Well, foaming-at-the-mouth neocon Joshua Muravchik wants the US to do it, as he argued in this overwrought op-ed in today’s LA times. Muravchik’s main argument was that Iran seemed poised to become as great a threat to world peace as the Soviet Union, and its progress towards possession of a nuclear arsenal would only accelerate this trend…
He also, amazingly, blamed the rise of fascism and Nazism on the Soviet Union:
- Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.
Well, as I said, the piece was more than a little overwrought in its argumentation.
No word from Muravchik, either, on what the US should do on the day after it has bombed Iran… Um, hasn’t the US citizenry been led down this path of launching an ill-thought-through war before??
For his part, Sy Hersh has another good piece out today in The New Yorker. He writes that one of the problems the Bushites have encountered in the push that some of them– most notably, Unca Dick Cheney– have pursued, toward launching a military attack on Iran, has been the CIA’s production of,
- a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency...
The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it…
So, the professionals at the CIA can’t find the “evidence” needed to justify a US attack on Iran. But wait! Somebody else apparently has.
Hersh:
- As the C.I.A.’s assessment was making its way through the government, late this summer, current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element suddenly emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran has developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and significance of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. “The problem is that no one can verify it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “We don’t know who the Israeli source is. The briefing says the Iranians are testing trigger mechanisms”—simulating a zero-yield nuclear explosion without any weapons-grade materials—“but there are no diagrams, no significant facts. Where is the test site? How often have they done it? How big is the warhead—a breadbox or a refrigerator? They don’t have that.” And yet, he said, the report was being used by White House hawks within the Administration to “prove the White House’s theory that the Iranians are on track. And tests leave no radioactive track, which is why we can’t find it.”
Over at HaAretz, meanwhile, Aluf Benn notes that during his most recent visit to the US, Israeli PM Olmert has been “beating the drums of war”– particularly in a speech he gave to the General Assembly of the Jewish Communities of North America in Los Angeles.
Olmert told that audience, “”We have reached the pivotal moment of truth regarding Iran… Our integrity will remain intact only if we prevent Iran’s devious goals, not if we try our best but fail.”
This was understood, not surprisingly, as a declaration that Israel itself would go ahead and bomb Iran if it considered that to be necessary, without waiting for the US to do the job.
Benn writes this about the political context of Olmert’s declaration:
- Olmert stepped up his attacks on Iran’s nuclear program without consulting any professionals. His declarations last month have broken his “low profile” policy on Iran that Israel adopted in its effort to present Tehran’s bomb as an international problem. As late as last month, Olmert held talks in Israel on the Iranian nuclear program, and decided to stick with the low-profile approach.
So what happened to change his position?
“A weak prime minister who is dropping in the opinion polls suddenly found himself faced with Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Effi Eitam, who are politicizing the issue, and with a public that does not have faith in the prime minister due to his lack of security experience,” senior officials in Jerusalem explained.
“Olmert is under attack for not being able to deal with the Qassam rockets, so he is under pressure and is moving away from the low-profile approach,” they added.
These officials also said that the Iranian issue had been taken out of their hands and had been placed on podiums and television shows.
Therein lies Olmert’s problem: After he made his bold statements, Netanyahu’s warnings that Israel is faced with a situation similar to that faced by European Jewry when threatened by Hitler in 1938, and Shimon Peres’ description of Ahmadinejad as “a Farsi-speaking Hitler,” the moment of truth for Israel’s political leadership is nearing.
The public will justifiably want to know what has been done to prevent the threat to its existence posed by Iran, and to stop the possible mass exodus of Jews from Israel, as described by Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. Domestic pressure calling for military action will intensify…
Benn, who is an experienced diplomatic reporter, noted that if Olmert does go ahead and order military strikes on Iran, this would require:
- Diplomatic coordination with the Americans. The U.S. forces in the region could become targets of Iranian retaliation, just like Israel, and therefore there is no way that an independent Israeli action can take place without authorization from Bush. Did Olmert get such a go-ahead and is this why he was pleased with his visit to the White House?
You bet there had better be diplomatic “coordination” with Washington over any attack– that is, a clear and unequivocal US order restraining Israel from launching it. Because even if Israel does launch such an attack without consulting Washington, no-one in the Middle East, or elsewhere, would ever believe this was done without a US “green light”, and the retaliation against the US forces’ extremely vulnerable troop concentrations and supply lines in the Gulf area would be speedy indeed.
Benn has this slightly sad little description of the policy Israel (and the Bushites) had been pursuing toward Iran until recently:
- International pressure and sanctions were supposed to delay the Iranians, at least until the regime there fell, or some miracle happened. [And they call this a “policy”???] However, it is not working out.
In another article in Monday’s HaAretz, Yossi Verter writes that “several weeks ago”, Bush told French President Chirac that an Israeli attack against against Iran was quite possible. Verter adds,
- Bush also said that if such an attack were to take place, he would understand it. According to European diplomats who later met with Rice, the secretary of state did not express the same willingness to show understanding for a possible Israeli strike against Iran.
Phew! It’s good to have at least one sentient being working in the administration…
So, the professionals at the CIA can’t find the “evidence” needed to justify a US attack on Iran.
But that’s an easy one for Bush, even without Israeli help!
“Listen folks,” he’ll say, “the CIA are great people, but they are people, and people can’t be right all the time, can’t they? Most of the time they are right, and I’m really, really grateful to them, and this great country owes them a lot, and will continue to do so, for they are really great people, and did great things for this country many times. But since they are people, they have their weak points, because all people have weak points, even great people.
“One of those weak points are Weapons of Mass Destruction, you know, they just don’t have the feeling for them all the time, and so sometimes they are wrong when they talk about them. They were pretty sure there were those weapons in Iraq, you know, but later we found that those weapons couldn’t be found in Iraq, so I guess they were wrong.
“That’s why as president of the United States I have to make my own judgment about things which are important to protect this country. We are fighting a war against terror and for that reason we cannot allow Iraq to put nuclear bombs in the equator, well, the equation I mean, to put nuclear bombs in the equation and threaten the American people and all other freedom-loving people with these weapons, we just cannot allow that. So as president it is my duty to do everything possible to make sure that this will not happen, and I will do whatever is needed to protect the American people.”
Hersh writes,
One problem with the proposal that the Administration enlist Iran in reaching a settlement of the conflict in Iraq is that it’s not clear that Iran would be interested, especially if the goal is to help the Bush Administration extricate itself from a bad situation.
I disagree with this judgment. There are things that the Iranian regime wants very badly from the US… and they are eager (though always very tough and smart) negotiators.
Helena,
These statements are not necessarily conflicting. Assuming “some miracle happened,” and the Iranian government was faced with a US administration of a different ideological character, then it would be wise to work out a deal with its new interlocutor, and Tehran probably would try. However, the current administration has an extremely well-established track record of giving nothing in exchange, and being as untrustworthy as possible. Iranian negotiators probably are aware of this and well-assured the Bush Administration would only use a reprieve on Iraq to later go after Iran.
I want to add that I am in no way being sardonic here. I should be quite confident of negotiating a satisfactory deal with Tehran. I (and probably Hersh also) should regard any such negotiation with the likes of Bolton, et al., as utterly nugatory. QED, the two of you are not really in disagreement at all.
Not a soul…… US, Israeli, or Zionist elsewhere – has ever, ever been able to cite an Iranian act of military aggression against any country, anywhere.
The same cannot be said of contemporary Israel or the United States.
So what’s the fuss? It’s verbal tit-for-tat. Bush says Iran is “evil” [which = it must be eradicated (that’s the Bible injuction against evil)]. Iran says (nuclear-armed and hyper-aggressive) Israel must be eradicated.
The hard fact there is no evidence that Iran is an aggression-oriented country.
US Zionists/neo-cons are beating the drums for more death and destruction to advance Israel’s apartheid program, following the cue of Olmert’s praise of our horrific misadventure in Iraq. These AIPAC fanatics must be defeated politically in the US.
Iran an aggressor? Prove it.
Helena, this is an extremely interesting argument that you make. And now that I think about it, the current dynamic of world relations seems to support it. “It” being the idea that what the Israelis really fear and are fighting against with Iran is NOT the nuclear bomb threat, but rather the resolution of peace and some kind of justice. This is what Ahmadinejad talks about when he talks about justice in his speeches. If Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb, against all the evidence we have seen, and I take the CIA’s analysis and Hersh in particular to be reliable sources, still, as Helena points out, Israel could respond by annihilating Iran many times over with their own considerable arsenal.
While the nuclear issue is thus not the issue between Israel and Iran, in a sense it is, in that the nuclear issue represents, like oil did with Mossadeq in 1952, some real Arab nationalism and an offsetting powers away from the US. Now if Iran continues with this civilian nuclear program, they will have more wealth, less reliance on oil, advances in science, etc. In addition it’s a symbol of independence: they have a legal right to have civilian nuclear facilities, and so are exercising that right in defiance of unfounded international sanctions and limits.
Now if the US were to have substantive talks with Iran, this independence is precisely what would be in the ascendant: Iran clearly already has the upper hand in terms of strategic position, and would have to concede little. And from this independence could result the increased legitimacy of Arab/Muslim concerns about pressing Middle East conflicts.
Mike, just remember that the Iranians are not arabs. They’re “persians”. They speak Farsi, not arabic. So Mossadeq’s nationlism was actually just for Iran, not the arab neighbors.
“Mike, just remember that the Iranians are not arabs. They’re “persians”. They speak Farsi, not arabic. So Mossadeq’s nationlism was actually just for Iran, not the arab neighbors.”
I must have misspoke if I gave the impression that I did not know this. Obviously, I’m aware of the long-running hostility between the Arabs and the Persians.
And you missed the point. I know that his oil nationalism was for internal consumption, whereas the nuclear issue is both for internal as well as for international consumption, as for example it is pitting “developing” nations against “developed”.
“Iran says (nuclear-armed and hyper-aggressive) Israel must be eradicated.”
No, actually, Iran did not say that. First Ahamdinajad is not Iran – in the Iranian political system the president is not the real power. Second, that is not what he actually said.
I do agree with you that unlike Iran, which has no history of aggression, Israel is heavily nuclear armed and hyper-aggressive.
PS I am writing this from beautiful Muscat, Oman. What a contrast from Sialkot, Pakistan, which I left yesterday. This place is in many ways progressive (e.g., it is rated as one of the top ten states for environmental preservation policy), reasonably prosperous, decently (but not excessively) developed, with good infrastructure, clean air, and a certain air of calm, peace, and quiet (the incessant car horn noise one hears in Pakistan or Cairo is replaced by an occasional polite beep – just enough to get your attention and no more). From what I have been able to gather this may be the only Middle Eastern country with a good leader who cares about the country, its future, and its people, and has the wisdom to act in its best interest. Oman has a decent enough supply of oil to support itself nicely (but fortunately apparently not enough to interest the United States in any big way), and Sultan Qaboos, in anticipation of the end of oil as an income-producing product, is working to develop other sources of revenue for the state to take over as the oil supply dwindles.
An AMERICAN attack WILL take place in 2007. It has already been decided. Because the ‘bomb’ reason has no ‘legs’ the reason will be that to stabilixe Iraq we need to take ‘care’ of Iran. Did you not noticed the latest talking points this past weekend? That Iran was in negotiation with El Qaida in order to influence, if not out right pick, the new leader once BL passes on. The idea is absurd on its face when you consider the Sunnis believe the Iranians are heretics, yet it was all over TV this past weekend.
Three neos were on CNN Sunday and flat out said to stabilize Iraq Iran MUST BE BOMBED. When asked ‘What if the Iranians then seek a bomb?’ they all said ‘Then we MUST bomb them again in 2-3 years’.
It IS going to happen.
.
Now if Iran continues with this civilian nuclear program, they will have more wealth, less reliance on oil, advances in science, etc.
Excellent! Now perhaps the US should also return to its pursuit of a comprehensive nuclear engergy program to make itself less relient on foreign oil, maintain its wealth and make advances in science. Let’s re-open Three Mile Island and build reactors all over America!
Why is it that I don’t think that the usual suspects would agree with this?
“The idea is absurd on its face…”
Yes, it is completely absurd on its face, just as were the various stories that Zarqawi and Muqtada Sadr were in cahoots, or that Zarqawi had fled to Iran when he was supposedly severely wounded by the Americans.
“…when you consider the Sunnis believe the Iranians are heretics…”
May I make a correction here? “The Sunnis” do not believe the Iranians are heretics. Most Sunnis do not think about this issue very much, if at all. In fact, you will find that many, if not most Sunnis know little or nothing about Shi`ism and think about it even less. It is only some Sunnis who believe this way.
By the way, I have watched CNN here a bit, though I never watch it in the USA. I had heard it was better outside the USA, but I must say it is hard to imagine that it could be worse in the USA. The propaganda I see on CNN here is as thick and blatant as can be.
Not to worry. The murder of Gemayel ensures that Lebanon, that latest failed “experiment” will keep the pot boiling, generate reports of further Hizbullah/Iranian ties, and generally ensure less talk and more shouting and shooting. This will ensure that the “We don’t talk to nobody” rule will be upheld in the U.S. and Israel, promoting universal misunderstandings between all parties to all conflicts – except in Israel and Washington, who both have much unfinished ontological business in the region. Just when noises were being made about talking to any locals besides Israel, about any subject be it Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Golan, wherever talk is desparately needed, presto, a convenient murder to shoot down any hopes of that – the ISG be damned.