Oops! Major Reversal on Iran
Paulie Brading
War clouds building over Iran have been blowing from Iraq to Iran just in time for the 2008 elections. Hard-liners have been pushing for air attacks against Iran. Last month Bush made a fevered announcement there would be a third world war. Eerrie comparisons between the lead up to the Iraq War and the lead up to a war with Iran hit the press, blogs and letters to the editor. Republicans were busy developing their 2008 campaign which boiled down to "Vote for Us, World War III is coming!"
This morning it is all over the news that US Intelligence agencies declared that Iran shelved it's nuclear weapons program 5 years ago. How embarassing to have a major campaign plank, the one with FEAR painted in bold letters on it, pulled so close to Super Tuesday. What will the Bush administration have to say? Oopsie, we were wrong.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:49 p.m.
Dec 3, '07
This morning it is all over the news that US Intelligence agencies declared that Iran shelved it's nuclear weapons program 5 years ago.
Could you share a link to a good article?
Dec 3, '07
I see two possible responses from the Right. One, we're already seeing, and the second is just a matter of time. Incidentally, both have to do with Iraq.
First, the one we're seeing. Right-wing bloggers are already saying we're underestimating the actual threat of Iran's nuclear program. Because the Right so overestimated Iraq's WMD program, we're apparently swinging into the opposite direction with regards to Iran. Iraq has become such a cluster to the Bush administration, that we're hesitant to repeat those mistakes, so we underestimate Iran.
The second, which we haven't seen yet, but could very well in the near future. We've supposedly so shown our resolve in taking out Saddam and his regime, that Iran gave up its own program. It's a similar argument for Libya. So, yippee, Iraq was a success, vote GOP.
Of course, in my opinion, both arguments are utter bollocks.
Dec 3, '07
Could you share a link to a good article?
From Think Progress: Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat
Dec 3, '07
Another link from Think Progress: NIE: Iran ‘Halted’ Nuclear Weapons Program In 2003, Unlikely To Develop A Weapon In This Decade
See also Richard Perle Grooming Future Ahmad Chalabis For Syria And Iran.
He and his neocon friends are not likely to let facts or other forms of reality interfere with their ideology.
Dec 3, '07
Could you share a link to a good article?
You can also read a copy of the NIE's declassified release.
Dec 3, '07
What will the Bush administration have to say? Oopsie, we were wrong.
No. What they will say is that the Democrat Congress forced them to be hasty in their intelligence gathering, that the Democrat Congress with all its unnecessary hearings kept the intelligence community before Congress instead of at their desks, that the Clinton Administration first gave them this intelligence, and that the President never really wanted war with Iran, it was all those darn war-mongering Democrat people.
Note - I used the Republican version of Democratic with purpose as this is how the Republicants will speak.
2:10 p.m.
Dec 3, '07
Except that Iran's program was never for weapons, so it is a bit of a misnomer to claim they "halted" something that was never really moving forward.
Dec 3, '07
From IranAffairs.com:
Dec 3, '07
The second [argument is that] we've supposedly so shown our resolve in taking out Saddam and his regime, that Iran gave up its own program.
According to the Washington Post that argument is already part of the NIE, although they said there is no direct evidence of an Iraq link. So you're right, it's already out there.
This is good news because, obviously, no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Politically it's good because it makes it almost impossible for the Bush Administration to use military force against Iran in the next 12 months. Instead, it will be a war of words between the Dem and Republican nominees, and the GOP doesn't have much credibility right now on predicting national security threats.
Dec 3, '07
...and the GOP doesn't have much credibility right now on predicting national security threats.
Unfortunately, the DC Dems because they lacked spine to stand up to Bush don't have much credibility either.
Dec 3, '07
More from Think Progress: Hadley: Bush Learned Of NIE’s Findings ‘In The Last Few Months,’ But Continued To Ratchet Up Rhetoric. More from the right wing ignoring facts in favor of ideology and war.
Dec 3, '07
The Shrubbery reacted with their usual pretzel logic:
The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said the estimate showed that suspicions about Iran’s intentions were warranted, given that it had a weapons program in the first place. from New York Times
Just yesterday the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was rattling sabers. WINEP was founded by Martin Indyk, an American diplomat who later became United States ambassador to Israel. Indyk has also been an executive at AIPAC. I am so shocked!
Dec 4, '07
The only question is: Are these leaders out right liars, lying to the American people so that Bush and his administration can take us into another war.
Of course it could also be incompetence in government as well.
I think we need new leadership, which goes for the Democratic Party. This country really is on the wrong track, letting in all the illegals and at the same time not bringing an end to the war in Iraq.
Dec 4, '07
The high gas prices and tension over Iran, which appears to have been without any real reason, shows me that there needs to be further investigations into what really is going on in terms of the rational for continuing in Iraq and the enormous amount of tax dollars being wasted.
Dec 4, '07
My reaction to this news report yesterday was anger. At what point will Americans rise up against Cheney-Bush for their lies and crimes?
The first reaction by the White House was to trot out the National Security Advisor to basically tell us that we're too stupid to really understand this report and the real situation: "In a special White House briefing on the report, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley called it "a complicated estimate.""
Hadley then reminded us that the WWIII scenario is still being played out in the Cheney front office: "Hadley said it was "good news" that a dispute over Iran's nuclear program might be resolved without the use of force, but that "the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.""
Yes, Iran is a threat to almost everyone, but very recent history tells us that the use of force doesn't work. The Cheney-Bush-Rice foreign policy consists of: 1)call them names, 2)refuse to talk to them unless they meet some ridiculous demands, and 3) invade them in the name of democracy.
8:32 a.m.
Dec 4, '07
In his press conference this morning, which I listened to on NPR, president Bush fielded a series of questions about Iran and the NIE.
One particular answer stunned me. Bush was asked about why he was using WWIII rhetoric so recently if the intelligence community already had this info on Iran. Bush's response, in part, was to recount a day in August when Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell mentioned new information to Bush. Bush said, "Mike McConnell told me that he had new information, but didn't tell me what it was."
WTF? You've been talking about WWIII and when your DNI says he has new information relevant to it and you don't ask WTF it is???
9:39 a.m.
Dec 4, '07
I think taht Pat Buchanan hit this one on the head last night on Olbermann.
He argues that Hadley and Cheney were basically painting themselves and Bush into a corner with their rhetoric over the past six months or so. Their statements were leading to an inevitable airstrike at the very least.
Deciding to release this particular NIE gives them space to back down a bit from the Neo-Con talking points.
The "Why" if it is even more interesting and also harder to divine.
Either sanity has struck and the State Department (multilateralist) faction has gotten the upper hand with the Dear Leader or;
Hadley and Cheney are planning a quick series of airstrikes between the election and the inauguration to leave the next prez hoplessly entangled in the Neo-Con vision.
Or both.
12:11 p.m.
Dec 4, '07
And this is precisely why the 2001 AUMF is such an abomination and so damn dangerous if not repealed. Legally Bush/Cheney can do exactly that under the authority of the 2001 AUMF which is a blank check to bomb anyone, anywhere, anytime on his say so alone, no Congressional authority required.
10:52 p.m.
Dec 4, '07
I think there is at least a possibility that the DNI released this off his own bat, as he claims, either as 1) part of taking sides in the internal debates because he (correctly) thinks attacking Iran would be incredibly stupid and damaging to the U.S. (probably not so concerned with its immorality or further degradation of international rule of law, but hey, that's a lot ask, isn't it?); or 2) demonstrating that he/ the current intelligence establishment are committed to saying truthfully what they really think, as is their duty, rather than kowtowing to administration political pressures and cooking the intelligence like George Tenet did. Or both.
This interpetation would see it as a sign of Bush's lame-duckitude, and the declining population of New Aggressionists in the shrubbery around the White House and Pentagon.
Another line Bush is pursuing is to say that since the Iranians know how to make a bomb, even if they didn't/aren't means they are just as dangerous as if they did/were, so the NIE "changes nothing," and the current literally bellicose strategy of threatening war remains as justified as it ever was.
He's right, of course, in the narrow sense that it was unjustified before and remains so.
But this is a scary and dangerous line. On the U.S. side, pursued to its end, its logic is that there is no resolution short of aggression against Iran to change its government.
From the Iranian standpoint, if the U.S. is such an irrational mad-dog state that we cannot distinguish among real actions, hypothetical potentials, and intentions, much less weigh and evaluate them accurately, what would there be to lose in having a nuclear weapons program? If Bush is going to treat them the same way in either case, and that treatment involves regular threats of war and massing of major military forces in threatening posture nearby, why not seek a deterrent?
Of course, perhaps the DNI was trying to send the Iranians a signal that in fact not everyone in the U.S. security establishment is a merula-drunk mad elephant, & that with patience there will be someone with more sense to talk to. Kind of wonder what he thought when Bush brushed off his news with uninterest in August. Pissed off, maybe?
Actually I don't think Iran is "a threat to almost everyone." The NIE says that from a standing start today with no extant nuclear weapons program, Iran could develop a nuclear weapon possibly as soon as 2010. If that's right, and then if Iran had set about it or continued its effort in 2003, they'd already have one now.
Yet interestingly, Iran chose not to do that. Despite having the intellectual capital & capability, it did not pursue that course in actual actions. And it has apparently pursued a steady course of not acting on this capability for four years.
Dec 5, '07
I haven't seen any commentary from insiders, but it seems likely that the intelligence community was not willing to further damage its reputation in order to cover for the Shrubbery, who will be gone in a year. It's also likely that Bush was not willing to stand the furor over replacing enough agency heads to rig the results to his liking.
"Scot McClean" suggests this may be a matter of incompetence. Incompetence can be a handy excuse when you F-up horribly and cannot be fired, but such blatant disregard of simple good sense cannot be excused as incompetence when you have plenty of intelligent and well-trained professionals all over the government who have managers who have access to advisers at the White House who have access to the president, or more importantly, the vice-president. These professionals would likely be close to unanimous in their perception of good sense in this situation. If the Shrubbery refused to listen, it was more criminal negligence than it was incompetence. Either offense is impeachable, but in the US today, it seems that mere incompetence is not grounds for losing your job as head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces. Folks who cry for accountability from minimum wage workers and schoolchildren do not require it of their president.
Dec 5, '07
Remember the Spring town hall meeting where Ron Wyden, intelligence committee member, assured us He Knew Things About Iran And We Must Be Very Very Afraid. Many in the crowd openly laughed and scoffed at him over this. He stood his ground.
WHAT SAY YE NOW RON WYDEN? ARE YOU TICKED OFF AT THE BUSHIES? DOES AIPAC TELL YOU TO KEEP UP THE FEAR-MONGERING? PLEASE ISSUE A STATEMENT AND CONSIDER APOLOGIZING TO THOSE YOU DENIGRATED AT THE SPRING MEETING.
11:21 a.m.
Dec 5, '07
Backbeat12 raises a valid issue. And while I'm no fan of AIPAC, as an American Jew I do know that being Jewish doesn't automatically imply a knee-jerk compliance with whatever AIPAC wants.
This whole NIE on Iran issue underscores in my mind the desirability of Jeff Merkley as our next junior Senator. Having a background working for the DOD as a weapons analyst, it seems to me that he would be much more difficult for NeoCons and rightwing hawks to manipulate or deceive.
Not that it justifies anything, but Wyden just doesn't have that kind of background, even as a member of the Select Intelligence Committee. Seems to me that it'd be an asset to Americans in general and Oregonians in particular if Wyden could confer with his fellow Oregon Senator on these sorts of issues.
Dec 5, '07
Don't get me wrong, I like Wyden and am happy with the majority of his votes. But he really was annoyed at those in the crowd who mocked him over Iran. So now I would really like to hear his statement about the NIE. Guess I'll call.
Dec 5, '07
Poor George.
The boy was shaking so much on TV, I thought someone had told him the twins were adopted!
9:14 p.m.
Dec 5, '07
Kevin, could you please explain what a weapons analyst in the Pentagon does?
Dec 6, '07
Kevin wrote
"Backbeat12 raises a valid issue. And while I'm no fan of AIPAC, as an American Jew I do know that being Jewish doesn't automatically imply a knee-jerk compliance with whatever AIPAC wants."
That certainly is true for Jews in general, Kevin. I know many who actively oppose the AIPAC line on Israel. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for Members of Congress who are Jewish. I have never seen one stand up to AIPAC in a significant way. Of course, very few Christian, Pagan, or Atheistic congresspeople have stood up to AIPAC either - at least, not until they planned to retire.
<h2>Ron Wyden does not sound and vote like an AIPAC member because he is Jewish, but because he wants to get reelected.</h2>