Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry;
but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there
will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is
likely to be at war with Iran-and with the thousands of real
terrorists Iran can field around the globe.

It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on
Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take
action to prevent a wider war-while we still can.

President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney
plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around
the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction"-not even
ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S.
reverses in Iraq, and the White House's felt need to create a casus
belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed
retaliation-eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related
facilities.

Bush's Aug. 28 speech to the American Legion comes five years after a
very similar presentation by Vice President *** Cheney. Addressing
the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney set the
meretricious terms of reference for war on Iraq.

Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW
convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear a depiction of
intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us)
that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two
years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to
date on key intelligence findings.

"There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD...I heard a case being
made to go to war," Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years
later.

(Zinni is a straight shooter with considerable courage, and so the
question lingers: why did he not go public? It is all too familiar a
conundrum at senior levels; top officials can seldom find their
voices. My hunch is that Zinni regrets letting himself be guided by a
misplaced professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to
classification restrictions, when he might have prevented our country
from starting the kind of war of aggression branded at Nuremberg the
"supreme international crime.")

Cheney: Dean of Preemption

Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney's words. Then-CIA
director George Tenet says Cheney's speech took him completely by
surprise. In his memoir Tenet wrote, "I had the impression that the
president wasn't any more aware than we were of what his number-two
was going to say to the VFW until he said it."

Yet, it could have been anticipated. Just five weeks before, Tenet
himself had told his British counterpart that the president had
decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

When Bush's senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day, 2002,
the next five weeks (and by now, the next five years) were devoted to
selling a new product-war on Iraq. The actual decision to attack Iraq,
we now know, was made several months earlier but, as then-White House
chief of staff Andy Card explained, no sensible salesperson would
launch a major new product during the month of August-Cheney's
preemptive strike notwithstanding. Yes, that's what Card called the
coming war; a "new product."

After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney
and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld dispatched him and the
pliant Powell at State to play supporting roles in the advertising
campaign: bogus yellowcake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes for
uranium enrichment, and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological
warfare agent-the whole nine yards. The objective was to scare or
intimidate Congress into voting for war, and, thanks largely to a
robust cheering section in the corporate-controlled media, Congress
did so on October 10 and 11, 2002.

This past week saw the president himself, with that same kind of
support, pushing a new product-war with Iran. And in the process, he
made clear how intelligence is being fixed to "justify" war this time
around. The case is too clever by half, but it will be hard for
Americans to understand that. Indeed, the Bush/Cheney team expects
that the product will sell easily-the more so, since the
administration has been able once again to enlist the usual
cheerleaders in the media to "catapult the propaganda," as Bush once
put it.

Iran's Nuclear Plans

It has been like waiting for Godot...the endless wait for the latest
National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear plans. That NIE turns
out to be the quintessential dog that didn't bark. The most recent
published NIE on the subject was issued two and a half years ago and
concluded that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon until "early- to
mid-next decade." That estimate followed a string of NIEs dating back
to 1995, which kept predicting, with embarrassing consistency, that
Iran was "within five years" of having a nuclear weapon.

The most recent NIE, published in early 2005, extended the timeline
and provided still more margin for error. Basically, the timeline was
moved 10 years out to 2015 but, in a fit of caution, the drafters
settled on the words "early-to-mid next decade." On Feb. 27, 2007 at
his confirmation hearings to be Director of National Intelligence,
Michael McConnell repeated that formula verbatim.

A "final" draft of the follow-up NIE mentioned above had been
completed in Feb. 2007, and McConnell no doubt was briefed on its
findings prior to his testimony. The fact that this draft has been
sent back for revision every other month since February speaks
volumes. Judging from McConnell's testimony, the conclusions of the
NIE draft of February are probably not alarmist enough for Vice
President *** Cheney. (Shades of Iraq.)

According to one recent report, the target date for publication has
now slipped to late fall. How these endless delays can be tolerated is
testimony to the fecklessness of the "watchdog" intelligence
committees in House and Senate.

As for Iran's motivation if it plans to go down the path of producing
nuclear weapons, newly appointed defense secretary Robert Gates was
asked about that at his confirmation hearing in December. Just called
from the wings to replace Donald Rumsfeld, Gates apparently had not
yet read the relevant memo from Cheney's office. It is a safe bet that
the avuncular Cheney took Gates to the woodshed, after the nominee
suggested that Iran's motivation could be, "in the first instance,"
deterrence:"

"While they [the Iranians] are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for
a nuclear capability, I think they would see it in the first instance
as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons-
Pakistan to the east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the
west, and us in the Persian Gulf."

Unwelcome News (to the White House)

There they go again-those bureaucrats at the International Atomic
Energy Agency. On August 28, the very day Bush was playing up the
dangers from Iran, the IAEA released a note of understanding between
the IAEA and Iran on the key issue of inspection. The IAEA announced:

"The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared
nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has
therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use."

The IAEA deputy director said the plan just agreed to by the IAEA and
Iran will enable the two to reach closure by December on the nuclear
issues that the IAEA began investigating in 2003. Other IAEA officials
now express confidence that they will be able to detect any military
diversion or any uranium enrichment above a low grade, as long as the
Iran-IAEA safeguard agreement remains intact.

Shades of the preliminary findings of the U.N. inspections-
unprecedented in their intrusiveness-that were conducted in Iraq in
early 2003 before the U.S. abruptly warned the U.N. in mid-March to
pull out its inspectors, lest they find themselves among those to be
shocked-and-awed.

Vice President Cheney can claim, as he did three days before the
attack on Iraq, that the IAEA is simply "wrong." But Cheney's
credibility has sunk to prehistoric levels; witness the fact that the
president was told that this time he would have to take the lead in
playing up various threats from Iran. And they gave him new words.

The President's New Formulation

As I watched the president speak on Aug. 28, I was struck by the care
he took in reading the exact words of a new, subjunctive-mood
formulation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. He never looked up;
this is what he said:

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear
weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and
violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

The cautious wording suggests to me that the White House finally has
concluded that the "nuclear threat" from Iran is "a dog that won't
hunt," as Lyndon Johnson would have put it. While, initial press
reporting focused on the "nuclear holocaust" rhetorical flourish, the
earlier part of the sentence is more significant, in my view. It is
quite different from earlier Bush rhetoric charging categorically that
Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons," including the following
(erroneous) comment at a joint press conference with Afghan President
Hamid Karzai in early August:

"This [Iran] is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a
nuclear weapon."

The latest news from the IAEA is, for the White House, an unwelcome
extra hurdle. And the president's advisers presumably were aware of it
well before Bush's speech was finalized; it will be hard to spin.
Administration officials would also worry about the possibility that
some patriotic truth teller might make the press aware of the key
judgments of the languishing draft of the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear
capability-or that a courageous officer or official of Gen. Anthony
Zinni's stature might feel conscience bound to try to head off another
unnecessary war, by providing a more accurate, less alarmist
assessment of the nuclear threat from Iran.

It is just too much of a stretch to suggest that Iran could be a
nuclear threat to the United States within the next 17 months, and
that's all the time Bush and Cheney have got to honor their open
pledge to our "ally" Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential.
Besides, some American Jewish groups have become increasingly
concerned over the likelihood of serious backlash if young Americans
are seen to be fighting and dying to eliminate perceived threats to
Israel (but not to the U.S.). Some of these groups have been quietly
urging the White House to back off the nuclear-threat rationale for
war on Iran.

The (Very) Bad News

Bush and Cheney have clearly decided to use alleged Iranian
interference in Iraq as the preferred casus belli . And the charges,
whether they have merit or not, have become much more bellicose. Thus,
Bush on Aug. 28:

"Iran's leaders...cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks
against coalition forces...The Iranian regime must halt these actions.
And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our
troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront
Tehran's murderous activities."

How convenient: two birds with one stone. Someone to blame for U.S.
reverses in Iraq, and "justification" to confront the ostensible
source of the problem-"deadeners" having been changed to Iran. Vice
President Cheney has reportedly been pushing for military retaliation
against Iran if the U.S. finds hard evidence of Iranian complicity in
supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq.

President Bush obliged on Aug. 28:

"Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had
been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to
Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and
our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last
few months..."

QED

Recent U.S. actions, like arresting Iranian officials in Iraq-eight
were abruptly kidnapped and held briefly in Baghdad on Aug. 28, the
day Bush addressed the American Legion-suggest an intention to provoke
Iran into some kind of action that would justify U.S. "retaliation."
The evolving rhetoric suggests that the most likely immediate targets
at this point would be training facilities inside Iran-some twenty
targets that are within range of U.S. cruise missiles already in
place.

Iranian retaliation would be inevitable, and escalation very likely.
It strikes me as shamelessly ironic that the likes of our current
ambassador at the U.N., Zalmay Khalilizad, one of the architects of
U.S. policy toward the area, are now warning publicly that the current
upheaval in the Middle East could bring another world war.

The Public Buildup

Col. Pat Lang (USA, ret.), as usual, puts it succinctly:

"Careful attention to the content of the chatter on the 24/7 news
channels reveals a willingness to accept the idea that it is not
possible to resolve differences with Iran through diplomacy. Network
anchors are increasingly accepting or voicing such views. Are we
supposed to believe that this is serendipitous?"

And not only that. It is as if Scooter Libby were back writing lead
editorials for the Washington Post , the Pravda of this
administration. The Post's lead editorial on Aug. 21 regurgitated the
allegations that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is "supplying the
weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in
Iraq;" that it is "waging war against the United States and trying to
kill as many American soldiers as possible." Designating Iran a
"specially designated global terrorist" organization, said the Post,
"seems to be the least the United States should be doing, giving the
soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq."

As for the news side of the Post, which is widely perceived as a bit
freer from White House influence, its writers are hardly immune. For
example, they know how many times the draft National Intelligence
Estimate on Iran's nuclear program has been sent back for redrafting...
and they know why. Have they been told not to write the story?

For good measure, the indomitable arch-neocon James Woolsey has again
entered the fray. He was trotted out on August 14 to tell Lou Dobbs
that the US may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its
nuclear weapons program. Woolsey, who has described himself as the
"anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs," knows what will scare. To Dobbs: "I'm afraid
within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they
[Iran] could have the bomb."

As for what Bush is telling his counterparts among our allies,
reporting on his recent meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy
are disquieting, to say the least. Reports circulating in European
foreign ministries indicate that Sarkozy came away convinced that Bush
"is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities," according
to well-connected journalist Arnauld De Borchgrave.

It Is Up To US

Air strikes on Iran seem inevitable, unless grassroots America can
arrange a backbone transplant for Congress. The House needs to begin
impeachment proceedings without delay. Why? Well, there's the
Constitution of the United States, for one thing. For another, the
initiation of impeachment proceedings might well give our senior
military leaders pause. Do they really want to precipitate a wider war
and risk destroying much of what is left of our armed forces for the
likes of Bush and Cheney? Is another star on the shoulder worth THAT?

The deterioration of the U.S. position in Iraq; the perceived need for
a scapegoat; the knee-jerk deference given to Israel's myopic and
ultimately self-defeating security policy; and the fact that time is
running out for the Bush/Cheney administration to end Iran's nuclear
program-together make for a very volatile mix.

So, on Tuesday let's put away the lawn chairs and roll up our sleeves.
Let's remember all that has already happened since Labor Day five
years ago.

There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop
this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us
today:

"There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us
standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the
bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic
words: 'Too late.'"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/02/3564/

Ray McGovern, a member of the American Legion, was an Army infantry/
intelligence officer in the sixties. He then served for 27 years as an
analyst with CIA and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He currently works with Tell
the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in Washington, DC.

A shorter version of this article appeared originally on
Consortiumnews.com.

.