Discord in Washington causing foreign policy confusion
The top chiefs of the US intelligence agencies last week testified before Congress in a public hearing. The annual event is an opportunity for intelligence chiefs to highlight how they perceive key threats to US security and interests. It is accompanied by the release of a public report, the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, which represents the consensus of the 17 different US intelligence agencies.
Typically, this event is interesting but not especially exciting. While the intelligence chiefs are appointed by the president, the analysts they supervise tend to focus on careful and intentionally dry reporting. They try to stay out of the political fray. This does not always work, and last week showed how hard it is to be apolitical during the Trump presidency.
The report — combined with the testimony of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, CIA Director Gina Haspel and other senior officials — provides useful insights into how the US intelligence community sees key threats and emerging trends. Coats described “a toxic mix of strategic competitors, regional powers, weak or failed states, and non-state actors using a variety of tools in overt and subtle ways to achieve their goals.” He said threats and complexity are likely to increase in 2019. The report noted that “the post-Second World War international system is coming under increasing strain.”
Coats highlighted the “Big 4” state threats: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. The report warned of increasing competition between the US and Russia and China, adding that “Russia and China seek to shape the international system and regional security dynamics and exert influence over the politics and economies of states in all regions of the world and especially in their respective backyards.”
The intelligence agencies highlighted terrorism as an ongoing threat. The report also noted other concerns, including migration that is increasing “social and interstate tensions,” “the rise of nationalism in Europe,” growing and evolving cyber-threats, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The briefing quickly became controversial when media reports highlighted some important differences between the intelligence assessment and President Donald Trump’s own statements. Trump quickly reacted to what he perceived as negative media coverage, and soon the situation spiraled into a new controversy.
Significant parts of the intelligence assessment were in agreement with Trump’s stated views. Trump and the intelligence agencies agree that Iran’s influence in the Middle East poses a serious threat, that Daesh is nearing “territorial defeat,” and that China is an increasingly worrying rival.
However, there also are some key areas in which the intelligence agencies’ assessment diverges from Trump’s opinions. The report and testimony made it clear that intelligence analysts believe North Korea will not agree to give up its nuclear weapon capability. “North Korean leaders view nuclear arms as critical to regime survival,” the reported stated. Trump, however, has repeatedly expressed positive views about his engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and tweeted on Jan. 30 that there is a “decent chance of denuclearization.”
There is daylight between Trump and the intelligence agencies on the extent to which Russia poses a threat
Kerry Boyd Anderson
While the intelligence chiefs portrayed Iran as a destabilizing actor in the Middle East, the report is clear — and Haspel, seemingly reluctantly, was clear in response to questions from senators — that Iran has not violated the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The report added: “Iran’s continued implementation of the JCPOA has extended the amount of time Iran would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon from a few months to about one year.”
The intelligence agencies find that Daesh “still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria,” remains a threat, and “will exploit any reduction in CT (counterterrorism) pressure.” This undermines Trump’s previous statements that “we have defeated (Daesh) in Syria,” which was the basis for his decision to withdraw US soldiers from Syria.
Furthermore, there is daylight between Trump and the intelligence agencies on the extent to which Russia poses a threat and its interference in US elections; whether anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a threat; and the likely economic effects of a hard Brexit.
Trump responded angrily to the testimony on Twitter, calling the intelligence agencies “extremely passive and naive” regarding Iran, among other criticisms. “Perhaps intelligence should go back to school,” he added. Later, after a meeting with the intelligence chiefs, he backtracked, saying their testimony was “mischaracterized by the media” and that they are “very much in agreement.” Some media reports over-emphasized the areas of disagreement, but it is clear to those who have read the intelligence assessment and are familiar with Trump’s statements that there are significant differences.
The last week’s controversy highlighted the differences on US foreign policy between the White House and the intelligence agencies and other parts of the foreign policy establishment. On Thursday, the Senate took action, noting that Daesh and Al-Qaeda are not defeated and warning against pulling US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan without more consideration of the consequences for terrorism. This measure also demonstrated divisions between Trump and many Congressional Republicans.
The result is confusion and uncertainty. US allies and adversaries, the American public, and the professionals tasked with implementing US foreign policy lack clear guidance on what the threats are and how to respond. The intelligence agencies are sometimes wrong, but they are a key source of the facts on the world, which is essential for effective foreign policy.
- Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch
