The latest National Intelligence Estimate from the American intelligence community says that Iran halted work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Michael Ledeen doesn't believe it. Norman Podhoretz doesn't either, and thinks that many members of the intelligence community have ulterior motives in producing this information. Oliver Kamm, apparently writing before the release of the NIE, says it is a dangerous illusion to believe that the Iranians are not working on a bomb. A few things need to be remembered when thinking about this stuff. First, up until 2003 the intelligence community believed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, possibly a nuclear program, perhaps a biological program). Their estimates were shown to be completely inaccurate. Second, in 2005 the NIE stated that they had high confidence the Iranians DID have an active nuclear weapons development program. As an American citizen of at least average intelligence, this leads me to conclude that I should have low confidence in any appraisal by our intelligence community, which puts me back to square one. So, what to do? As before, I maintain that the United States should not take unilateral military action against a nation that has not attacked us. The American people are bitterly divided over the war in Iraq because the justifications for that war were never clean and simple, and have become less so over time (contrasted by Afghanistan, which clearly was harboring Osama, who clearly was responsible for 9/11). This latest NIE will make it all but impossible for the U.S. to garner the political support for military action against Iran, either from the rest of the international community (Israel excepted), or the American people.

A new USA Today/CNN Gallup poll shows how the race for President is changing, with Clinton and Giuliani losing ground while Huckabee and Obama are closing the gap. Michael Barone analyzes what is happening in Iowa. In the Weekly Standard, some thoughts on the rise of Mike Huckabee. I think we now have ourselves a race in both parties. Here in New Hampshire, as I have written many times, it will all depend on which contest draws the lion's share of independent voters. I still believe, as I have been writing from the beginning, that most of those voters will go into the Democratic primary, driven by enthusiasm for Senator Obama. Iowa will be the spark. If Obama wins in Iowa, or at least finishes a very close second to Hillary, that will energize independents to come into the Democratic primary here in the Granite State. Meanwhile, if Huckabee wins in Iowa on the GOP side, that will energize fiscal conservatives in this state to look for the most viable alternative to Huckabee. I think John McCain can still be that man, especially with the recent Union Leader endorsement. Why not Romney? He still has the lead and a lot of strength here, but if he loses in Iowa a lot of that strength will evaporate. Why not Giuliani? Because fiscal conservative voters here in New Hampshire know that our nominee still has to be acceptable to our more religiously inclined brethren, or we lose the general. We know that Giuliani is unacceptable to those folks. The compromise that keeps the GOP together has always been (and will remain for at least the near future) that the religious conservatives get a pro-life nominee, and fiscal conservatives get someone who at least says he is for cutting taxes and spending. Unless the party can unite around someone acceptable to both groups, expect a Democrat to win next November.