FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
President Trump has argued that Iran poses an imminent threat, citing missile capabilities that could strike Europe and potentially the United States. However, assessments by relevant agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, have suggested that developing such a capability would take years and considerable effort...
In 2005, a bipartisan commission in the United States reached a definitive conclusion: the intelligence community had been wrong in almost every assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This failure became the basis on which military intervention and an eight-year occupation were built, with none of the claims used as justification subsequently verified.
According to an analysis by The Atlantic magazine, in the case of the current war with Iran, the picture is the opposite. This time, American intelligence services were not wrong. On the contrary, they accurately warned about the dangers and possible consequences of an escalation.
The assessments presented to President Donald Trump before the launch of military operations were clear: Iran was not preparing to use nuclear weapons, did not have the capacity to strike the US mainland with ballistic missiles, and, in the event of an attack, would react by striking targets in the Persian Gulf and attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz — a scenario with serious consequences for the global economy.
Developments on the ground appear to have followed precisely this line. Iran has tightened its control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key corridor for global energy trade and strategic goods. At the same time, the power structure in Tehran has not collapsed, as predicted by the White House, but has been further consolidated by more hardline elements within the regime.
Meanwhile, Gulf countries, dependent on energy stability and regional security, are reviewing their strategic relations with Washington and increasing defense investments.
The comparison with Iraq highlights a fundamental difference: then decisions were based on information that turned out to be incorrect; today, political decision-making seems to have ignored information that turned out to be correct.
This constitutes another form of failure, not of intelligence, but of leadership.
President Trump has argued that Iran poses an imminent threat, citing missile capabilities that could strike Europe and potentially the United States. However, assessments by relevant agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, have suggested that developing such a capability would take years and considerable effort.
Even on the nuclear issue, official reporting has been more reserved. US intelligence officials have stressed that, while Iran possesses technology that could be used for further development, there is no evidence that the country was on the verge of using a nuclear weapon.
At the same time, the Iranian response, including threats to energy routes and the possibility of disrupting global supplies, was a scenario previously predicted by intelligence services and international allies.
However, these warnings were not reflected in the final decision-making.
Trump's strained relationship with the intelligence community has been a constant factor. He has repeatedly expressed distrust of institutions and emphasized that he relies on his "gut instincts" in decision-making. In the case of Iran, this approach appears to have been crucial.
In this context, the current war does not represent a classic information failure, but a deviation from it. The information existed, the warnings were clear, but the political choice followed a different path.
This puts the debate on another level: no longer whether intelligence was wrong, but whether politics chose not to listen.
Edhe ne Irak inteligjenca Amerikane e Britanike i paralajmeroi por agresoret do sajojne nje aresye pa baze te vene zjarr ku tu teket.
Në lrak, shefi CIA-ka qenë një shqiptar grekoman, Teneti e shtyu Bush. Pyetjes a ka Sadami armë fiziologjike ju përgjigj me zhargonin e basketbollit kosh i sigurt