Parsing the spooks

Sometimes - not too often, mind! - one has a brief feeling of sympathy for our 'inglorious leaders'.  As we have discussed before on this blog, the situation in Iran is poised dangerously in that cliché between a rock and a hard place.  The problem is that no-one is too sure which is the rock and which is the hard place, and nor does anyone seem too know for certain precisely how hard either of them are in reality.  Pity the poor President - oh, go on, give it a try!  He has now been presented with an intelligence report which represents the combined views of sixteen US intelligence agencies (Sixteen?!)  My immediate thought was that any report upon which sixteen different bureaucracies can agree is probably waste-bin material!  Even so, there appear to be have been some subtle minds at work on this particular effort which comes to us from The LA Times quoted in The American Thinker with my emphasis:

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

So, the Iranians are lining up all their nuclear bits and pieces but are not actually assembling them - yet! But, and here you can see the subtle minds at work in the higher reaches of the intelligence agency bureaucracies, it is "a known known" that President 'Peace 'n' Love' Obama would do anything, including surrender, to avoid going to war and this 'intelligence report' meets his needs precisely, as The American Thinker points out:

President Obama has been very careful in saying that we would not allow Iran to build a weapon. In other words, until we have conclusive evidence that Iran isn't merely preparing to build a bomb, but is actually constructing a weapon, we will take no action.

So which came first, the presidential chicken or the intelligence agency egg?  The Israelis, of course, cannot afford the luxoury of such subtle parsing and will strike as and when they are convinced that "there is no alternative", as another very tough and realistic politican once said.  In an uncertain world I am content to leave it to the Israelis to decide if and when.

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

You are right in saying that there is no way Obama can really be sure. So he should hit them just for the heck of it. Otherwise, all this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062662/Is-15-ton-bunker-buster-bomb-destroy-Irans-nuclear-arsenal.html

would have been wasted, wouldn't it?

[dearieme]

Please don't take up that absurd American misuse of "parsing": they only use it because their schools gave up teaching grammar even before ours did.

[David Duff]

Yes, sir, very good, sir, but please, sir, 'parse' is a verb and you can always add on an 'ing' ending to a verb, can't you?

[David Duff]

'W', wouldn't be the first time money was wasted on defence projects although this looks like a very sensible project in this day and age. Also, there were reports fairly recently that the Yanks had shipped some 'bunker-busters' to the Israelis so perhaps, for once, they are 'boxing clever'!

[dearieme]

Yeah, but "parsing" does not mean analysing or determining the meaning of something. That's "construing".

[David Duff]

Ah, yes, I take your point, DM, of the difference between analysing the content of a report and parsing the grammar of which it is constructed. However, sometimes the two are difficult to peel apart. For example:

"Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so."

Here you have a sentence which is contradictory. It states that 'A' is pursuing 'x' in order to facilitate 'y'.

Then it states that 'A' has "not sought to do so". Do what? Pursue 'x'? Or not facilitate 'y'?

Whether that comes under the heading of parsing or analysing I'm not sure!

[dearieme]

I think it means that Iran has not sought to build a weapon, but that's a guess, because the sentence is ambiguous. Journalists, eh?

[David Duff]

Bless their smelly socks!

[Jimmy]

The problem convincing the western population that Iran is making la bomba is the lies about Iraq. However I am sure Iran is manufacturing a devise and will as a consequence be targeted.

[David Duff]

The subversion of our intelligence service by Blair & Co remains a blot on the reputations of all concerned and you are quite right, Jimmy, to warn that no-one will believe anything they say for some considerable time.