A military attack on Iran is now more likely

FrontPage Magazine: “Other analysts – John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Caroline Glick, Claudia Rossett, Michael Rubin, and Gerald Steinberg – have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are ‘not convinced’ of the NIE’s conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts. British intelligence believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment. “

“The debate most assuredly will continue to evolve and the influence of this NIE will fade and become just one of many appraisals, technical and non-technical, official and unofficial, American and non-American.
In short, with Option #1 undermined and Option #3 unacceptable, Option #2 – war carried out by either U.S. or Israeli forces – becomes the more probable. Thus have short-sighted, small-minded, blatantly partisan intelligence bureaucrats, trying to hide unpleasant realities, helped engineer their own nightmare.”

His assessment is probably correct. The main difference is the attack will now be delayed about two or three years after it should have taken place. At that time Iran will be in a better position and any attack on Iran could be far more deadly and it could lead to World War III. Also, the person in the White House at that time might be wearing a skirt or ought to be wearing a skirt. Israel is now also forced to do what it thinks is necessary for her survival even if she has to do it alone and that also can start World War III. This NIE report is the dumbest action since just prior to world II. In fact it probably trumps the miscalculations made at that time and it can have a more deadly outcome.