In a just-published interview with Middle East Progress, Sadiq al-Rikabi, one of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s senior advisers, says that “considering the American president’s speech about the U.S. commitment for responsible withdrawal, we do not feel a referendum is necessary.”

The decision will need to be taken in parliament, as the referendum is currently enshrined in law, and so if it is to be cancelled, we need a new law to say so. But even if the referendum is held on its assigned date, I’m not worried at all about the approval of the SOFA.

Marc Lynch comments: “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the U.S. and Maliki would both like to see the referendum quietly dropped.Neither really wanted it to begin with. For the U.S., it complicates strategic planning, while it was forced on Maliki by the Iraqi Parliament as the price of ratification.”

Just because the Prime Minister’s Office or the U.S. would like to avoid the referendum doesn’t mean that it won’t happen, though. It is currently a legal requirement, and canceling it would require new legislation — which would offer an opportunity for ambitious Iraqi politicians to mobilize public support against Maliki and against the United States ahead of the scheduled national Parliamentary elections.

Maliki clearly believes — with more than a little justification — that his victory in the provincial elections has substantially boosted his political power. A walk-back from his commitment to a SOFA referendum could put that belief to the test.

Earlier this month, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made headlines when he was asked by CNN whether Iran had enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. “We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said. This morning, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to address the “confusion” about what the intelligence says about Iran’s weapons capacity. Blair said the intelligence community has assessed that Iran does not possess any highly-enriched uranium, and clarified that Mullen had been referring only to low-enriched uranium.

Moreover, Blair said that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that “in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” still stands:

LEVIN: In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that “the intelligence community judges with high confidence that in the fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” Is the position of the intelligence community the same as it was back in October of ’07? Has that changed?

BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, the nuclear weapons program is one of the three components required for deliverable system, including the delivery system and the uranium. But as for the nuclear weapons program, the current position is the same, that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in 2003 and did not — has not started them again, at least as of mid-2007.

Watch it:

Despite the intelligence assessments, conservatives have continued to fearmonger on Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity. Last week, John Bolton told Fox’s Sean Hannity that Iran could have a functional nuclear bomb “within a matter of six to nine months.” Just last Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) insisted on Fox News Sunday that we “have information” that Iran is well on the path to a nuclear weapon:

CHRIS WALLACE: Let’s turn to foreign policy. And there is some breaking news. Iran has announced this morning that they have launched a new long-range missile. Your reaction.

MCCAIN: It’s not surprising, and it’s not surprising that we continue to have information that they have the material to make nuclear weapons. Exactly where they are is not totally clear, but they’re obviously on that trip.

Despite the repeated assessments of intelligence analysts, the right continues to spew false claims about Iran’s weapons programs.

During DNI Dennis Blair’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) pressed a line of questioning on Blair’s choice for chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Chas Freeman. “The concern here,” said Leiberman, is that a number of statements from Freeman “suggest he’s more than an advocate than an analyst.” Lieberman also raised questions about Freeman’s past financial associations (which Blair had responded to yesterday.) Lieberman asked Blair what he was doing “about the concerns that have been expressed” about the selection of Freeman.

Blair responded that “as far as the effects of business associations and the ethics rules, Ambassador Freeman is going through the vetting that is done with anybody joining the executive branch.” Because of concerns expressed by some of members of Congress, “the inspector general is taking a closer look at those associations than is normally done.”

In regard to statements by Freeman that some have regarded as troubling, Blair said that “those have all been out of context, and I urge everyone to look at the full context of what he was saying.” Blair praised Freeman as a skilled and highly intelligent analyst, and suggested that those concerned with how Freeman’s views may impact policy “might misunderstand the role of analysis that supports policy.”

For one, neither I, nor anyone who works for me, makes policy. Our job is to inform it. We’ve found over time that the best way to inform policy is to have strong views held within the intelligence community, and then out of those we come out with the best ideas. And Ambassador Freeman with his long experience and inventive mind will add to those strongly.

Watch it:

As Spencer Ackerman reports, it looks as if concerns about Freeman’s potential financial conflicts have come to nothing, so we’re left with concerns over Freeman’s “strong opinions.” He’s apparently the only person in Washington not allowed to have any.

Transcript below. Read more