Dan Darling, writing in The Weekly Standard, makes the case that what’s unfolding in the Middle East is indicative of a massive — potentially disastrous — failure in intelligence. Here’s a key section:
From the Iranian variants of the Chinese Silkworm missile to more conventional Syrian-made warheads–innovatively filled with ball bearings so as to maximize damage to humans and property–Hezbollah’s rockets have proved more formidable than expected. Moreover, combat between Hezbollah and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in southern Lebanon has revealed the degree to which the terrorist organization improved the abilities of its irregular troops–to the point where the reported casualty ratios released by the Israeli government and various media outlets suggest that Hezbollah’s fighters are more capable than the vast majority of conventional Arab armies.
Hezbollah owes all these improvements to generous support from Syria and Iran. What does it say about the state of Western intelligence that these nations were able to provide such support, including sophisticated missiles and training, without our knowledge?
One thing it points to is a pattern of intelligence failures–or of an intrinsic inability of the intelligence community to perform at the level policymakers expect. In the post-Cold War era alone, numerous examples can be cited, including the failure to predict the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the advanced status of the Iraqi nuclear program at the time of that invasion, the successes of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs, the extent of Libya’s weapons of mass destruction programs, the activities of the Abdul Qadeer Khan proliferation network, and so on. In light of this history, the overestimation of Iraq’s WMD program at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion stands out as an unusual exception to the recent rule, which has been one of underestimating our opponents. Indeed, as more information has become available regarding the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, it appears increasingly clear that both are further along than U.S. intelligence initially assessed them to be.
Darling sees a productive aspect to this: it has given an insight into the thinking of the Iranian leadership on a variety of topics. But that’s probably the only silver lining here, he writes:
And all of it appears to add up to a disturbing portrait that the United States and its allies will need to factor into their calculations of how to deal with Iran.
With regard to terrorism, Iran appears quite willing to use Hezbollah as its proxy, continuing to support the group with advanced weapons, training, and some unknown number of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps personnel from the elite Qods Force unit. All of this suggests that the Iranian leadership has embraced revolutionary hostility toward Israel.
However the Iranian regime regards its economic and political ties with European governments, it appears that these ties are of no consequence when it comes to persuading the Tehran regime to end its support of one of the world’s most infamous terrorist groups. Indeed, Iran appears to have boosted rather than cut back its support for Hezbollah in recent years. It’s hard, therefore, to see a rational basis on which engagement with Iran can be expected to deter it from employing terrorism as a tool of statecraft, particularly if the Islamic Republic suffers no consequences from its role in the current fighting in Lebanon.
Do you get a sense of deja vu? At the end of the 20th century there was some guarded optimism about what was going to lie ahead for Americans. Then came 911 and Americans learned that there were factors not adequately picked up and analzyed by the intelligence radar — factors that subsequently dominated events, policies and the direction of the American government.
Now a new Middle East crisis dominates decision makers and news cycles. And the Hezbollah-Iran connection isn’t the invention of the media or people with political agendas, but fact. And, in the space of a month, a “new world” has become a “new new world.” The debate in coming months will be what to do about Iran — but no matter what approach is used there will be consquences.
Is there yet another surprise ready to surface on the world horizon?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, writes a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.