Many things that could be said about this, but one point that seems inescapable is that a very pissed off CIA is taking its revenge. They were left to hang and dry by the White House, made the scapegoats for Iraq "intelligence failures" that were in reality deliberate political failures at the White House and OVP, and now they're sticking it back to Cheney and co. And simultaneously winning a very big round for themselves and Gates' DoD in saying that if OVP ever does try to do something on Iran, it will be very publicly and deliberately against the better judgement of the intel community.

Indeed, I believe that internal in-fighting between the different agencies on the one hand and the White House cabal on the other has been the prime factor behind the report, the intelligence community wanting to reassert its professional (and political) authority, shattered by the Iraq affair. And I wouldn't rule out a certain feeling of "payback time" either...

It was very interesting. When the news first broke the first thing that entered my mind was that the intelligence community was cutting the President off at the pass.

The idea that Bush approved of the report is shot down by the argument he is making that the report doesnt not change what he thinks of Iran and how he plans to deal with them.

I think this was a calculated move by certainly people in the civilian and military intelligence world to weaken the probability of any military action against Iran.

They dont want an attack against Iran anymore than most of America does and this was their best way to ensure it doesnt happen.

I think this was a calculated move by certainly people in the civilian and military intelligence world to weaken the probability of any military action against Iran.

Couldn't it just be that this happens to be the truth? Or at least what the intelligence community thinks is true.

I'm sure there's ill will between White House and CIA, on both institutional and personal levels, but if this is in fact the most credible information that the intelligence people have got, then they're hardly being subversive by saying so. Obviously, I'm not in a position to evaluate the Iranian nuclear program, but the NIE conclusions seem to fit pretty well with most that has been reported about it so far -- whereas the Wh. House position does not.

I don't think that US intelligence agencies in a highly politicised dossier such as that of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons would simply "tell the truth" without any calculation or conscience about the political and bureaucratic consequences of such a decision. The idea that US intelligence agencies would candidly and publicly "tell the truth" is simply beyond belief. Now, they lied for political reasons in 2002/2003, and they tell the truth for poltiical reasons now. Had it been politically convenient to lie or to massage the truth a bit, no doubt that they would have done so.

Well, there's truth and spin. The spin of this document is decidedly in the shape of a middle finger.

Sniping between bureaucratic and political levels of government usually isn't so public, but I do recall hearing about major friction in the CIA re political cronies vs. veteran agents.

Yeah, well, I just think the whole reaction provoked by this is weird. Surely, there must be something more to the NIE conclusions than simply arguments among intelligence chiefs about what would be the best way to embarrass Dick Cheney. As Ibn Kafka pointed out in his original post, there were some real and important conclusions in there ("probably no Iranian nuke coming") that can't just be the product of disgruntled desk officers -- which, speaking of spin, must obviously be the version the White House wants to kill the document with.

my reading is that the CIA (and the intelligence community they lean upon), as ibn Kafka put it, are 'tell[ing] the truth for political reasons' - and having been burnt by the White House for the missing WMDs in Iraq, they don't want to be blamed for a disastrous war in Iran - not that this rules out any suspicion that Israel wouldn't carry out missile strikes, although under the circumstances, the US would still be blamed... and that seems to be a secondary reason for this, as Paul Woodward writes and Seymour Hersh is alarminingly declaring:
http://warincontext.org/2007/12/05/editorial-when-reason-prevails/

though things could still get ugly in the last year of Bush's presidency, and Giuliani and co. are all competing to seem tougher about bombing, and torture is now a campaign promise rather than an Amnesty International warning...

Hi

Well, even though it apparently decreases the chances of Iran being attacked, it makes a number of funny comments. Example- "Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program in 2003".

IAEA did not find any weapons program ever.

I found a bold article that discusses all these- http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich051207.htm

My bad! Can you please delete the duplicate comments?

Admiral Fallon was (apparently) leaking to the press not too long ago that the Chiefs of Staff were going all-out to prevent war with Iran 'on his watch', and that they were 'trying to put the crazies back in the box'... Looks like they have, then.

I entirely believe it is the truth. However, these reports usually do not make it public, and I believe the new Intelligence head said he was not in favour of making things like this public.

I believe it is the truth, and I believe it was allowed out because some very big names in the intelligence world and the military world did not want to be dragged into another mistake like Iraq.

The fact that the report was made public means it will be next to impossible for Bush to launch attacks against Iran based on nothing more than the nuclear weapons boogey man.

Now Cheney and the others will have to look for another cause for war......like a nice convenient barracks attack blamed on Iran, or some Iranian surrogate, like Hizb'Allah.

Another one-

Trojan Horse?
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3519

Regardless of this report, very little of the public was willing to buy into a conflict with Iran, it was being sold to us and the majority of the public wasnt buying, i think few are really surprised by this revelation. Like Pat Buchanon said

Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”

After the disastrous adventure in Iraq, surely even the most hawkish generals in the Pentagon must admit that taking on Iran would be even more catastrophic. OK there would be another Shock and Awe bombardment taking out practically all of Iran's military infrastructure, but can you imagine the prospects of a land invasion onto Iranian soil? You don't need to be military strategist to see the sheer madness in this scenario!