More reactions to the NIE

Thomas Joscelyn (HT: Power Line):

It looks to me that the authors of the current NIE on Iran’s nuclear capability have some serious explaining to do. It took only four months for one of the NIE’s authors to completely flip-flop on the issue. Why would anyone trust this type of “analysis”‘?

The New York Times, on the International Atomic Energy Agency:

“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”

The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”

Roger Simon, on that reaction:

Suddenly people are worried. Daddy has gone South on them. Well, maybe that’s a good thing. Time to grow up.

Israel (reported by the Washington Times):

Israeli officials yesterday disputed the conclusions of Monday’s surprise U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear program, citing “clear and solid intelligence” that Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and Europe.

“We have no doubt,” said one Israeli official, who requested to remain anonymous. “If one looks at the investment, if one looks at the nature of the project, if you look at the cost to the Iranian economy, there is no logical explanation other than that the Iranian program is not benign.”

Shrinkwrapped, on “The NIE Rorschach Test“:

In summary, anyone who suggests that they can tell you what the inkblots represent is either fooling you, fooling himself, or trying to sell you something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s