to believe it, that this problem we have is not just about Iraq, but is all around us. We shouldn't wait forever for that smoking gun, as even a smoking gun can be denied as being a smoking gun.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1576624753695728030

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.