Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYesterday afternoon, as guests balanced buffet lunches on their knees, one of America's top intelligence official made some provocative and fascinating comments about the current US-Iranian impasse.
What he said was like a thumb in the eye to neoconservatives and assorted other sabre-rattlers.
The official was Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In effect, Fingar is the nation's top intelligence analyst. Previously, he headed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, one of the few (very few) US intelligence agencies to have mostly gotten Iraq right in 2002, when the CIA and Pentagon agencies were hyperventilating about the threat of Iraqi WMDs. More recently, Fingar oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that famously concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003.
In his presentation yesterday, at the Center for National Policy, Fingar opened a window onto the thinking of the US intelligence community on Iran. It was decidedly unwarlike.
First, Fingar insisted that the United States has to take Iran's legitimate security concerns into account. "Iran," he said, "like the classic 'even paranoids have enemies' idea, lives in a tough neighborhood. It has reason to feel insecure." Part of the reason for Iran's insecurity, he said, was the fact that the United States has armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Recognizing that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."
The answer, he added, is to talk to Iran. "It argues for engagement," he said. "From bilateral to multilateral to using international institutions."
In regard to Iran's current round of missile tests -- Tehran conducted a second round today -- Fingar was calm. The tests, he suggested, were more defense-minded warnings that a signal of planned aggression. "Iran has kind of a hedgehog strategy," he said. "It's 'Mess with me and you get stuck.' They're saying, 'I have the capacity to inflict pain.'"
Fingar explicitly tied the issue of Iran to energy supplies. "Iran," he said, "is located in a part of the world where energy supplies are." In his talk, Fingar referred several times to "competition for energy" as source of future instability and conflict. I asked him to elaborate. He said that such competition could include everything from "the workings of the market, that is, you compete by price, and who has the most money" to more political and strategic competition. Sometimes, he said, it's a question of affinity and friendship, where like-minded countries favor each other in the energy supply-and-demand relationship. But he also worried about efforts at "sewing up access to resources in a quasi-colonial sense." That, of course, could apply to the American occupation of Iraq, but Fingar didn't go there.
He also said that state-owned oil companies pose a challenge for American policy. Though he didn't specify exactly what he meant, he seemed to suggest that because major consuming countries such as China and major producing countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia have state-owned oil industries, they are able to combine economic and state political power to strike oil bargains. (It seems clear that the current government of Iraq, still dependent on if not controlled by the United States, has deliberately blocked access to Iraqi oil so far to Chinese, Russian and other oil companies while favoring the American, British, French and Dutch oil firms that controlled Iraqi oil back in the good old days of imperialism.)
When I asked Fingar about America's traditional role of serving as the protector of the Persian Gulf -- an unbroken succession of US administrations has proclaimed the Gulf to be an American 'lake" -- he implied that that arrangement was fine with the rest of the world until now. "The world has benefited, including the rising powers, from the role that the United States has played." Still, he said, in rather Delphic terms, "The chickens are coming home to roost." He mused, "Are there alternatives? What are the downsides?" Indeed, that is a central problem for American strategy in the coming decades. An effort by the United States to maintain its hegemonic control of the Gulf will likely face determined resistance from much of the world, especially from the rising powers of Asia that need the Gulf's oil. And Iran, sitting the middle of that, is not unaware of the issue. During my visit to Iran in March, a top Iranian official told me bluntly that Iran sees itself as the chief obstacle to America's ability to consolidate control of the Persian Gulf and its oil, and he said that the United States sees it in exactly the same way.
RSS
stop war, walk.
stop war, ride a bike.
stop war, don't drive fast.
stop war, make that gasoline last.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 11:46am
well,
of course iran isn't going to attack anybody.
if i've got a .45, do i go to fort knox and try to steal the gold that might be there?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
gasoline consumption, litres per capita (2003):
Iran, Islamic Rep IRN 285.7
United States USA 1,635.2
United Kingdom GBR 436.0
Japan JPN 452.1
Canada CAN 1,203.7
Bangladesh BGD 2.8
Germany DEU 402.
China CHN 44.6
India IND 9.6
YOU! have the power to stop war.
drive less. drive smartly.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 12:05pm
>>>(It seems clear that the current government of Iraq, still dependent on if not controlled by the United States, has deliberately blocked access to Iraqi oil so far to Chinese, Russian and other oil companies while favoring the American, British, French and Dutch oil firms that controlled Iraqi oil back in the good old days of imperialism.)<<<
This is why the US, or even the EU, cannot be trusted with policing the world.
There needs to be a genuine global force, comprised of ALL interested parties for such a an international police to have real legitimacy.
Bush is not interested in legitimacy, he is only interested in lining the pockets of his friends at the expense of others. This "us versus them" approach is what causes much of the conflict in the world.
I think Obama has a much different point of view on how you create international legitimacy for the collective action needed to police the world.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2008 @ 12:30pm
There needs to be a genuine global force, comprised of ALL interested parties for such a an international police to have real legitimacy.
Posted by Metteyya
this is the solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GortKlaatumessage.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 12:44pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 11:46am
Wow, and here I thought the Iranians hated us because we're not Muslim.
Stick to the drums, FROSTY (and leave the slogans to the other brainless denizens of the left). It's something that you (presumably) know something about.
Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:24pm
We need more Amish on our highways & byways. However,seeing how many people pass on curves & before oncoming traffic, even yellow signs stating "nitro on board" wouldn't make much difference. The esthetically pleasing sight of a carriage or cart would neither slow nor please the "practical" minded zealot, hell bent on "saving time".
Posted by Sorelish at 07/10/2008 @ 1:26pm
Remember the British and French after the 1st World War? What Maskbeta describes is the 21 century version - a new delineation of protectorates, with often deathly consequences.
I cannot think of a solution. I live miles from everything. The dog park? 19 miles round trip - we don't go anymore and my dog does not understand why. I only drive when I have to get to an appointment or something similar. Then I drive no faster than 60 mph. There is no public transportation - the nearest bus stop is 7 miles away, and that bus only runs during rush hour. Welcome to the wild wild west.
Posted by ramara at 07/10/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:24pm
and what do you know Pontificus? Ply us with your never ending wisdom of propaganda, talking points and downright wrong statements.
Maybe you could tell us why having US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan plays into the hands of those in Iran that think like you. By that I mean those that hunt mosquitos with spiked clubs and piles of naked mens.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/10/2008 @ 1:52pm
With apologies to my friend form NY...
grrr, kill, grrrr. I have my club and magick hellmutt...grr, kill
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 2:02pm
ponti-Iran does not hate us because of religion.It is because of our support for the shah.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 2:34pm
Chicago Tribune 24 September, 2004 -- David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
'U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. ...
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities. ...
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/10/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/10/2008 @ 2:43pm
taking his quote out of it's full context is not "honest", now is it neo-conbyadifferentname?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 3:32pm
Stick to the drums, FROSTY (and leave the slogans to the other brainless denizens of the left). It's something that you (presumably) know something about.
Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:24pm
an angry heart only leads to higher petrol prices.
heheheheheheheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 3:34pm
in case nobody has noticed, ALL of Mask's posts have been deleted again under Maskbeta. Nation censors.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/10/2008 @ 3:35pm
Wow, and here I thought the Iranians hated us because we're not Muslim.
Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:24pm
«We have full confidence that the great principles of humanity and justice enunciated by your government will in the day of peace extend their blessings towards Persia, as one of the countries which has endured long years of manifold trials with patience and long suffering.»
Mirza Ali-Qoli-Khan, The Iranian Chargé D'affaires In Washington, In His Letter Of October 5, 1918, To The U.S. Secretary Of State.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 3:43pm
I am unclear what Fingar means by by Quasi- Colonial? Is he referring to direct Imperial rule through colonies; or, indirect rule, using Economic Imperialism to control their economy through a "Free Trade" relationship? Engagement is always good,and his analysis of Iran's nuclear program was excellent. But, his predictions of the future are based on fear, and fear is not rational. We need to abandon heated rhetoric, and have some quiet bilateral chats. I do not think any grand alliances or plans are needed. They are too complicated, and you need to keep issues and relationships as simple as possible.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/10/2008 @ 3:48pm
For those of you worried about quotes ‘out of context' here is the full article from the September 24, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
"… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."
A last resort
Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion…
Also during the session, Obama said that, if elected, he likely would make the health-care crisis his first priority. He said he would seek to expand the federal program that gives aid to poor children without health coverage, improve the COBRA program to allow for greater portability of coverage, and push for small businesses to receive tax credits to help pay for employee health insurance.
Views on gay marriage
Earlier Friday, Obama clarified his position on gay marriage after several days of criticism from [GOP Senate candidate Alan] Keyes on the issue. Keyes, a vehement opponent of gay marriage who has called homosexuals "selfish hedonists," charged during a campaign swing Downstate this week that Obama favors gay marriage.
But during a taping of WBBM-AM's "At Issue," Obama said that his Christian faith dictates that marriage should be between a man and woman.
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.
Obama said he would not let his religious beliefs dictate the way he approaches public policy. He said he would supports civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.
"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/10/2008 @ 3:50pm
in case nobody has noticed, ALL of Mask's posts have been deleted again under Maskbeta. Nation censors.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/10/2008 @ 3:35pm
WTF?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 3:53pm
i think its telling when t. boone pickens is coming ouit in favor of solar and wind power.
shit. we went to the moon in 69 in primitive transistor equipped space buckets. we can indeed reduce our dependence on oil and therefore our need to engage in bloody imperialistic resource land wars in asia.
if we had stuck with jimmy carter's long range energy vision of the late seventies who knows how different things would be now?
but we chose the grasshopper option and ceased seriously planning completely until now.
and joe and jane q. public never ceases to be amazed that oil prices are so effin high. wow...
chicken or egg? for almost three decades now short sighted politicians have failed to plan responsibly for the future, all the while playing to the voting public's worst delusions and ostrich like dreams of cheap gas suv paradise forever.
and here we are.
in terms of iran specifically...i bet that MAYBE 5-10% of the american public knows what our government did to them back in the 50's - meddling in their internal affairs and imposing a monarchical dictatorship.
like so many other instances involving the third world we destroyed a nascent democracy that refused to do exsactly what we wanted in favor of authoritarian dictatorship that kowtowed to our economic desire.
but these things are unknown to most of us and when one points such out all too many stare balnkely as if they are hearing some kind of crazy lefty conspiracy theory! lol...
ahh, the power of pride!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2008 @ 3:56pm
So, HL, his entire quote is full of "if, thens". IF they acquire nukes, not before because we FEEL afraid.
also, he said his "personal beliefs" don't encompase gay unions, but unlike our current admin he would not let his religious views dictate policy on this matter.
This is not to say that progressive librools are not noticing that Mr. O is not "the most liberal Senator" as many would have us believe. He certainly has the politician trick of dancing and jooking his way around issues depending on the stage and time. Doing his best to drive us back to Uncle Ralph.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 3:57pm
IBBLE, Mr. Pickens is a well know 'Merica hater and socialist. Ignore his business acumen, he knows nothing about energy!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 4:43pm
IBBLE, Mr. Pickens is a well know 'Merica hater and socialist. Ignore his business acumen, he knows nothing about energy!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
he's also a good businessman who realizes there gold in them thar windmills and solar panels.
and he's right. makes me wonder how much SLOTH has contributed to our current mess as well as greed, pride, and vanity...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2008 @ 5:27pm
For those of you worried about quotes ‘out of context' here is the full article from the September 24, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune:
Hey, it speaks!
Posted by k330k at 07/11/2008 @ 10:09am
Mr Fingar should be either demoted or fired. He obviously is not competent to hold his position if he comes to conclusions such as is posted here.
Is it US "hegemony" that has made the Iranians the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world?
Is it US imperialism that led Khomeini to institute a draconian Sharia rule of law and which led to millions of Iranian Jews, Christians, and moderate Muslims to flee Iran?
Is it US hedgemony that causes Iran to furnish Hamas with weapons and funding?
Is it US hedgemoney that causes Iran to openly threaten the extinction of the Nation of Israel?
Was it US hedgemony that led to the Mullahs in Iran determining that they could survive a nuclear war with Israel? And that the cost of Iranian lives would be worth the destruction of Israel?
If Mr Fingar is supposed to be the best we have, we are in serious trouble.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/11/2008 @ 10:04pm
Let's look at Mr Fingar's report to Congress in Feb 2001 to see what he believed then.
"Statement by Thomas Fingar Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence And Research Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on Current and Projected National Security Threats to U.S.
February 7, 2001
Happily, the severity of specific threats to our nation, our values, our system of government, and our way of life are low and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, that is not the case with respect to threats to individual Americans and other national interests. Indeed, there appears to be a perversely inverse relationship between .the diminution of threats to the United States homeland and the increasing magnitude and variety of threats to American citizens and interests.
Despite some moderation in its rhetoric toward the US and the West, Iran still seeks WMD and continues to support terrorism. In its search for indigenous WMD capabilities, Iran relies heavily on outside assistance. Russia alone cooperates with Iran's nuclear program. Deep-seated hostility to the Middle East Peace Process, particularly within conservative circles of the Tehran regime, plays a major role in the government's willingness to support terrorist groups and their attacks against Israel and/or other parties involved in the process. Although we believe Iranian factions and leaders are not unanimous in their support for the use of terror to achieve political ends, so far any disunity has not resulted in a discernible change in Iran's behavior.
How best to deal with the challenges posed by Iran is a continuing source of disagreement with other important countries, including some of our closest allies. Tehran is well aware of these differences and attempts to exploit them to erode the effectiveness of US sanctions."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/t_0031.htm
Interesting. Here we have a guy who in early 2001 did not see any serious threat to the US. Yet he saw Iran as a threat and if anything the threat is far more severe than in 2001.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/12/2008 @ 12:27am
So, "LVLiberty1," is Mr. Fingar an idiot, as you suggested two posts ago, or a man to be trusted, as you suggested in your last post?
Your last post at least gets closer to Fingar's own view; I suppose the long quotation helps. Fingar never claimed that US hegemony (or "hedgemoney" as you once stated it) is responsible for EVERYTHING that is bad about Iran.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/13/2008 @ 08:03am
I have not ever before heard Iran's issues spelled with such efficacy as Mr. Fingar's assessment.
As I see it, the reality of Iran is very complex. Nationalism, in top of religious branch sectarism have taken over in vast sectors of the population for national self affirmation.
Why do they need such self affirmation? It is surrounded by former soviet republics to the north, Turkey to northwest, tha Arab community of nations to the west including strong Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (nuclear), and Afghanistan to the East. We have our troops stationed to the west and east and have declared them axis of evil.
This is a big, resourceful, Shiite-Muslim country with a lot of history as the strong Persian nation. They are not close friends at all with the Arabs because of their religious and ethnic differences. In essence, (if I don't have an error), is the only big Shiite nation in the world and located in central Asia were several conflicts come into junction and in the soup of economic interests that is the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf because of oil. Do they have real friends? The answer is sad, nope; they have to rely to themselves for deffense. Syria is only interested in weapons from them.
Why we Americans always see threats as related to us and only to us? Iran is dominated by extremist religious faction, and that is very bad. Can we teach them something if here in the great USA, republican-lover pastors talk about religious hatred instead of compassion and understanding?
Whether is this populist and extremist government or another much more moderate and civilian one, Iran has made an irreversible national determination to be a major regional power. Whether they include the nuclear capacity into that, that will only be dependent in how is our attitude to them, how we deal - and reach to- them and that should be one of our national priorities. All we need is to separate the bad religious extremism from their true and legitimate national goals.
We need to back Israel by a reason of principle. But our policies should not be that "Israel centered" because we -as it is in this case- loose the global picture. For example, it looks like Iraq will end being a close friend of Iran. The Saudis are our friends and will feel menaced. Why don't we use our power to be perceived as friends of both sides that can act also as referees on certain contentious issues? Why don't we bring Israel to give several concessions to the Palestinians to let the aggraviated Muslim nations feel they have been made justice? Why don't we tell Iran honestly that we support their independence -and being strong - as long as they don't get into adventures over Israel and Lebanon?
In the following years oil will get scarcer, we need to have Iran in our side, and we can if we leave our prejudices aside. Then and only then, will the Persian Gulf be the "American lake" we would want it to be.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/13/2008 @ 2:39pm
It's odd that people keep saying we have to reduce our energy consumption to avoid taking over the Middle East and "stealing" the oil. We are perfectly capable of eventually being energy independent by developing ALL types of energy (nuclear, off-shore oil and gas, wind, solar, bio except for corn based). It is just politics that currently keeps this from proceeding but with gas approaching $5 a gallon the political pressure is building rapidly.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/13/2008 @ 6:40pm
Shale oil and other alternatives will come into play when the oil price climbs to some "x" value that will economically justify alternative -and higher prize sources-.
Still, because of oil being the simpler resource and because of the pressure of China, India, Brazil and other groups of consumers that are increasing its use, it will be the preferred option and progressively a scarcer commodity. That is a fact of life. Projections indicate that by the half of this century, even taking into account other resources -such as shale oil (which by the way is NOT synthetic oil)- oil world production will have had already reached its maximum and will be in rapid decline with demand being double digit greater than production.
As for the US situation, the transportation sector is of course our biggest problem. We might be able to develop fuel cell vehicles and I don't really know if hydrogen will be feasible at all in the next 30 years. Hybrids and conservation -read boldly much higher milleage which Republicans are opposing- will be the key, and I guess that a new type of vehicle: all-electric to get around in a metropolis can be a very good partial solution.
Check the US DOE oil production projections, for example.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/14/2008 @ 7:58pm