The Growing Intelligence-Policy Divide

Bottom Line Up Front

• On January 30, President Trump sent out tweets that were construed by many as pointed criticism of the intelligence community and its leadership.
• Trump described the intelligence community as ‘extremely passive and naive’ when it comes to  Iran, highlighting a dangerous divide between intelligence and policy.
• Russia and other U.S. adversaries are already using influence operations to promote domestic upheaval in the lead up to the 2020 election.
• The growing divide between intelligence and policy on Iran is reminiscent of the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when politicians pressured analysts.

On January 29, the nation’s top intelligence chiefs testified in an open hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The President’s response to the testimony of these intelligence professionals reveals a growing disconnect between how the intelligence community (IC) assesses various threats and how the President of the United States understands them. The Worldwide Threat Report presented by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) addressed the developing Sino-Russian entente as a major threat to the U.S.-led world order and an ominous trend that will significantly impact Washington’s ability to project power abroad.  The report also addressed the threat posed by North Korea, Iran, climate change and transnational terrorism. It remains doubtful how prepared the United States is to respond to the immense challenge posed by climate change when the President consistently calls into question the science that underpins most of what we know about it. Regarding terrorism, President Trump has declared the so-called Islamic State ‘defeated,’ but few in the IC share this assessment.

Threats emanate not just from well-known U.S. adversaries, but from non-traditional areas as well, including fraying alliances, something that has been obvious to American allies from Brussels to Seoul for some time. This assessment is a clear rebuke to continued U.S. retrenchment from long-lasting alliances, which poses a clear threat to U.S. national security and introduces a degree of unpredictability to the international system. A reliable American military presence has long been a harbinger of stability in volatile regions. On North Korea, the President has touted his connection with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un as key to North Korea’s current hiatus to their nuclear testing. However, the IC continues ‘to observe activity inconsistent with full denuclearization’ and more troubling, North Korea has made promises in the past, none of which the regime ever followed through on. Many in the foreign policy establishment believe that Trump has displayed a stunning level of naivete in dealing with Kim Jong Un, offering Pyongyang valuable concessions while receiving nothing tangible in return.