,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I cannot repeat this enough. I have found ZERO evidence to support Bolton’s claim that Iran is “still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.” In fact, all the evidence points the other way. See for yourself: 1/ defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/…
For starters, Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before the Senate last year that Iran “wants to preserve the JCPOA,” and that the deal has “enhanced the transparency of Iran’s nuclear activities.” 2/ dni.gov/files/document…
Coats isn’t alone. U.S. intelligence agencies agree, as do a series of regular reports from the IAEA, all of which confirm that Iran remains in strict compliance with the deal that shrank and largely froze its nuclear complex. 3/ iaea.org/newscenter/foc…
Even Mike Pompeo, during his confirmation hearings before the Senate in April 2018, testified: “I’ve seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today.” 4/ foreign.senate.gov/hearings/busin…
It’s not just about compliance; it's also about intent. Paul Kerr, writing for the CRS, finds: “Since at least 2007, the U.S. intelligence community has issued unclassified assessments that Iran has not decided whether to develop nuclear weapons.” 5/ fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R…
The report continues: “‘According to the 2007 NIE, ‘Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons’ until fall 2003, after which Iran halted its nuclear weapons program ‘primarily in response to international pressure.’” 6/
So those much-ballyhooed documents taken by Mossad last year? According to U.S. intelligence officials, while they “may contain new details, the story they tell - that Iran once had an unauthorized nuclear program - is an old one.” 7/ nbcnews.com/news/us-news/n…
We don’t know how much knowledge the Iranians retain about weapon construction 16 years later, but we can assume that Tehran clearly has the industrial and technological basis to build at least first-generation nuclear weapons. 8/
In fact, this assumption forms the bedrock of the JCPOA. According to Stephen Mull, “we built this deal in a way that it rested on what we can measure and verify.” That means fissile material, enrichment, suspicious sites, etc. 9/ 2009-2017-fpc.state.gov/251645.htm
This is precisely why we need the JCPOA. So what facts support Bolton’s claim? Maybe none, it turns out. As Peter Beinart notes, Bolton’s “writing is filled with assertions . . . for which he offers either feeble evidence or no evidence at all.” 10/ theatlantic.com/international/…
This aligns with a survey of Bolton’s former colleagues, which found that Bolton skews intelligence, that he “resists input that doesn’t fit his biases and retaliates against people he disagrees with.” 11/ propublica.org/article/john-b…
If Bolton were a private citizen, this tendency would be troubling (as we see in certain NGOs). But as a national security advisor, his refusal to listen to the findings of the U.S. intelligence community creates an exceptionally dangerous situation. 12/
This is serious business. Bolton is trying to justify a new war in the Middle East based on zero credible evidence. If we don’t hold his wild claims to the proper standards, the results could be fatal. 13/13 defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/…
