By Fiona West
fionawest10@yahoo.com
The Bush administration is threatening to attack Iran. Many of us ignored the threats for a long time. How could it be more than saber rattling, when we’re already involved in two wars? But there is evidence that compels us to see an attack as a serious possibility.
Efforts to block that possibility suffered a defeat yesterday. Leaders of the House are trying to gather votes to pass a bill limiting the Iraq war. Rep. Jim McDermott added a provision to prevent an attack on Iran without congressional authorization. But conservative Democrats objected, and it was dropped to gain their votes on Iraq.
This is not the end of the story, however. Senator Jim Webb has already introduced a bill with similar intent. And there are renewed rumblings in the House. We may well see language related to Iran reintroduced.
These efforts need our vigorous support. Even those progressives whose focus has been on the Iraq war need to pause, look at the Iran situation, and see how important it is for us to make our voices heard about both Iraq and Iran at this crucial time.
An attack on Iran was, without doubt, part of the original Rumsfeld battle plan for the Middle East. The evidence that it is still on the table includes the media campaign to sell the war to the public, and the military preparations that have quietly taken place. Even more disturbing are the repeated reports from dismayed military and intelligence insiders, trying to tell us just how irrational the neo-conservatives are, and that we’re standing on the brink of yet another war.
Looking for ways to block the attack takes us into a twilight zone, a long-simmering constitutional crisis, where we can no longer count on the President abiding by the most basic rules of our system.
We need to confront the evidence, take it seriously, and transmit it to as many people as we can. The stakes are too high not to--particularly as it has become evident that tactical nuclear weapons are among the options under consideration.
Selling the War
We’ve all watched this happen. It’s so familiar. There have been alarming reports of WMD, accusations of plots, of inspectors duped and misled, and urgent warnings that if we don’t act now it may be too late. "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux," says Phillip Geraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist.
It’s different from Iraq in that diplomats and arms experts believe Iran is in fact taking initial steps toward developing nuclear arms, despite having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Nobody likes that idea. A nuclear arms race involving the Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and possibly Jordan would be very likely to ensue, bringing yet greater risk to the world’s most volatile region.(See Hersh, Next Act, pp 4, 6)*
Yet Iran will not have their first bomb for some time; probably between 5 and 10 years. There is time for diplomacy. The Iranians have periodically shown openness to negotiations. There is no basis for turning to extreme measures at this point.
The White House was embarrassed last fall by the leaking of a CIA assessment which challenged administration claims on how close Iran is to having nukes.
(Hersh, Next Act, p.3) In a sudden change of emphasis, Iran was accused of supplying Shiite groups in Iraq with explosive devices used to kill American troops—even though the great majority of US casualties come from Sunni insurgents. When that case proved weak, Iran was suddenly labeled the "Central Banker of Terrorism."
As with Iraq, one charge after another is leveled. Maybe they don’t stick. Maybe they’re partial and distorted. But the media covers them, and there’s always a residual effect on the public. Many people still believe Saddam Hussein was somehow connected with 9/11.
Preparing for War
The US has moved ships, planes, missiles, and personnel into the Gulf region over the past several months. According to Col. Sam Gardiner (USAF, Retired), who has taught strategy in the War College and been involved in war-gaming strikes on Iran for the Bush administration, the pieces are being put in place for a naval and air attack on Iran.
The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, with its accompanying destroyers and support ships, is in the Arabian Sea. It has recently been joined by a second aircraft carrier strike group. This is the first time since the start of the Iraq war that two such groups have been deployed in the Arabian Sea. One of the carrier groups is due to be relieved this spring, but journalist Seymour Hersh says, "There is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources." (Hersh, Redirection, p. 3)
According to Col. Gardiner, the carrier groups will be joined by "naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf." There are reports of activity along the Black Sea as well, including setting up new refueling facilities for Stealth bombers in Bulgaria and Romania—within striking distance of Iran.
Col. Gardiner says:
The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise....
The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark.
Perhaps most tellingly, there is a new head of Central Command (which oversees the Middle East), and the officer assigned is not a general but Admiral William J. Fallon.
Navy Commander Jeff Huber (Retired) diaried this change here at Daily Kos. The title was: Navy Commander Goes to CENTCOM: Be Very Afraid. He said:
ABC reports that "Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual."
However, Fallon's area of responsibility will also include Iran.
A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. ...If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it's "Fox" Fallon.
This is not the kind of thing that’s done for show. We have to assume that Fallon is in that command because the administration believes that his talents will prove useful.
Warnings from Inside
The neo-cons came into the White House with a sweeping and reckless vision: creating a global Pax Americana through military action. Formulated by the conservative group PNAC (Project for a New American Century), with Cheney and Rumsfeld among its founders, the plan saw the Middle East as a good place to start. It called for intervention to establish pro-American regimes in a long list of nations, beginning with Iraq. Other countries in their sights included Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.
The tragic events of 9/11gave the Bush administration an opening to carry out their policy. They moved fast. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, recently described visiting the Pentagon on about September 20, 2001. That day, a general he knew told him that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, even though no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida had been found. A few weeks later, Clark spoke with that general again.
I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
As it has turned out, regime change is not so simple as the neo-cons thought. Many people assume that the quagmire in Iraq has taught Bush and Cheney some lessons. Clearly, they’ve had to scale down their plans from the original memo. What are they thinking now?
Among our key reports from inside sources are articles by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh. I’ve drawn on four Hersh articles from 2005, 2006, and 2007. Many quotes and incidents are within the last year. Hersh portrays an administration closed in on itself, not open to criticism or new insight, and obsessed with Iran.
Shortly after the 2004 election, Hersh was told that despite troubles in Iraq, Bush had not changed his basic policy. Repeatedly, Hersh was told that that Iran was next.
(Hersh,Coming Wars, p.3)
"We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it."
In an article written last November, Hersh reflected administration positions shortly before the mid-term elections. At that time, neo-cons in the White House, such as David Wurmser, the main Middle East expert on Cheney’s staff, were still in favor of attacking Iran, arguing that bombing Iran would help the US achieve victory in the civil war in Iraq. They also believe that a preemptive strike, even if it doesn’t destroy all of the nuclear sites, will chasten Iran and make them more cautious. Wurmser holds that "so far, there’s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq." Along with others in Cheney’s office, Wurmser believes "that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran." (Hersh, Next Act, p. 4)
The distrust of Iran’s current leadership, seen as Islamic extremists, is very deep. Sam Gardiner says that one of the basic truths in the Bush administration’s world view is that "you cannot negotiate with these people."
The belief that regime change can be achieved by "shock and awe" seems to be remarkably persistent. Military and other experts have been standing in line to warn that there is no good military option in Iran. They’re aware of the potential for spreading regional chaos, of the war games that have predicted disaster. Still, according to what a former defense official told Hersh (Hersh, Iran Plans, p.1), the Bush administration’s planning assumes that
"A sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."
Most military leaders who have spoken out do not share this assumption. The former defense official told Hersh that he was shocked by the Bush camp’s thinking.
"I asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’"
Middle East scholar Flynt Leverett, who formerly worked on the Bush National Security Council, warned that an American attack "will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime." (Hersh, Coming Wars, p. 4) A former senior intelligence official told Hersh (Hersh, Next Act, p.4):
"An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we’ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us – and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It’s an analyst’s worst nightmare – for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East."
And for what?
The former intelligence official also had this to say
(Hersh, Next Act, p.6):
"The CIA’s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear program."
Yet, according to Hersh’s sources, President Bush is convinced that it’s now or never, that it’s up to him to 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." (Hersh, Iran Plans, p. 1)
On Feb.27, 2007, the London Sunday Times reported that, according to a source in British intelligence, up to five top-level US generals and admirals were threatening to resign if they were ordered to strike Iran. This is not the kind of threat made idly, or on theoretical grounds. If the report is accurate, then just over two weeks ago, the possibility of that order being given was still very much alive.
Mass Casualties, Mushroom Clouds
Since World War II, the US has treated nuclear weapons as weapons of last resort, to be called on only if the nation’s existence is threatened. Early in the Bush/Cheney years, however, through an evaluation process called a Nuclear Posture Review, a profound change took place with almost no public awareness or discussion. Planning and command structures for nuclear and conventional weapons have been integrated. Possible targets for nukes have been expanded to include, for example, bioweapons facilities and deep underground bunkers that might not be reachable by conventional means. This brings to mind Iran’s deeply buried underground nuclear facilities, particularly the major facility at Natanz, about 200 miles from Tehran, which may well not be reachable without the nuclear "bunker busters."
Military affairs analyst William M. Arkin, of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, points out that under the new rules nukes are no longer strictly weapons of last resort. Smaller nukes may be called on when the military simply needs a little extra punch. Arkin says:
What worries many senior officials in the armed forces ... is that nuclear weapons -- locked away in a Pandora's box for more than half a century -- are being taken out of that lockbox and put on the shelf with everything else. While Pentagon leaders insist that does not mean they take nuclear weapons lightly, critics fear that removing the firewall and adding nuclear weapons to the normal option ladder makes their use more likely -- especially under a policy of preemption that says Washington alone will decide when to strike.
Arkin warns that inevitably, this lowering of the threshold on the part of the US will result in other nations doing the same, and greatly increase the likelihood of nuclear wars.
There has also been a push to develop "flexible" mini-nukes, low-yield tactical nukes that can be used without producing casualty rates on the level of traditional nuclear weapons. Bunker-busters, designed for deeply buried sites, are favorite candidates. Yet scientists consistently warn that there is no clean nuclear weapon. The
Christian Science Monitor says:
According to Dr. Robert Nelson, a physicist at Princeton University, "The goal of a benign earth-penetrating nuclear weapon is physically impossible." His recent report shows that "EPWs cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain the nuclear explosion and will necessarily produce an especially intense and deadly radioactive fallout." ...Even low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons would excavate substantial craters, "throwing out a large amount of radioactive dirt and debris."
Any US strike against Iran, even if purely conventional, would carry a high cost in human life, given the number and range of targets likely to be hit. What happens to the casualty rate if tactical nukes are factored in? How much damage will even relatively low-yield nukes do?
According to all reports, the US military has been adamantly opposed to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Civilians in the administration, however, are arguing for it. Here is how a former senior intelligence officer described the tension to Hersh. (Hersh, Iran Plans, p.3)
"Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out"—remove the nuclear option—"they’re shouted down."
This is what hides behind minimizing terms like "mini-nuke." Mushroom clouds, mass casualties. Earth-penetrating weapons kicking out clouds of radioactive dust and debris. Radiation sickness. Fall-out drifting on the prevailing winds over Afghanistan, Paksitan, northern India. Once again, the military is trying to restrain civilians whose determined ideological stance makes them unwilling to hear. Those who understand what they’re talking about are being shouted down.
Here is a link to photos of Tehran, a city set amid stunning natural majesty. You can see a crowd in a soccer stadium, a man playing an accordion, a playground, people walking on the street.
If clouds of radioactive dust blow among these tall buildings, as the smoke from the WTC billowed among the buildings of New York City, will the Iranians be chastened? Will they, as the neo-cons dream, rise up in revolt against their government? Or will they, like us, close ranks behind their leaders, whether those leaders are wise or not, and vow to make the attackers pay?
We are looking at our own Day of Infamy, one that will haunt us for generations, at a cost beyond measure in lives, in the prospects for peace, and in honor.
The use of any nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear state is a Pandora’s box that, once opened, can never be closed again. When the first tactical nuke falls on Iranian soil, the political equations change forever.
Will they do it? We don’t know for sure. They considered using tactical nukes in the invasion of Iraq, but did not. Maybe they won’t this time either. The military is strongly opposed.
Still, this is exactly the kind of situation for which Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld prepared their mini-nukes and integrated command structure. It is a basic tenet of neo-con thought that the US has been too hesitant to make use of its military supremacy, and needs to be more assertive. They want Iran’s nuclear program destroyed; Bush wants his legacy; and it’s likely that conventional weapons can’t do it all. How likely are they to take that chance?
Signing Statements and War Powers: How Can Bush Be Stopped?
The President is the Commander in Chief, but according to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war (or, in contemporary terms, to authorize the use of military force). So we should not be worrying about a US attack on Iran at all. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, but with Democratic majorities in both houses, they won’t authorize yet another Bush war under current conditions, when diplomacy has not been exhausted and Iran is not an imminent threat to our security. That should be all that needs to be said, because the Constitution is clear. Bush has no legal right to engage in an act of war against Iran without authorization from Congress.
But many constitutional issues have gotten murky since Bush and Cheney entered the White House.
As most people here know, and most Americans dependent on conventional news sources do not, Bush has been using "signing statements" to rewrite or discount legislation he disagrees with. He had done this on the basis of a theory of presidential power, the "Unitary Executive" theory, that this administration essentially made up out of whole cloth. The signing statement on the resolution authorizing the Iraq war is a chilling example. Bush thanks Congress for this gesture of support, which shows the world that "we speak with one voice." But it’s clear that he’s saying that as Commander in Chief he does not need authorization from Congress to invade and conquer a sovereign state. He does not address the constitutional issues. He simply states his claim to power and leaves it at that.
Like most signing statements over the past six years – some equally outrageous – this one has gone almost without comment except in the blogosphere. Signing statements are filed quietly after the public signing of a bill; it is possible that most members of Congress did not even know until recently what this one said. Some may still not realize how extreme Bush’s position is. It is, in fact, hard to fathom. Bush has managed to take a stunningly law-defying stance, and (with the help of a compliant Republican Congress for six years ) so normalize his dismissal of constitutional restraints that few people quite believe what he’s done.
But the fact is that the Democrats cannot simply count on the Constitution stopping Bush. Furthermore, even a simple resolution against an attack on Iran may not be enough. Even if Democrats could avoid a filibuster and pass such a resolution, there would be no clear gain. Bush might veto it. Or he might simply sign it, attach a signing statement, and do as he pleases anyway.
Grover Norquist, himself a far-right neo-con, has summed up the signing statement situation thus:
If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws, you don't have a constitution: you have a king.
Fortunately, one avenue of Congressional power has not been undermined so far. That is the power of the purse. This power has been used to control wars in the past (to limit Nixon’s actions against Cambodia, for instance, and to forbid funding the Contras). It is the one war-related congressional power that even Cheney and other neo-cons have acknowledged.
Senator Jim Webb has introduced a bill–S759—to prohibit any funding for an attack on Iran without congressional authorization. Jim Webb has examined the signing statement on the Iraq resolution, and clearly understands its implications, as evident in his speech here.
In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same...
Senator Webb’s bill will be offered as an amendment when the Senate considers their version of the supplemental appropriations bill. Funding bills can’t be filibustered, and the supplemental appropriations, which covers the ongoing costs of the wars, is as close to veto-proof as any bill can get.
Meanwhile, as described in the Washington Post, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House leadership are trying to pull together enough votes to put limits on the war in Iraq. They too are using funding power as the lever, attaching their conditions to the $105 billion supplemental appropriations bill. Their plan is a compromise measure, calling for full rest and readiness of troops, and for all troops to be out of Iraq by August, 2008 (with narrow exceptions such as targeted anti-terrorism operations, embassy protection, and training of Iraqi troops).
Some Democrats are refusing to vote for Pelosi’s package because they consider it weak, allowing the war to go on too long, and giving Bush too much maneuvering room. On the other side, some conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs) refuse to vote for it because they claim it is "micromanaging" the war. Yesterday, it also became evident that some Blue Dogs oppose McDermott’s provision specifying that the President could not attack Iran without congressional authorization.
The language Rep. McDermott proposed would do nothing more than reassert the traditional balance of powers by insisting that the President do what he is constitutionally obliged to do – but has made clear he does not feel bound to do. (Unlike Webb’s bill, McDermott’s provision did not specifically withhold funding, invoking the power of the purse. This is a weakness, and can hopefully be addressed in any new version.)
Like Senator Webb’s bill, McDermott’s language would not rule out any future option, including war with Iran, should that prove necessary. It simply says those options don’t belong to the President alone; he must respect Congress’ constitutional power to decide whether war will be initiated.
Despite it’s basic, constitutional nature – it’s conservative nature, in the best sense of the word -- some conservative Democrats made clear they would not vote for the House bill if it included the Iran provision. Some have also given their support of Israel as a reason to oppose the provision. This is ironic, to say the least. While Israel would have valid reason to fear a nuclear-armed Iran, a negotiated settlement would be far more in their interest than a widening Middle East war. However, the House leadership decided to strip the Iran provision from the bill.
This must not go unchallenged. We must respond loudly, insistently, and immediately. Those who are looking at ways to get an Iran provision back into the bill must know they have support.
We need to respond to the Blue Dogs and ask them – politely – why they are agreeing to Bush’s undermining of the Constitution. We must also challenge the idea that chaos and war in the Middle East are in Israel’s interest. There is no better time for House members – and Senators as well – to hear from us, to be reminded that people are aware of this issue and want the potential attack on Iran deflected.
We want the war in Iraq ended. But preventing war with Iran is not one of the things that can be dropped in the bargaining process.
THIS IS THE WAR WE NEED TO STOP BEFORE IT STARTS!
ACTION
Sign the Petition to Stop the Iran War. Wes Clark and the Iraq war vets at VoteVets.org have a great site – if you haven’t signed yet, do. Spread the word and the ad. You can also click to send a message to Congress AND write to local papers. stopiranwar.com
Contact Congress. Congress.org is great for finding contact information quickly. Write, call, email. Tell them that even as we struggle to wind down the war in Iraq, we have to prevent a new one in Iran. Emphasize the
importance of cutting off funding as a tactic, and explain why. Point to Jim Webb’s bill as a good example. Tell them this provision can’t be dropped.
-- Remember the Blue Dogs. Members can be found here
--Don’t forget the Republicans. If you have moderate Republican congresspeople in your state, contact them. Because the Democrats are divided, Republican votes are going to be needed.
--Don’t forget Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who need to hear that this issue is not something that can be jettisoned.
Remember Why This Is Happening. As Americans, we should not live in fear that our president will start a war at his own whim. Our Constitution and our democracy have been damaged. They’ve been gnawed away at by power-hungry arrogance in the White House, enabled by self-serving greed and negligence in Congress. We can no longer be sure where the limits are. If we get through this crisis safely, it isn’t over. We will be in crisis until we have reawakened our country’s democratic instincts, learned the lessons of the Bush years, and restored our Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment