Smoke Gets In Your Eyes
All of a sudden, the news is plastered everywhere that the US is planning for an attack on Iran. The Times of London has a breathless report that several unnamed pentagon generals "will quit" if the US attacks Iran.
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
Seymour Hersh is recycling his dire predictions - first made last year - that the war planning is ongoing. He calls it a "Redirection" of US policy.
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
And I smell smoke here.
There is a concerted effort going on to make the public anxious that the administration plans an attack on Iran even though the administration is very openly saying they have no intentions of doing so. Military planning is an ongoing thing and means nothing in and of itself. There is probably a file cabinet in the Pentagon that has a plan for military action against Lichtenstein, for Pete's sake. I doubt the US will attack Iran, Bush would not have the political support necessary for such a move. He knows it - so do the political enemies of the administration. But if they can scare up enough public sentiment, they think there will be some political advantage. So the smoke machines are in full operation.
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Sunday, 25 February , 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Ya ever notice that Hersh is basically NEVER available for comment after he launches these torpedoes? He just burps his “reporting” missives, without damn ever a thing within qoutation marks bearing a pedigree….
I would not buy a dog under Seymour’s circumstance.
By lambert strether, Sunday, 25 February , 2007 @ 1:53 pm
IMSHO Hersh’s real point is that it’s Iran-Contra all over again, except this time with Cheney doing it, instead of Ollie North and the rest of his merry men. (And that what’s going on is so vile, and so harebrained, that even Negroponte wants no part of it.)
Remember Josh’s scoop about Cheney’s theory that the Vice President is really a fourth branch of government, so that any constraints on “the executive” don’t apply? 10 to 1 they’re applying that here, and in a context, Iraq, where literally billions of loose cash is just floating around….
By Kathy, Sunday, 25 February , 2007 @ 2:24 pm
“There is a concerted effort going on to make the public anxious that the administration plans an attack on Iran even though the administration is very openly saying they have no intentions of doing so.”
The administration very openly insisted they had no intentions to invade Iraq, either, Gaius — at a time when they were already fully committed, privately, to invading. For at least a year before the invasion, the Bush administration said publicly that there were no plans to invade Iraq, and all that time the plans to invade were ongoing and active. The first time they lied, with Iraq, shame on them. If Bush does invade Iran, that will be the second time, and the shame will be on you, and everyone who believes everything Bush says, with the faith of a child.
By jpe, Sunday, 25 February , 2007 @ 2:59 pm
If he fabricates a case that Iran has attacked US troops, though, he wouldn’t need political support. The terms of the War Powers Act give him the authority to attack. He repeatedly claims that he doesn’t care about his legacy, and I think that’s one of the few things he’s not lying about. So if he thinks an unprovoked attack on Iran would cause some more of that constructive chaos that was so efficiently brought about by the Iraq, I don’t doubt he’d attack.
By Former Republican, Sunday, 25 February , 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Gaius, your theory doesn’t wash, because leftwingers aren’t the only people who are talking about an attack on Iran. Just for example, Charles Krauthammer is hardly a man of the left. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401413.html Why on Earth would he and other rightwingers help leftwingers crank out smoke?
By cfaller96, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 12:42 pm
I think all of us should take your comments with a grain of salt, Gaius, considering that you yourself support war with Iran (and/or believe we’re already at war with Iran). Given that, your “liberals are scaring everyone about Iran” comments are kind of silly…
By Chris, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Krauthammer was rationally weighing the pros and cons of allowing Iran to complete its nuclear research and arm itself with nuclear weapons. Funny how almost all criticism of the administration’s purported plans to attack Iran leave that salient fact out. I guess it is assumed that the Iranians will only use their nukes for decoration.
Others, however, wish to see the options of the Bush administration strictly limited in the case of Iran. Undoubtedly this is because the thought of Iranian nukes scares them less than George W. Bush.
By Former Republican, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 5:30 pm
“Krauthammer was rationally weighing the pros and cons of allowing Iran to complete its nuclear research and arm itself with nuclear weapons. Funny how almost all criticism of the administration’s purported plans to attack Iran leave that salient fact out”
Chris, what’s the “fact”? That Iran may arm itself with nuclear weapons? That’s a possibility, maybe even a probability, but not a fact.
By Chris, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 7:19 am
The fact is that Iran is running a dual-purpose nuclear program, specifically designed to produce highly enriched uranium, which is ideally used in nuclear weapons, not reactor fuel. They signed the NPT, then refused to operate under its strictures. They refuse to allow their “peaceful” program to be transparent. They refuse any attempt to move their “nuclear power” program onto another track that would eliminate the production of highly enriched uranium.
Couple that with their consistently belligerent rhetoric against the U.S. and Israel, and you have a major problem. You may wish to gamble that the Iranians can be deterred, that their rhetoric is just that, that they really don’t want to wipe Israel out, that they won’t give WMD to their Hezbollah proxies. I don’t.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 10:56 am
Chris said:
The fact is that Iran is running a dual-purpose nuclear program, specifically designed to produce highly enriched uranium, which is ideally used in nuclear weapons, not reactor fuel.
No, Chris, that’s not a fact, that’s your assessment. And, for the record, I think our options with Iran are extremely limited, so I don’t think anyone is really “choosing” to “allow” Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Or do you have a proposal up your sleeve that will stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons (which they may or may not be doing)?
By Chris, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 6:53 pm
It’s not my assessment, it’s the assessment of most of the intelligence agencies of the world. The default position of the MSM is that the Iranian program is geared toward producing weapons-grade materials. Unless all of these entities are part of a conspiracy, I’m going with the crowd on this one.
I agree that our options with Iran are limited. They are just stringing us (and the EU) along diplomatically. The negotiations have taken on a circular form, always ending up in the same place. The Iranians won’t stop enriching uranium, and we won’t commit to any deal until they do. We can’t get any real sanctions regime working against them, because Russia (and China) will nix anything with real teeth in it. That leaves internal regime change, which doesn’t seem to be happening (with or without any help that may be unseen), and external military pressure.
We can stop their nuclear program, it’s just a matter of how much it hurts us in the short run to do so. That is a matter of great uncertainty, and there are a lot of bad things that have a good probability of happening in the event of military action against them.