Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), speaking on the House floor this week, singled out the top U.S. intelligence official and compared the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who is best known acquiescing to Hitler’s demand to expand the Third Reich into what was then Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Pompeo specifically addressed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. In January, Clapper related during Hill testimony an assessment on whether Iran had made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. “We don’t believe [Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei] has made that decision yet,” Clapper said. By saying “we,” Clapper was not speaking for himself, but for the bureaucracies that he leads and coordinates between, collectively known as the U.S. intelligence community.

But that didn’t stop Pompeo from taking a wildly overwrought shot at Clapper on the floor of the House:

Our president’s intelligence chief has said that the Iranians have not yet decided to build a bomb. To me, these words are reminiscent to those of Neville Chamberlain, who doubted that the Nazi command had finalized its decision to invade all of Europe, both East and West. The threat was either ignored or considered too irrational to be possible by a timorous and distracted world bent on avoiding conflict.

Watch the video:

Pompeo’s attack on Clapper — a Vietnam veteran who made a career in intelligence — seems a thinly-veiled call to military action against Iran, albeit one based on a persistent and flimsy counter-factual about World War II history and preventative wars.

War hawks frequently make Chamberlain comparisons, it seems, to those who express any reluctance whatsoever to go to war. Those who so much as urge caution get charged with “appeasement,” as President Obama has been. Likewise, hawks laud Winston Churchill — though that historic analogy, too, is imperfect for their purposes.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Obama administration vows to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility, but the efficacy and consequences of a strike raise serious questions, leading the U.S. to pursue, for the meantime, a pressure track aimed at a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

One wonders if Pompeo would make his shocking comparison with Chamberlain for Israeli intelligence officials, who’ve also reportedly concluded Iran hasn’t decided to build a nuclear bomb.

On the CBS news magazine show 60 Minutes, former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan expanded on excerpts of his interview aired earlier this week and declared that an Israeli attack on Iran could spark a “regional war” and would only delay Iran’s nuclear program — with the latter assessment being shared by U.S.-based military analysts and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

In excerpts from the interview reported last week, Dagan called the Iranian regime “rational” and added that “an attack on Iran before you’re exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.” Last night, the full exchange revealed the thinking behind Dagan’s comments.

He expounded on the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran: that it could embolden the Islamic Republic to foment instability, and that some of Iran’s leaders “have said they want to destroy Israel.” But he added that the issue was “an international problem.” Citing President Obama’s stating “openly that the military option is on the table,” Dagan said he would “prefer that Americans will do it” — but only if it comes down to that. Dagan, whom CBS reporter Leslie Stahl said had a “44-year resume as an effective killing machine,” instead urged restraint and said there was “more time” to run the pressure and engagement tracks.

Dagan outlined the some of the costs and limited benefits of launching an attack now on Iran’s nuclear program:

DAGAN: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it…

It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.

[...]

STAHL: You said, “There’s no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it.”

DAGAN: Yes, I agree.

Watch a video of the exchange:

Dagan said that Iran is “maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western thinking, but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their action.” That assertion tracks with what the top U.S. military officer, top U.S. intelligence officer, and President Obama have said about the Iranian regime: that it operates on a cost-benefit analysis based on its interests, and can therefore be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Top U.S. intelligence and defense officials don’t think Iran has made a decision to pursue a bomb. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not conclude that Iran was building a bomb in its latest report on the program last month, despite warning about “serious concerns” that it is on a nuclear weapons track.

Last month, delivering a speech to the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama ruled out containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, warning that an Iranian bomb posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies, as well as the international non-proliferation regime. But his administration thinks a negotiated, diplomatic end to the crisis was the “best and most permanent way” to end the standoff.

During today’s Capitol Hill hearing on global threats faced by the U.S., Iran’s nuclear program naturally came up several times. Taking questions from Members of Congress, the top U.S. intelligence official confirmed the reported U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran has not yet decided on building a nuclear weapon, and said pressure on the Islamic Republic could work to prevent such a decision from being made.

In response to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, “[I]f the decision has been made to press on with a nuclear weapon — and there are certain things they have not done yet to eventuate that — that this would be based on a cost-benefit analysis. We don’t believe [Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei]‘s made that decision yet.”

After introducing Iran’s cost-benefit analysis, Wyden then pressed Clapper on what factors might inform it:

WYDEN: What could convince them, in your view, that their hold on power is being undermined by their nuclear effort?

CLAPPER: Well, I think a restive population because of economic extremis that the country of Iran is incurring. If you look at the plunging value of the Rial [and] the extremely high unemployment rate in Iran. This, I think, could give rise to resentment and discontent among the populace. And this is not to say there haven’t been other examples of that elsewhere in the region.

Watch the video:

Later in the hearing, Clapper added, “I think they do pay attention to international opinion and what others think of them.”

In his prepared testimony (PDF), Clapper said Iran had shifted to a more aggressive posture against the U.S. — even on U.S. soil, as a foiled alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador in D.C. shows — “in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

A flood of reports today hinting at revelations about the Iranian nuclear program in the upcoming U.N. atomic agency’s report will surely raise the temperature in Washington for a military strike against Iran. The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is set to detail Iranian progress toward certain components of a nuclear weapons program that form a series of stepping stones toward full capability.

In one of the most detailed media accounts, the Washington Post describes leaks (some named) that Iran is working on a nuclear trigger that would be necessary for a bomb and that foreign experts helped Iran overcome key hurdles in the 1990s. And the Financial Times writes that the IAEA discovered, thanks to satellite images, a chamber made to contain explosive tests, with a Western diplomat commenting that “There is no smoking gun in the report but a gradual and telling accumulation of evidence of Iran’s intent.”

However, overlooked in much of the attention given to the Iranian nuclear program is that, while the IAEA report is likely to conclusively belie Iran’s claim of a peaceful nuclear energy program by pointing towards developments tied only to weapons, it doesn’t mean that the Iranians are on the verge of testing a nuclear bomb. Instead, it points toward a so-called “breakout capability.” The Central Intelligence Agency defines the term as:

Knowledge, infrastructure, and materiel, which usually lie beneath the threshold of suspicion, but which can be rapidly adapted or reorganized to allow for weaponization processes to be undertaken. Such capabilities require pre-disposed resources and often employ dual-use technology, equipment, or knowledge.

In other words, a “breakout capability” is not the same as an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, leaving the U.S. and the West some — albeit less and less — room yet to maneuver to avoid what would be a disasterous military adventure to delay Iran’s nuclear program by one to three years.

That assessment still corresponds with comments made earlier this year by the Obama administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. He had this exchange with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI):

LEVIN: Now, relative to Iran, Director Clapper, you mentioned in your statement that you do not, we do not know, talking about the Intelligence Community, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. I read into that that Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program. Is that correct?

CLAPPER: Yes, sir.

Clapper said he made his claims with “high level of confidence,” and they match up with what press reports indicate is the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies.

A 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded Iran had halted its weapons program in 2003. While, in the Post today, nuclear expert David Albright said Iran’s “program never really stopped,” the Arms Control Association (ACA) said in a statement to ThinkProgress that “Clapper’s statement is not inconsistent with the notion that some weapons-related [research and development] has resumed which is not part of a determined, integrated weapons-development program of the type that Iran maintained prior to 2003.”

Former top intelligence analyst and now Georgetown professor Paul Pillar told ThinkProgress by email:

Major Iranian decisions still have to be made before Iran produces any nuclear weapon. Such decisions will depend heavily on U.S. and western policies toward Iran — especially how much those policies constitute a threat that Iran must deter, and conversely how much it appears that an improved relationship with the West is possible.

As CAP’s Matt Duss wrote last week, “Beating the diplomacy drums may not be as satisfying to some as beating the other kind, but it remains the most effective way to protect the U.S. and strengthen international resolve toward changing Iran’s behavior.”

This morning, the neoconservative opinion page of the Wall Street Journal published a little-known former intelligence analyst making claims of a vast left-wing conspiracy in the U.S. intelligence community to cover up Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Fred Fleitz‘s analysis posits – in a style more befitting Newsmax (where he now writes) or David Horowitz‘s conspiracy-riddled site than a major newspaper — that “liberal professors and scholars from liberal think tanks” gave biased (good) reviews of the still-classified 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) on Iran because — well, basically because they’re (supposedly) liberals. Fleitz concludes:

It is unacceptable that Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon while our intelligence analysts continue to deny that an Iranian nuclear weapons program exists.

The accusations would be hilarious if they weren’t so serious. In essence, Fleitz is writing that the consensus of the U.S.’s 16 intelligence agencies — that Iran has still not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon — should be thrown out and everyone should listen to him.

But Fleitz’s own tenure in government was so plagued by scandal and deeply flawed and biased analysis that it raised hackles from experts worldwide. He espoused a worldview that considers anything insufficiently edgy or hawkish enough “wimpy.” Here are some of Fleitz’s greatest hits:

– Fleitz was a CIA officer who, in 2002, took on a position as reflexive überhawk John Bolton‘s chief of staff, where, wrangling with the intelligence community about Cuba’s (non-existent) biological weapons program, he wrote to his boss that it is a “political judgment as to how to interpret [intelligence] data.”

– Fleitz was also reportedly involved in the leaking of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to the media in retaliation for her husband’s public questioning of the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq’s WMDs. Fleitz worked in the same CIA office as Plame and reportedly passed her name to Bolton, who gave it to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby‘s aides.

– By 2006, Fleitz made his way to the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee as a staffer under then-GOP Chairman Pete Hoekstra. In August of that year, Fleitz authored a report about Iran’s nuclear program that was so overblown that it elicited a letter of complaint about “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information” from the U.N. atomic watchdog.

Given his record of sloppy analysis, bullying, and close association with some of the Bush administration’s leading hawks, there is a special irony in Fleitz’s complaint in the Journal that the intelligence community is “affected by the wave of risk aversion that has afflicted U.S. intelligence analysis since the 2003 Iraq War.” Perhaps Fleitz was the perfect man to write an op-ed for a paper that’s already more or less called for war with Iran.

Bush loyalists have been “irked” over the past 24 hours that they are not getting credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, arguing that their torture program helped bring about intelligence that led to the mission. Karl Rove said “the tools that President Bush put into place –- GITMO, rendition, enhanced interrogation” led to the successful operation. Similarly, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the mission “rested heavily on some of those controversial policies” from the Bush era.

Today, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) rejected these assertions. She was asked by a reporter whether the intelligence that led to the killing was the result of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of detainees. She responded:

We are in the process of a big study on the detention and interrogation of the detainees on the Intelligence Committee. The Republicans have pulled out of the study. So this has been carried out by the Democratic staff essentially. They have gone through more than 3 million emails, cables, pieces of paper looking for this.

To date, the answer to your question is no. Nothing has been found to indicate this came out of Guantanamo. And people were questioned, but there were no positive answers as to the identity of this number one courier.

Asked a few minutes later whether she considers the Bin Laden killing any kind of “vindication” of the Bush-era torture program, Feinstein said, “Absolutely not. I do not.” She continued, “I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted, and in my view, nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used.” Watch it:

On Saturday, President Obama announced that he will be nominating Defense Department intelligence chief James Clapper to be the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI). If confirmed, Clapper will take over the office held by Obama’s first DNI, Dennis Blair, who was fired last month.

Clapper has held a variety of military positions in his long career, including being an assistant chief of staff for intelligence at the Air Force headquarters in Washington from 1990-1991 and being director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency from 2001-2006. Perhaps his strongest advocate is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who told reporters that Clapper has “the temperament, experience and chemistry with leaders in the intelligence community to succeed as the nation’s top intelligence officer.” Gates even went as far as to joke that “when the president first asked me about this, I kind of winced with pain because the idea of losing Jim at the Defense Department is a real loss for us.”

However, the Wall Street Journal reports, “the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, which is responsible for confirming him, have both publicly opposed his appointment, favoring a civilian for the role.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is the top Democrat, has concerns that Clapper may be “beholden to the Pentagon’s interests.” Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has complained that Clapper has been “evasive and slow to respond to questions and letters from members of the committee.”

Liberal critics are pointing out that Clapper, while serving as the head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, helped assist the Bush administration lie that Iraq possessed illegal weapons of mass destruction. Speaking to reporters in October 2003, Clapper suggested that the illicit weapons had “unquestionably” been moved to Syria:

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq. [...]

He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said “the obvious conclusion one draws” was that there “may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.” A spokesman for General Clapper’s agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general’s statement.

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove cites Clapper’s theory in his book Courage and Consequence to defend claims by the Bush administration that it believed Iraq posed an imminent security threat to the United States.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reports that the White House had asked Clapper to step down from his current Pentagon role before being nominated to ease concerns about his military background. Clapper refused because he “does not want to be out of a job if his confirmation hearing doesn’t go well.”