CNS Morning Brief: Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump in “Worldwide Threat Assessment” Report

Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump in “Worldwide Threat Assessment” Report

In presenting the annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment” report to Congress yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats contradicted President Trump on the threats posed by North Korea, Iran, and the Islamic State. The assessment concludes that North Korea is “unlikely to give up” all of its nuclear stockpiles, and that Iran is not “currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activity” needed to make a bomb, directly contradicting two top tenets of Trump’s foreign policy.

Coats also challenged statements from the administration that the Islamic State had been defeated, a key rationale for the administration’s decision to exit from Syria. The report concluded that the Islamic State, “still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria,” and maintains eight branches and a dozen networks around the world. Coats also told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that the Islamic State "has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide."

Trump is expected to meet next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in a second round of direct negotiations aimed at ridding Pyongyang of its nuclear weapons. But Coats told the committee that “we currently assess North Korea will seek to retain its W.M.D. capability and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capability.” Coats also concluded that “its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.” Joining Coats before the committee, CIA director Gina Haspel added to the assessment, saying that the North Korean government “is committed to developing a long-range nuclear-armed missile that would pose a direct threat to the United States.” On Iran, Coats also cited the nation’s continued support of terrorism in Europe and the Middle East, including sponsoring Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militants in Iraq. He also said that he believed that Iran hard-liners would continue to challenge centrist rivals. New York Times, CNN, Politico, Washington Post, ABC News, Wall Street Journal
Related:
Wall Street Journal: China and Russia, Aligned More Closely, Seen as Chief Security Threat to U.S.

‘We are full’: What asylum seekers are told: “As violence and insecurity across Central America continues to go unaddressed, families will continue to join our border communities in search of protection for themselves and their children,” writes Stephanie Leutert in the New York Times. “Despite attempts to vilify and demonize them as political pawns, asylum seekers from around the world continue to see the promise of the United States. Seeking asylum is a right — one this country must uphold. It is not only the law, it is the moral imperative of this nation.”

I was ambassador to Afghanistan. This deal is a surrender: “This current process bears an unfortunate resemblance to the Paris peace talks during the Vietnam War. Then, as now, it was clear that by going to the table we were surrendering; we were just negotiating the terms of our surrender. The Taliban will offer any number of commitments, knowing that when we are gone and the Taliban is back, we will have no means of enforcing any of them,” writes Ryan Crocker in the Washington Post. “It does not have to go like this. The United States could announce that talks won’t proceed beyond the framework, to matters of substance, without the full inclusion of the Afghan government. Right now, the inclusion of the Afghans is only theoretical.”

The Trump administration’s tentative deal with the Taliban could return Afghanistan to chaos: “A tentative deal between the Trump administration and the Taliban appears to offer the United States a negotiated way out of its longest war — a prospect most Americans would welcome. Unfortunately, it seems to do so mostly on the enemy’s terms,” writes the editorial board of the Washington Post. “U.S. forces would leave the country, but there would be no guarantee that the government and political order they have spent 17 years defending, at enormous cost, would survive — or that the gains Afghans have made in women’s and other civil rights would be preserved.”

Presidential candidates need a plan for reducing nuclear terrorism risks: “As presidential candidates hit the campaign trail this year, voters should ask them: ‘What’s your plan for keeping nuclear weapons and the materials to make them out of terrorist hands?’ Every candidate who is serious about national security should have an answer to that question,” write Matthew Bunn, Nickolas Roth, and William H. Tobey in The Hill. “The plan must recognize this is a global responsibility — calling on leaders in all countries that possess weapons-usable nuclear material to commit to taking personal responsibility for preventing nuclear theft or sabotage, and recognizing that the U.S president, in particular, should lead by example.”

Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump in “Worldwide Threat Assessment” Report

Editor's Picks