Eye on IranFred Kaplan takes readers' questions about future relations and remaining nuclear potential.

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan was online at Washingtonpost.com on Dec. 6, 2007, to chat with readers about Iran's long-halted nuclear-weapons program and what Bush should do next. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

Fred Kaplan: Hello. Fred Kaplan here. Thanks for having me back. I'm looking forward to your questions.

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

_______________________

"How can we be sure they're right now when they were so wrong on Iraq?": We hear this a lot, but doesn't that misstate the work of the intelligence community in the days before the Iraq invasion? Weren't there differences of opinion on Iraq's WMD, ties to terrorism and plans for a nuclear weapon within the community? It's just that they were pushed aside by those who supported the administration?

Fred Kaplan: Good question. You're right on several counts. There were disagreements among the intelligence agencies on Iraq - yet the disputes were not noted in the summaries that were made public (and, who knows, maybe not in the 2-page summary that was given to the president - historically, this has often been the case). For instance, intelligence specialists at the Dept of Energy and the State Dept did not agree with the majority view that Iraq's aluminum tubes were designed for - or even particularly well suited to - a nuclear-weapons project. And, as we now know, there was considerable political pressure on the CIA to come up with the "right" answers. The latest NIE on Iran appears to be an attempt by the intelligence community to reassert its independence. However, it's worth reading the document - even the unclassified version that we're all talking about - carefully. There are still some disagreements on the extent to which Iran has halted its entire nuclear-weapons program.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: One would think that if McConnell had this new information and had known the president's statement, he would have just blurted out that Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Why do you think McConnell only told the president that there was new info, but didn't tell him the content? This would seem to be ill-serving the president.

Fred Kaplan: According to the latest reports on this, McConnell DID tell the president the gist of the new findings, while noting that the full analysis was not yet finished. The president continued to issue alarmist public statements about Iran's relentless effort to build a bomb ("World War III"), despite what his intelligence chief had told him.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: What are your impressions of Iranian society? I believe there is a genuine interest within Iran in our culture that many Iranians hope we may improve relations. I hope, over time, that these desires will filter upwards and that future Iranian leaders will be open to better relations. What do you see are the possibilities that this could happen?

Fred Kaplan: I have never been to Iran. However, a few journalists and scholars who have been there several times tell me that, on a street level, it - or at least Tehran - is one of the most pro-American places in the world. That said, the current regime has shown tremendous resilience for 30 years now. The mullahs have suppressed any dissident group that has started to gain a foothold. They have pushed aside any politician who starts to put out feelers to the West. The West - and not just George W. Bush - must bear its own share of blame, perhaps, for not picking up on some of these feelers quickly enough. Still, chances for an effective reformer rising to the top and actually accomplishing reform seem slim. Furthermore, even the pro-American masses do not want the American government to intervene in their domestic politics. Memories are still very strong of the CIA's overthrow of Mosaddeq in 1953.

_______________________

Urbana, Ill.: Whether or not the Iranians are currently trying to build a bomb, they are attempting to enrich uranium -- probably the hardest part of this problem -- and are refusing to negotiate about it. What kind of inducements do you think will persuade them to stop?

Fred Kaplan: This is the question that remains problematic. It seems pretty clear, at this point, that the Iranians are not going to GIVE UP enrichment. And you're right (and the NIE says this explicitly, by the way), once highly enriched uranium reaches a certain level of enrichment, the program can move from "civilian" to "military" fairly quickly. There was some discussion, a year or so ago, of perhaps negotiating a cap to the enrichment level - perhaps keeping it at 5%, enough to generate electrical power but far below what's needed to produce a nuclear bomb. This would be very difficult to do. It would require very intrusive inspection procedures. Still, this may be worth exploring.

_______________________

Fayetteville, N.C.: Mr. Kaplan, I resent this headline: "Hey Bush, it's time to get cozy with Iran." We are in the spasms of euphoria because the NIE has never been wrong before -- right! It's also interesting to note that the NIE has revealed that Iran did have a clandestine nuclear program -- not an iota of which previously was revealed, not even by you. Remember those immortal words: "trust but verify"? Everyone in the whole world has been talking to Iran, including the U.S. (behind the scenes). We spell that D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y. Where is the "verify"? The NIE (a team of three in the State Department, one of whom is a known hostile to the present administration)? Please, grow up!

Fred Kaplan: A few things. First, I agree that "cozy" is a bit strong. (Like most journalists, I don't write the headlines.) Second, I think the initial "spasm of euphoria" is calming down a bit; a lot of people are beginning to realize the problem isn't solved. Third, the NIE is not "a team of three in the State Department." It's the product of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. From all accounts, this was a very elaborate process involving thousands of new pieces of information, including intercepts, humint, and so forth. It also seems to have been scrubbed meticulously, subjected to "red team" exercises - the works. As for the notion that the whole world has been talking to Iran - well, there's talking and there's talking. Real diplomacy would have to involve putting some incentives on the table. To say, "We won't talk with you until you throw away all your bargaining chips" - that's not diplomacy. That, by the way, was Bush's approach to North Korea until six months ago. He refused to talk seriously with Pyongyang until they disarmed. Finally, Condoleezza Rice put forth a deal with real incentives that didn't make North Korean disarmament a prerequiste to getting a deal going - and it was accepted within days. I'm no saying a deal with Iran will be so easy. It will be very tough. But the level of diplomacy the US has been putting forth so far - that's not enough to jumpstart anything.

_______________________

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

SPONSORED CONTENT

• Thanksgiving Misgivings
  Prudie talks turkey with advice seekers about the upcoming holiday and all its pitfalls.
  Nov. 23, 2009
• Must We Bear Hugs?
  Prudie counsels a woman wary of her father-in-law's inappropriate embrace—and other advice seekers.
  Nov. 16, 2009
• The Bearded Mom
  Prudie counsels a reader whose mother's facial hair is getting out of control—and other advice seekers.
  Nov. 9, 2009
• Search for more Chat Room, The articles
• Subscribe to the Chat Room, The RSS feed
• View our complete Chat Room, The archive