Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community



This entry was posted in Intelligence. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community

  1. J says:

    It’s interesting how the ISIS gets the 2010NIE release. Here’s the sourcewatch info on the ISIS
    Note its former adviser Khidihir Hamza who was spurned by the CIA, went on to join Albright’s ISIS.

  2. JohnH says:

    After reading the Iran section, you have to come to the conclusion that the politicians and the media are talking about an entirely different Iran, one that existing somewhere in their delusional imaginations. Where else would they get their “facts” about the imminent Iranian threat?
    Or maybe today’s news media doesn’t care about facts. They are only interested in advancing the secret agendas those who would most benefit from an attack on Iran or from magnifying a marginal threats into an existential one.
    Hmmm-I would who those folks could be?

  3. N. M. Salamon says:

    Interesting assessment. The Hegenomy/Empire mind set did not change, notwithstanding the tremendous loss of economic and military ability of the USA as far as international perception is concerned. That is internal politics of the USA, and until the power elite recognizes the problems, there is not going to be any change, keep on harping on long war, all other nations to agree with USA’s interest, etc. Nothing new!
    The only real bone to pick with the assessment is its interpretation of PEAK OIL PROBLEM, relecting the most adventageous [for USA interest] scenario. People in the oil exploration/service industries take a far dimmer view [see the], and such misunderstanding of reality could have major negative effect on all plans based on this perception, similar to the previous perception: there is no housing bubble, if there is one, it can be contained… etc a la Bernenke and Greenspan! – the REALITY HIT LIKE TEN TONS OF BRICKS!

  4. dilbert dogbert says:

    I still don’t understand why the focus is on Iran when Pakistan has the bomb. I think Pakistan is a greater threat than Iran.
    Please help me out here.

  5. mo says:

    Pakistan is contained. Its leadership is onside and has India to provide checks and balances. Iran scares Western powers because they insist on simultaneously not being a Western state and not being supine to the interests of the West.

  6. Allen Thomson says:

    I notice that while he does mention the (former) Syrian-DPRK reactor project, there’s nothing about concerns that Burma/Myanmar may be proliferating with North Korean help.

  7. Fred Strack says:

    Interesting that the lead off is cyber security and the later acknowledgement of increasing risk due to a significant reliance on imported foods and medical suppliers that “…lack of enforcement of sanitary standards at their point of origin.”
    Big oil and the market manipulators have successfully anchored oil at $75+ a barrel even with world demand is only 12% higher than in 2000. Prices are 300% higher. I don’t believe this can all be explained by ‘future’ demand and risk premiums.
    Another AQ attack is mentioned but what happens when the WallStreet predators again manipulate oil prices or any other strategic commodity?

  8. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    In my opinion, this risk assessment lacks moral courage and is devoid of integrity, at least as it involves risk assessment arising out the Middle East.
    The “analyst”, probably knowingly, failed to incorporate and otherwise rely upon at least two assumptions, both of which are tried and true and both of which are necessary to derive accurate assessments. First, all analysis must factor in the influence by those within the USG who desire see the US lead the way in a clash of civilizations against the Muslim world, for whatever reasons. Second, all analysis must at least acknowledge that Likud Zionism is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, particularly the IDF military strategy of collective punishment.
    Such approach in no way exonerates Iran. It simply leads to a more accurate risk assessment.
    At best, the only value of this risk assessment is that historians can use it to illustrate an example of what Sherman Kent described as strategic intel that takes off from “the [ideological] wish”. Such flawed analysis typical involves the denial of certain aspects of reality and such an aspect underlines this assessment.
    The American people have handed over an untold amount of money so that this “analyst” can lead the life he now enjoys. Yet the evidence is very strong that this risk assessment was not written on behalf of or for the American people.

  9. DaveGood says:

    “Pakistan is contained” ?
    “It’s leadership is onside” ?
    The Taliban where, and are, a force recruited and largely trained and funded by Pakistan’s Secret Service who used it as a Tool to establish a secure area to its rear. This was done in the eighties and nineties with financial and practical assistance from Saudi Arabia and the USA.
    The Pakistani State funded scientist “Abdul Qadeer Khan” sold Nuclear weapons technology across the planet to all sorts of regimes we’d rather not see them have it.
    In the last five years the USA has funneled over ten billion dollars into Pakistan State Coffers with the express purpose of strengthening Pakistan security forces against the Taliban.
    But I’ve seen US government reports that state that 90 per cent or more of that money has gone “Missing”.
    Almost all Islamic inspired Terrorist attacks within the UK, those that successfully slaughtered dozens, and those that didn’t, have been traced back to Pakistan.
    India doesn’t provide a “Check and balance” on Pakistan… It provides a threat… which may help to explain why Pakistan behaves the way it does.
    You may want to pretend, or believe, that Pakistan is a stable allied government.
    I see it as a country which we are actively undermining.

  10. DaveGood says:

    And by “Actively undermining”.. I refer to our military forces killing their citizens in their territory while insisting that their Government and military go in and finish off those we didn’t get the first time round.
    Imagine what it would feel like to you if this was (say) Russia doing this to the USA.

  11. mo says:

    Apologies, I do too often forget to add grammatical clues to my sarcasm so just so we’re square:
    “Contained” means the West got those it wanted into the top jobs
    “onside” means bought off
    “checks and balances” means a threat (but seriously, what else could that have meant?)
    Unfortunately, as I am Lebanese, I don’t need to imagine the scenario posited.

  12. There clearly are deep fracture lines in Pakistan’s crystal of internal stability. Now the only question is who exploits them first? My guess is that the US will end up with significant boots on the ground in Pakistan long before Iran. But could be wrong! Personally I don’t believe Pakistan can make it as a nation-state without the ability to have deep recourse to US funds and other non-Islamic funding. So perhaps the real question what is the current take of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
    states on their very uncertain future? Is the Shia Sunni split for leadership in the Islamic world as significant as it looks to me? Is Israel a patch or a lever vis a vis Shia versus Sunni?

Comments are closed.