by Damozel | As I noted yesterday, the Iranians have announced that their policy on uranium enrichment remains unchanged despite attempts by several nations to persuade them to cease and desist.
Barring a complete capitulation by the Iranians, which no one really believes is on the cards, is it possible that Bush and Cheney will leave office without opening a third military front in Iran? Is there really any doubt that Bush fully expects the diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to comply with the demands of the US and Israel to fail? And that when the failure inevitably occurs, he is highly or at least quite likely to take or enable military action?
Bear in mind that I'm just a simple citizeness trying to piece together the signs in the media so I at least know what direction we're rolling in. I donât have any specialist knowledge in international law or military defense. I'm not about to get into a fight with anyone about which country is most in the wrong here.
But I do prefer to have some idea where those who have been drunk-driving the car for the last several years are taking me now. It's not as if they have a great record of going in the right direction. At least I want to brace myself for the next teeth-rattling jolt toward the brink.
I mean...Take a look at the road signs we're hurtling past.
For at least the last two years, Bush has been coming up with various reasons why we need to initiate military action against Iran and has been steadily beating the war drums.
Israel seems unquestionably to be preparing to launch an attack against Iran. (IHT) The day after the exercise ended, Israel's now deputy prime minister (formerly its defense minister) said that if Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, Israel will attack and that such an attack would be 'unavoidable.' (Reuters) On September 6, 2007, the Israelis initiated attacks against a suspected nuclear facility. (ABC News) Some in the administration supported these attacks; others apparently did not. (ABC News) But there is little question that the US shared some corroborating evidence with the Israelis.
Today, The Telegraph reports that the Pentagon is very worried that Israel will launch an attack against Iran in the next 12 months....whether or not such an attack can even accomplish their goals.
Gaps in the intelligence on the precise location and vulnerabilities of Iran's facilities emerged during recent talks between Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Israeli generals, according to an official familiar with the discussions who has briefed Iran experts in Washington and London.
Recently, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, stated that for the US to open a third front in Iran (in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan) would not be a good idea at this time. (BN-Politics). But Bush has said that all the options, including the military one, remain on the table (BN-Politics)
Seymour Hersh reported this week on the Bush administration's covert activities in Iran:
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.
"Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year." (New Yorker)
On this score, The Telegraph notes:
The Americans had spies in Iran until they were rounded up in 2003 and now they do not have much by way of humint [human intelligence] on the ground. The Israelis have better information. But the Americans went away from the meetings unconvinced that the Israelis have enough intelligence on where to strike, and with little confidence that they will be able to destroy the nuclear programme."
The shortage of good intelligence could explain reports that President George W Bush has quietly sanctioned a dramatic increase in covert operations by American special forces inside Iran.
Admiral Mullen's opposition to military action --- based at least partly on 'intelligence gaps' ---places him at odds with hawks in the Bush administration, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney. (The Telegraph)
Keen for their own differing reasons to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, six world powers recently offered an 'incentive package' to induce the Iranians to cease their uranium enrichment program
According to The New York Times, the Iranians said that they intend to go on enriching uranium as before.
The Iranian response was filled with criticism of the way the six world powers — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — have conducted the diplomacy.
“The time for negotiating from the condescending position of inequality has come to an end,” the response said, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.
But their response is nevertheless regarded as 'oblique,' requiring further study. As this New York Times article notes, at least this time they didn't reject the proposals outright.
...Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said Iran would be willing to open a comprehensive negotiation with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, and the six world powers involved in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions....
“We intend to study the Iranian response,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. He said the United States would discuss the letter with the five other governments — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — “before responding formally.”...
Still, some officials involved in the negotiations expressed disappointment. “There is nothing new in the response,” one said. Western officials have long contended that Iran wants to prolong the diplomatic back-and-forth so that it can continue its nuclear activities.
They seem willing to go on talking.
Will talking do any good?
Back to The Telegraph:
A former head of Mossad, the agency whose main responsibility is overseas intelligence, told The Sunday Telegraph last week that Israel would have to act within a year to prevent Iran securing nuclear weapons.
Those familiar with the Israeli-American military talks believe that Israel is still determined to act before Iran has enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb, and before Tehran has acquired the Russian SA-20 air defence system to protect its nuclear facilities. "The Israelis have a real sense of urgency," the official said. "They are stepping up their preparations. But the Israelis and the Americans are worried about the other's lack of intelligence.
According to one CIA agent 'with three decades of Iranian experience,' the position of Bush Administration hawks such as Cheney is as follows:' "Their belief… is that the US would get the blame from Iran whether or not we play a major role in any attack, so we might as well do the job properly."' (Telegraph)
What an interesting rationale: 'We might as well jump in, since they'll probably blame us anyway.' In other words, if you think you'll get sent to the principal because the guy sitting next to you throws a brick through the library window, you might as well throw a brick through the library window too.' What's the difference between innocence and complicity if you're convinced you're going to get blamed? Bush and Cheney aren't the only ones who worry about human intelligence.
I for one believe that once you have officials 'looking into' feasibility, the outcome has already been decided. According to The Telegraph, defense and intelligence officials are projecting various outcomes that may result from 'attacks featuring varying levels of American involvement.' On that theory, what can we expect?
....Gen Mohammed al-Jafari, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, warned that any attack on Iran would be "regarded as the beginning of war"...
The ex-CIA officer told The Sunday Telegraph that the planned attacks ranged from a full-blown assault on 2,000 targets inside Iran to logistics and intelligence support for Israel, if the Jewish state decided to go it alone.
The United States is preparing ways to cope with retaliation from Iran, likely to include attempts to cut off oil supplies, block the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf and launch attacks on American naval ships there and on US bases in Bahrain. The US Navy has recently changed its rules of engagement for warships in the Gulf to make them better able to combat "swarming" attacks by large numbers of small boats, used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. (Telegraph)
In the meantime, Pentagon officials are worried that an Israeli attack, if launched, wouldn't accomplish its intended goals because of insufficient intelligence about the locations of the bases. (Telegraph) They're afraid that at best such an attack would slow down development of a nuclear weapon. (The Telegraph)
Will cooler heads prevail in the long run? In the long, long run of Bush-Cheney, do they ever? And if not, what price all the bickering over which nominee has the better or more realistic plan for Iraq?
Memeorandum has more commentary.
RECENT POSTINGS
Three Reasons Cited In Support of Telecom Amnesty that Aren't
Iran's Position Unchanged Despite Offered Incentives Package
Obama & Europe: Will They Still Love Him Tomorrow?
Condi
is Proud; Presidents Are Not Welcome at Big Summer Party Parties;
Disney Flouts the NRA; A Governor Takes a Wife; and a Conservative Icon
Moves On
WSJ Compares Obama to Bush; Hillary Supporters Are Still Holding Out; What John McCain Didn't Learn from Vietnam
Comments