09 Apr Hersh on the Risks of War–or Not Going to War–With Iran
09.04.06
|
Are we planning to use tactical nukes against Iran? That is one of the topics covered in a new article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. He describes the increasing tempo of war planning, clandestine missions in Iran, and discussions of the nuclear option:
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
(My immediate reaction to this was: “Isn’t ‘saving’ Iraq and losing New Orleans enough of a legacy for one man?”)
One section I found especially interesting as I am teaching National Security Law this semester was the description of the interplay between the President and Congress. According to Hersh,
In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”
The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
Hersh also considers the risk to the West posed by a nuclear Iran.
Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites. If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off.”
Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover as “a white coup,” with ominous implications for the West. “Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out,” he said. “We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the revolution.” He said that, particularly in consideration of China’s emergence as a superpower, Iran’s attitude was “To hell with the West. You can do as much as you like.”
There is a lot to mull over in this article both concerning the very real threat of Iran and the very high cost of military intervention. And, to paraphrase one diplomat, the window of opportunity to resolve the situation without a war is now.
Well worth the read.
Topics
General
Thanks Chris.
Hersh’s essay might be read alongside Joseph Cirincione’s piece on the Foreign Policy website (web only), ‘Fool Me Twice:’ ‘Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.’
Truly frightening and distressing stuff. I figured the US would use (encourage, stand aside, etc.) Israel to strike Iran were it ever to entertain the possibility (no less frightening and disturbing). Perhaps Bush sees himself as divinely ordained to spark some precipitating event to set in motion his dark biblical vision of the Apocalypse.
Let’s hope this creates a stir in the mass media and members of Congress start voicing their concern and opposition in the strongest terms possible.
William Edmundson over at Leiter Reports says the British press (The Times and The Telegraph) is also reporting that the Administration is planning to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
After reading an article in the LA Times the other day I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps this news is yet another in a series of calculated ‘leaks,’ i.e., part of the backdrop to the Administration’s ‘negotiations’ with Iran. It just seems so implausible given the quagmire in Iraq and our nation’s standing with so many Muslims in the world.
It would be nice to hear what other readers think about this.
After writing my original post I began wondering the same thing.