Can We Still Trust American Intelligence?
Barely hours after the American strike on installations linked to Iran’s nuclear program, President Donald Trump declared with confidence that Tehran’s capabilities were “totally obliterated.” It was an ambitious statement, and above all, premature while the investigation into battle damages, or the Battle Damage Assessment, had not yet begun.
The Battle Damage Assessment is a rigorous three-step process used to measure how effective a strike is. First, it verifies that the target was hit. Next, it evaluates whether or not the target is still functional, and to what degree. Last, and most important, it analyzes whether the entire targeted system has been affected, or if it has been quickly replaced by an alternative.
As a concrete example, if a command post is hit, one must be certain that the missile reached its target. Then, one must determine if communications have ceased. Finally, it’s necessary to see if another post has taken over. If that’s the case, the strategic impact is low even if the strike was a technical success.
It is the same principle with Iran’s nuclear program. Immediately after the strike, satellite images revealed that bombs had hit their target with precision. There was cause for self-congratulation, something Donald Trump did not hesitate to do.
But there were still many unknowns: Did the bombs strike the heart of the installation, deeply buried underground? Was the enriched uranium removed beforehand? Were the centrifuges relocated as a preventive measure?
A holistic assessment of the damages takes time. The U.S. will need to compile and analyze multiple sources of information: imagery, communication intercepts, radiological measures, human intelligence, and so on.
Two assessments have since emerged in the media. One, leaked by the Defense Intelligence Agency, cited limited damage and calculated that the Iranian program had only been delayed by a few months. The other, swiftly released by the CIA after the leak, speaks of significant damage and suggests a setback of several years.
Intelligence under Trump
These divergent assessments reveal a troubling problem: the increasing politicization of intelligence agencies under Trump.
The DIA director is a battle-hardened veteran who rose through the ranks of military intelligence and was appointed for his expertise. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, on the other hand, is first and foremost a political ally of Trump. It is a safe bet that his assessment reflects the White House line more than that of the expert analysts who make up his organization.
And this is not an isolated case. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. In June, Trump brutally contradicted her. “I don’t care what she said … they were very close to having one. She’s wrong,” Trump said. Taken to task by her mentor, Gabbard told the press that Iran was capable of producing a weapon in a matter of weeks. How can anyone seriously give credence to such a farce? It is pure vaudeville.
Such strong politicization of intelligence should concern us. Canada is heavily dependent on American intelligence. And when that intelligence is manipulated for political reasons, the ability to make informed decisions is at stake.
It was in 2003 that Washington tried to convince its allies to invade Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that the White House heavily influenced that intelligence assessment. This scenario could very well be repeated.
Which begs the question: Is the American intelligence community still independent, or is it becoming a tool of the president?
The Battle Damage Assessment is a rigorous three-step process used to measure how effective a strike is. First, it verifies that the target was hit. Next, it evaluates whether or not the target is still functional, and to what degree. Last, and most important, it analyzes whether the entire targeted system has been affected, or if it has been quickly replaced by an alternative.
As a concrete example, if a command post is hit, one must be certain that the missile reached its target. Then, one must determine if communications have ceased. Finally, it’s necessary to see if another post has taken over. If that’s the case, the strategic impact is low even if the strike was a technical success.
It is the same principle with Iran’s nuclear program. Immediately after the strike, satellite images revealed that bombs had hit their target with precision. There was cause for self-congratulation, something Donald Trump did not hesitate to do.
But there were still many unknowns: Did the bombs strike the heart of the installation, deeply buried underground? Was the enriched uranium removed beforehand? Were the centrifuges relocated as a preventive measure?
A holistic assessment of the damages takes time. The U.S. will need to compile and analyze multiple sources of information: imagery, communication intercepts, radiological measures, human intelligence, and so on.
Two assessments have since emerged in the media. One, leaked by the Defense Intelligence Agency, cited limited damage and calculated that the Iranian program had only been delayed by a few months. The other, swiftly released by the CIA after the leak, speaks of significant damage and suggests a setback of several years.
Intelligence under Trump
These divergent assessments reveal a troubling problem: the increasing politicization of intelligence agencies under Trump.
The DIA director is a battle-hardened veteran who rose through the ranks of military intelligence and was appointed for his expertise. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, on the other hand, is first and foremost a political ally of Trump. It is a safe bet that his assessment reflects the White House line more than that of the expert analysts who make up his organization.
And this is not an isolated case. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. In June, Trump brutally contradicted her. “I don’t care what she said … they were very close to having one. She’s wrong,” Trump said. Taken to task by her mentor, Gabbard told the press that Iran was capable of producing a weapon in a matter of weeks. How can anyone seriously give credence to such a farce? It is pure vaudeville.
Such strong politicization of intelligence should concern us. Canada is heavily dependent on American intelligence. And when that intelligence is manipulated for political reasons, the ability to make informed decisions is at stake.
It was in 2003 that Washington tried to convince its allies to invade Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that the White House heavily influenced that intelligence assessment. This scenario could very well be repeated.
Which begs the question: Is the American intelligence community still independent, or is it becoming a tool of the president?
Previous article![]( "Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade")
Next article![]( "Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path")
