Iran's Very Bad N-Word

Ray McGovern

February 28, 2007

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing ministry of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Iran: how far from the bomb? That was one of the key questions asked of newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell yesterday at a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing. McConnell had avoided this front-burner issue in his prepared remarks. But when asked, he repeated the hazy forecast given by his predecessor, John Negroponte [and in the process demonstrated that he has mastered the stilted jargon introduced into national intelligence estimates (NIEs) in recent years]. McConnell had these two sentences committed to memory:

We assess that Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon. The information is incomplete, but we assess that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon early-to-mid-next decade.

At that point McConnell received gratuitous reinforcement from Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. With something of a flourish, Maples emphasized that it was “with high confidence” that DIA “assesses that Iran remains determined to develop nuclear weapons.”

After the judgments in the Oct. 1, 2002 estimate assessing weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq—judgments stated with “high confidence”—turned out to be wrong, the National Intelligence Council saw a need to define what is meant by “assess.” The council included a glossary in its recent NIE on Iraq:

When we use words such as 'we assess,' we are trying to convey an analytical assessment or judgment. These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge. Some analytical judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks. In either type of judgment, we do not have ‘evidence’ that shows something to be a fact.

So caveat emptor. Beware the verisimilitude conveyed by “we assess.” It can have a lemming effect, as evidenced yesterday by the automatic head bobbing that greeted Sen. Lindsay Graham’s, R-S.C., clever courtroom-style summary argument at the hearing, “We all agree, then, that the Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Quick, someone, please give Sen. Graham the National Intelligence Council’s definition of “we assess.”

Shoddy Record on Iran

Iran is a difficult intelligence target. Understood. Even so, U.S. intelligence performance “assessing” Iran’s progress toward a nuclear capability does not inspire confidence. The only virtue readily observable is the foolish consistency described by Emerson as “the hobgoblin of little minds.” In 1995, U.S. intelligence started consistently “assessing” that Iran was “within five years” of reaching a nuclear weapons capability. In 2005, however, when the most recent NIE was issued (and then leaked to the Washington Post), the timeline was extended and given still more margin for error. Basically, the timeline was moved 10 years out to 2015, but a fit of caution yielded the words “early-to-mid next decade.”

Small wonder that the commission picked by President George W. Bush to investigate the intelligence community’s performance on weapons of mass destruction complained that U.S. intelligence knows “disturbingly little” about Iran. Shortly after the most recent estimate was completed in June 2005, Robert G. Joseph, the neoconservative who succeeded John Bolton as undersecretary of state for arms control, was asked whether Iran had a nuclear effort under way. He replied:

I don’t know quite how to answer that because we don’t have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said...lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical.

A fresh national intelligence estimate on Iran has been in preparation for several months—far too leisurely a pace in the circumstances, in my opinion. One would have thought that President Bush would await those intelligence findings before sending two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf area and dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney to throw a scare into folks in Asia. But it is not at all uncommon in this administration for the intelligence to lag critical decisions. After all, the decision to attack Iraq was made many months before “intelligence” was ginned up to support it. And the decision to send 21,500 additional troops into Iraq predated the latest NIE on Iraq by two months.

And so, yesterday’s Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing and all the puzzling over intelligence on Iran almost seemed divorced from the reality—from the “new history” that Bush’s neocon advisers may be preparing to create. Yet, the hearing was extremely well conducted and homed in on some key issues, should any policymakers wish to listen.

The Good News: There’s Time

If anything leaps out of all this, it is that there is time to address, in a sensible way, whatever concerns may be driving Iran to seek nuclear weapons—Cheney’s claim of a “fairly robust new nuclear program” in Iran, his blustering, and his itchy trigger finger notwithstanding. A year and a half after the 2005 estimate that Iran was five to 10 years away from building a nuclear weapon, NPR’s Robert Siegel did the math and asked former national intelligence director Negroponte, “Sometime between four and 10 years from now you would assume they could achieve a nuclear weapon?”

"Five to 10 years from now,” Negroponte answered. He then gingerly raised the possibility—avoided like the plague by neocons in good standing—that diplomacy might help. A former diplomat, he may have thought he would be forgiven, but he was relieved and sent back to the State Department a few months later. This is what he dared to say: :I think that the pace of Iran’s program gives us time, and international diplomacy can work."

Asked by Siegel to explain why the Israelis have suggested a much shorter timeline for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, Negroponte stated the obvious with bluntness uncommon for a diplomat. “I think that sometimes what the Israelis will do [is] give you the worst-case assessment.” At yesterday’s hearing, Sen. Graham asked McConnell the same question; did he know why the Israelis had a different view? McConnell appeared puzzled, noting that U.S. intelligence discusses these things with the Israelis.

Why Would Tehran Want Nukes?

In his introductory remarks Armed Forces Committee Chair, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., expressed a desire to “assess the circumstances in which Iran might give up its nuclear [weapons] plans.” Assuming Iran has such plans, or at least intends to leave that option open for later decision when it has mastered the enrichment process, it makes sense to try to figure out what drives Tehran to that course.

McConnell yesterday chose to adopt Negroponte’s refreshingly candid approach and reject the cry-wolf rhetoric of Cheney and the neocons that Iran’s ultimate aim must be to destroy Israel. McConnell noted that Iran would like to dominate the Gulf region and deter potential adversaries. An integral part of Iran’s strategy is to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against forces in the region—including U.S. forces. Similarly, he indicated that Tehran considers its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad as a key element of its determination to protect Iran by deterring U.S. or Israeli attacks. These sentiments dovetail with those offered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his confirmation hearing in December. Gates put it this way:

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 their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf.

Deterrence? Both Sen. Levin and ranking member John Warner, R-Va., picked up on this, to the dismay of Sen. Graham, who sounded as if he had just come from a briefing by the Israeli extreme right who, with Cheney, are pushing hard for a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Graham said he thought economic sanctions could work and that they were “the only thing left short of military action.” For Graham it was very simple. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust and, if Iran got nuclear weapons, it could use them against Israel. The clear implication was that we should bomb the Iranians if sanctions don’t bring them to heel.

Seldom have I heard an American senator so openly press the U.S. to mount an attack on a major country simply because it could be perceived as a threat to Israel. There was no mention of Israel’s own arsenal of some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons and multiple delivery systems. Nor did anyone allude to French President Jacques Chirac’s recent comment that, with one or two nuclear weapons Iran would pose no big danger, because launching a nuclear weapon against Israel would inevitably lay waste Tehran.

John Warner objected strongly to the notion that, if sanctions against Iran failed, the next step had to be military action. With support from Levin, Warner alluded time and again to the effectiveness of mutual deterrence after WWII, stressing that deterrence is a far better course than to let slip the dogs of war. He referred to his own role in ensuring that the Soviet Union was deterred. It seemed as though he was about to cry out from exasperation, "Why don’t we talk to the Iranians! ... like I talked to the Russians," but then he thought better of it and decided to hew to the party line and not even think of negotiating with “bad guys.”

Better To Jaw-Jaw Than War-War

Did you notice? While Cheney was abroad, others persuaded the president to send representatives next month to a conference in Baghdad, in which representatives of Syria and Iran also are expected to participate to discuss the situation in Iraq. In addition, foreign ministers of the same countries plan to meet in early April.

If Cheney does not sabotage such talks when he gets home, they could lead to direct negotiations with Iran on the nuclear question. It makes no sense at all to refuse to talk with Iran, which has as many historical grievances against the U.S. as vice versa. (Someone please tell the president.) With Cheney playing the heavy, it has not been possible to penetrate the praetorian guard for candid discussions with the president. The sooner that can be done the better. Hurry! Before Cheney gets home.

The ultimate aim, in my view, should be a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. That, I am confident, would stop whatever plans the Iranians have to develop nuclear weapons. And please do not tell me that, because Israel would not agree, we cannot move in this direction. The U.S. and others can provide the necessary guarantees of the security of Israel. And Israeli intransigence on this issue is not a viable middle- or long-term strategy that serves Israel’s interest or the interest of justice and peace.

Jefferson Saga Continues to Vex Democrats

By Susan Ferrechio 31 minutes ago

After campaigning on pledges to clean up Washington, Democrats are finding that dealing with one of their own members is proving nearly as difficult as weaning lawmakers from free meals and jet travel.

Since the news broke in 2005 that FBI agents found $90,000 in cash in the freezer of Rep. William J. Jefferson’s home, House Democrats have not known quite what to do about the Louisiana lawmaker.

The latest embarrassment arose Wednesday, when Democrats delayed action on placing Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee after Republicans said they would demand a recorded vote.

The Democratic Caucus had signed off a day earlier on a resolution backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., that would give Jefferson a seat on the panel. Typically, a committee assignment would be a routine action approved on the floor by unanimous consent.

But faced with the prospect that enough Democrats might join Republicans to defeat the move, Democratic leaders backtracked.

Minority Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., cited the ongoing federal bribery probe directed at Jefferson as the reason for GOP opposition. But he used the issue to accuse the Democrats — particularly Pelosi — of abandoning the strong anti-corruption stance they took in last year’s elections, which was credited with helping them win the majority.

Jefferson’s appointment to the committee, Blunt told reporters, “is such a contradiction to what the Speaker said and stood for during the campaign.”

“I won’t support that on the floor, and I don’t think most of my colleagues will, either,” he said.

Corruption Probe Drags On

Jefferson is the subject of a nearly two-year-long federal investigation, focusing on whether he accepted bribes in exchange for helping put together telecommunications deals in Africa.

As part of the probe, investigators allege that on July 30, 2005, they videotaped Jefferson receiving a briefcase containing $100,000 from an FBI informant. A few days later, the FBI executed search warrants to examine Jefferson’s homes and car, seizing a number of items, including the $90,000 in cash from a freezer in his Northeast Washington home.

He has yet to be charged with any wrongdoing, but eight months ago, during the height of the election season, Pelosi led an effort to revoke his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee because of the probe.

She succeeded despite considerable opposition from members of her own party who belong to the Congressional Black Caucus.

In recent weeks, Jefferson’s status among Democrats appeared to have changed somewhat, in part because of his outspokenness on issues relating to Hurricane Katrina recovery.

Earlier this week, Pelosi said Jefferson’s appointment to the Homeland Security panel would put him in a better position to help people in his New Orleans district. The committee oversees the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was widely criticized for its handling of the Katrina disaster and is now undergoing a major reorganization.

Two Homeland Security subcommittees conducting a joint hearing Wednesday allowed Jefferson to sit on the dais and hear testimony from FEMA workers about efforts to realign the agency.

The move irked some Republicans on the panel. “It was just very surprising he wouldn’t wait to be confirmed by the House,” said one GOP aide.

Democratic leaders would not say Wednesday when they would attempt to raise Jefferson’s committee appointment on the House floor. But GOP leaders continued to hammer away at the issue, putting out statements citing “crumbling Democrat ethics standards.”

Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, called the move to appoint Jefferson “baffling and troubling,” citing the committee’s access to classified information. He said Republicans would vote against the appointment.

Some Democrats may follow suit, particularly freshmen who ran their campaigns based on anti-corruption platforms. Voting for Jefferson could be potentially embarrassing for them.

“I’d have to think about it,” said Tim Mahoney, a Florida Democrat who occupies the seat once held by former Rep. Mark Foley. Foley was forced to resign after making inappropriate overtures to underage male pages.

“From my perspective, it’s important we do more to amplify ethics,” Mahoney added.

Even Jefferson’s colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus are not guaranteed backers.

“I’m going to do what’s fair,” said Democrat Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who declined to comment on how he might vote.

Other caucus members were less concerned.

“I don’t think it will be that big of a problem,” said Albert R. Wynn, D-Md. “If the leader puts it forward, the caucus members should endorse it.”

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., dismissed Republican concerns, noting that they are in no position to question ethics. The activities of several Republican members, including House Appropriations Committee ranking member Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of California, are currently being examined by federal investigators. Hoyer said any challenge by Republicans to the appointment “will be interesting.”

Jefferson Maintains Innocence

While Jefferson remains in limbo in the House, his legal situation is also on hold.

His lawyers filed a 40-page brief Wednesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals as part of an ongoing effort to retrieve documents seized by the FBI during a raid on the lawmaker’s congressional office last year.

Jefferson, who maintains his innocence, says he has no intention of sitting on the Homeland Security panel as a non-voting member.

“I expect to serve on the committee. I’m not thinking about contingency plans,” he said.

Jefferson called the GOP opposition to his appointment “politics as usual.”

“Speaker Pelosi did the right thing by placing the congressional member who represents hurricane-ravaged New Orleans on this committee,” he said. “My district desperately needs a voice on this panel, which oversees FEMA and examines how to improve federal response to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.”

The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

Related
Quote of the Day
---
Reposted
---
By George Lakoff

Last modified Tuesday, February 27, 2007 01:34 PM

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."

—Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."

—Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006

A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.

In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war — a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned — conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied,

"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations — without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position — making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,

"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.

More Euphemisms

The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event – in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false — and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over wide distance.

To use words like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's — explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.

Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war — in boldface.

Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets — a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.

Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences — and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists — exactly the opposite of the effect US planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.

As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.

"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

—Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06

"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because, if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a world-wide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear — real fear — in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.

Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."

What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water – if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death – the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.

• First, describe Iran as evil – part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
• Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
• Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons —weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
• Call nuclear development "an existential threat" – a threat to our very existence.
• Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
• Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" — or better protection for our troops from the EFP's, or single-shot canister bombs.
• Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
• Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
• Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
• Get the press to go along with each step.
• Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
• Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.

Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.

The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.

It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.

This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

George Lakoff Bio

Share your comments about this article on the Rockridge Nation Blog.
---
Related
ABC News: U.S. Developing Plan to Bomb Iran within 24 hours of Bush Command

Democratic Leaders Further Weaken Antiwar Resolution

Democratic leaders revamp anti-war plan

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Thu Mar 1, 3:58 AM ET

House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdened military.

The plan could draw bipartisan support but is expected to be a tough sell to members who say they don't think it goes far enough to assuage voters angered by the four-year conflict.

Bush "hasn't to date done anything we've asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., one of a group of liberal Democrats pushing for an immediate end to the war.

Democratic protests to the war grew louder in January after they took control of Congress and Bush announced he planned to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Earlier this month, House Democrats pushed through a nonbinding resolution opposing the buildup.

Since then, Democrats have been trying to decide what to do next. Some worried that a plan by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) to restrict funding for the war would go too far. Murtha, D-Pa., is extending his support to the revised proposal.

The tactic is more likely to embarrass Bush politically than force his hand on the war. He would have to sign repeated waivers for units and report to Congress those units with equipment shortfalls and other problems.

In the Senate, a group of senior Democrats wants to repeal the 2002 measure authorizing the war and write a new resolution restricting the mission and ordering troop withdrawals to begin by this summer. But Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said Iraq would have to wait until the Senate finishes work to improve homeland security.

"That would mean we would hold off the Iraq legislation for a matter of days, not weeks," he said.

The House Democratic proposal brought a sharp response from Republicans on Wednesday.

Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., called the plan a "fig leaf" to distract the public from what he said was Democrats' ultimate goal of cutting off funds for troops in combat.

"We support full funding for our troops who are in harms way — without strings attached," said Putnam, R-Fla., after emerging from a closed-door conference meeting.

As Democrats met behind closed doors to discuss their options Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Bush administration would talk to leaders from Iran and Syria on stabilizing Iraq.

Rice announced U.S. support for the Iraq meeting, to be held in Baghdad next month, at a Senate hearing in which Democrats pressed her and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to explain what progress is being made in the Baghdad security crackdown and how soon U.S. troops will be coming home.

The decision to engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq is a major departure for U.S. policy. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group in December recommended U.S. dialogue with Iran and Syria, but until now the administration has resisted that course.

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Republican co-chairman of the panel, welcomed the shift in a speech Tuesday night. But he went further, urging the administration to include Syria in Mideast peacemaking with Israel and the Palestinians.

Baker and his Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, are expected this spring to participate in a new study on constitutional war powers. Baker will co-chair the independent panel along with Warren Christopher, who was President Clinton's secretary of State.

Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator, noted that Rice and other officials had taken pains to stress that the talks were an Iraqi initiative, which he said the administration might be using as cover to downplay suggestions of a major policy shift.

"This is a way for the administration to have discussions under a different umbrella but in a way in which they can say that they are not changing course," said Ross, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy.

The administration said its decision to take part in the Iraq conference did not represent a change of heart, although the White House has accused both Iran and Syria of deadly meddling in the war.

"We've always been inclined to participate in an Iraqi-led conference," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said.

Quote of the Day

One thought alone preocupies the submerged mind of Empire: how to prolong its era. By day it pursues its enemies. It is cunning and ruthless, it sends its bloodhounds everywhere. By night it feeds on images of disaster: the sack of cities, the rape of populations, pyramids of bones, acres of desolation.

-- J. M. Coetzee

White House: U.S. won't talk to Syria, Iran directly

Out their asses as usual.

----
Story Highlights

• NEW: Snow:Iran would have to halt uranium program to talk with U.S.
• Iran official: Open to critical regional talks on Iraq
• Forum to discuss Iraq will unite regional neighbors and others

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials won't hold direct talks with Iran or Syria at a Baghdad conference next month despite the Bush administration's complaints that those countries are allowing weapons into Iraq, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday.

Direct talks would happen only if those countries made changes to their own policies. Iran would have to halt its uranium enrichment work and Syria would have to stop supporting groups Washington considers terrorist organizations, Snow said.

"If between now and the 10th of March the Iranians suspended reprocessing and enrichment, then you'd have a different ballpark," he said. "If the Syrians had changed their attitude toward Hamas and Hezbollah, OK."

A top Iranian official said Wednesday that his country "will participate" in Iraq's neighbors' conference next month "if it will be of help to Baghdad," according to a state-run Iranian news service.

Although the Bush administration has long accused Iran and Syria of meddling in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for direct talks with those countries.

During a Senate hearing Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates painted U.S. attendance at the conference as a step toward carrying out one of the study group's major recommendations.

U.S. military officials in Iraq have accused Iran of providing deadly armor-piercing explosives and mortar shells to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq, while the United States accuses Syria of allowing weapons and fighters to reach the Sunni insurgency in western Iraq across its border.

Both countries deny the allegations.

If concerns about the flow of weapons and fighters into Iraq come up at the Iraqi-sponsored conference, "obviously we will address them," Snow said. "But there will not be bilateral talks between the United States and Iran or the United States and Syria, within the context of these meetings."

Washington and Tehran have not had diplomatic relations since 1979, when Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy and held dozens of diplomats hostage for more than a year. But Snow said U.S. and Iranian officials have been "seated at the same table in multilateral negotiations" several times in the past few years, during aid conferences and in meetings at the United Nations.

However, he said, the Bush administration can't change policy while Iran is under a U.N. Security Council demand to halt its nuclear fuel program.

"It's important that people understand that this administration is serious when it comes to the Iranians about a precondition for bilateral negotiations and also for diplomatic relations, which is, they can't be working toward a nuclear weapon," he said.

Iran says it is enriching uranium for civilian power plants, but the United States accuses it of planning to develop a nuclear bomb. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported last week that it cannot assure the Security Council that the Iranian work is only for peaceful purposes.

Iraqi officials announced the neighbors conference on Tuesday. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said attendance by the United States, Syria and Iran would be an ice-breaking diplomatic event that would pave the way to foster cooperative efforts to help Iraq.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, has accepted an invitation to the conference.

Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani confirmed that Zebari has asked his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, to attend the conference, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Also on the guest list for the sub-ministerial talks are representatives of Iraq's Persian Gulf neighbors, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; Jordan, Egypt and Turkey; the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which includes Russia, China, Britain, the United States and France; the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The U.S. Embassy in Iraq said the initial meeting could be followed with another conference at the ministerial level.

US concedes 2002 estimate on Korea nukes bogus

March 1, 2007

U.S. Concedes Uncertainty on North Korean Uranium Effort

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Last October, the North Koreans tested their first nuclear device, the fruition of decades of work to make a weapon out of plutonium.

For nearly five years, though, the Bush administration, based on intelligence estimates, has accused North Korea of also pursuing a secret, parallel path to a bomb, using enriched uranium. That accusation, first leveled in the fall of 2002, resulted in the rupture of an already tense relationship: The United States cut off oil supplies, and the North Koreans responded by throwing out international inspectors, building up their plutonium arsenal and, ultimately, producing that first plutonium bomb.

But now, American intelligence officials are publicly softening their position, admitting to doubts about how much progress the uranium enrichment program has actually made. The result has been new questions about the Bush administration’s decision to confront North Korea in 2002.

“The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently,” a senior administration official said this week.

The disclosure underscores broader questions about the ability of intelligence agencies to discern the precise status of foreign weapons programs. The original assessment about North Korea came during the same period that the administration was building its case about Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs, which turned out to be based on flawed intelligence. And the new North Korea assessment comes amid debate over intelligence about Iran’s weapons.

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

--MORE--