|
||||||||||
|
|
Bomb Iran? What's to
Stop Us? 20/06/08 "ICH" -- - Unlike
the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing
of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need
be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox – in the form of
air and missile attacks – begin. This time it will be largely the Air Force’s show,
punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement
has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters
and pilots are working out the details. Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with
President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the
two leaders were of one mind: “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the
Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with
regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to
deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian
threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before
the end of his term in the White House.” Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just
bluff and bluster? A member of Olmert’s delegation noted that same day
that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran,
and that “the meetings focused on ‘operational matters’ pertaining to the
Iranian threat.” So bring ‘em on! A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about
to attack the U.S. or Israel? You say you missed Olmert’s account of what Bush has
undertaken to do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges
for including the quote in his article of June 8, “The Iran
Trap.” We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert’s
confident words about “Israel’s best friend” that week. Your attention – like
mine – may have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the
Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration misrepresentations of
pre-Iraq-war intelligence – the so-called “Phase II” investigation (also known,
irreverently, as the “Waiting-for-Godot Study”). Better late than never, I suppose. Oversight? Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years,
and that is what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president
and their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could assert
that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could sum it up
succinctly: “In making the case for war, the administration
repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was
unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American
people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than
actually existed.” But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this
sinking feeling that in five or six years time, those of us still around will
be listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more
disastrous attack on Iran. My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the
invasion of Iraq, about the warping of intelligence. And our memoranda
met considerable resonance in foreign media. We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the
Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now. In a same-day critique of Colin Powell’s unfortunate
speech to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle
of advisers “beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling
reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic.” It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about
intelligence, the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence
analysis at the CIA. Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former
Marine major, Scott Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But
none of us could get past the president’s praetorian guard to drop a memo into
his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now. The “Iranian Threat”
However much the same
warnings are called for now with respect to Iran, there is even less prospect
that any contrarians could puncture and break through what former White House
spokesman Scott McClellan calls the president’s “bubble.”
By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his
huge staff continue to control the flow of information to the president. But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the
far-reaching disaster an attack on Iran would bring? Well, this is a president who admits he does not read
newspapers, but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos
Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers. This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as
liberators, since the planning does not include – officially, at least – any
U.S. boots on the ground. Besides, even on important issues like the price of
gasoline, the performance of the president’s staff has been spotty. Think back on the White House press conference of Feb.
28, when Bush was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the
prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline. “Wait, what did you just say?” the president
interrupted. “You’re predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?…That’s interesting. I
hadn’t heard that.” A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of
Americans were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in
late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at the media
briefing the day before the president’s press conference. Here’s the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was
prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate
in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are
ill-prepared. The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing
hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a
volleyball game between St. Helena’s High School and Mount St. Ursula. Cheney’s Brainchild
Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick
Cheney’s brainchild, if that is the correct word.
Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on
Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott Carpenter, a
senior State Department official at the time. Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time
around Pentagon officials reportedly are insisting on a “policy decision”
regarding “what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks,”
according to Carpenter. Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the
critical U.S. supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce
and the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice
between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use, “mini-nukes.” Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007
commentary by former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the “fear of the
military leadership” that Iran would have “escalation dominance” in any
conflict with the U.S. Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson
indicated that “escalation dominance” means, “in a broadened conflict, the
Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we
complicate theirs.” The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of
attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the
National Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior
Pentagon officials. Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the
Joint Chiefs in strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his
opposition known to the White House, as well. The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March,
and will be replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus – apparently
in September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to circumvent the
chain of command in order to do Cheney’s bidding (by making false claims about
Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example). In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late
summer or early fall. Controlled Media The experience of those of us whose job it was to
analyze the controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into
Russian and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience to good
use in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot the party line. Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well
embarked, a la Iraq, on its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services
for the White House to indoctrinate Americans on the “threat” from Iran and
prepare them for the planned air and missile attacks. At least this time we are spared the “mushroom cloud”
bugaboo. Neither Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to the
fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last November that Iran
had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of
last year. In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as
inopportune, at the least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war
hard on the heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the administration
made significant claims not supported by the intelligence. But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate
Intelligence Committee report got meager exposure in the media. So far it has been a handful of senior military
officers that have kept us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them
vocal encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg Tribunal
ruled explicitly that “just-following-orders” is no defense when war crimes are
involved. And still less when the “supreme international crime”
– a war of aggression is involved. Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut
lumbering along toward an attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what
can only be described as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of
Representatives, which the Constitution charges with the duty of impeaching a
president, vice president or other senior official charged with high crimes and
misdemeanors. Where Are You, Conyers? In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House
Committee on the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the
president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for
impeachment then. He replied: “To take away the excuse that we didn’t know. So that
two, or four, or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, ‘Where were you,
Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?’ when the Bush administration
declared the Constitution inoperative…none of the company here present can
plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or] say that ‘somehow it escaped our
notice.’” In the three years since then, the train of abuses and
usurpations has gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet
he has dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for impeachment. On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev.
Lennox Yearwood, and me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were
not there. A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to
Conyers’ committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman
Dennis Kucinich. Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on
Judiciary with Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on
President Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: “The House should commence an
impeachment inquiry forthwith.” Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted,
Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on
Iraq we were led to war based on false pretenses – arguably the most serious
charge – go a long way toward jump-starting any additional investigative work
Congress needs to do. And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published
by Conyers himself, “Constitution in Crisis,” containing a wealth of relevant
detail on the crimes of the current executive. Conyers’ complaint that there is not enough time is a
dog that won’t hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say. How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say
that if Bush attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment. Afraid of the media? During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev.
Yearwood and me, and during an interview in December on “Democracy Now,”
Conyers was surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how it
could paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment. Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the
FCM that is afraid – witness their virtual silence on Kucinich’s very damning
35 Articles of Impeachment. The only way to encourage constructive media attention
would be for Conyers to act. The FCM could be expected to fulminate
against that, but they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able
to ignore other unpleasant things – like preparations for another “war of
choice.” I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to
prevent air and missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to
proceed as Elizabeth Holtzman urges – with impeachment “forthwith.” Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement
to those courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent
wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East? Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us
that once the president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let
anything stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar
decision with respect to Iran – with Olmert as his chief counsel, no less. It is getting late, but this is due largely to
Conyers’ own dithering. Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the
issue with 35 well-drafted Articles of Impeachment. What the country needs is the young John Conyers back.
Not the one now surrounded by fancy lawyers and held in check by the House
leaders. In October 1974, after he and the even younger
Elizabeth Holtzman faced up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out
three Articles of Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote this: “This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of
disclosures which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be
ignored…Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what
must be done is the price of remaining free.” Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes
that; and, if he does, he must summon the courage to “do what must be done.” Ray
McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church
of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was Army
intelligence/infantry officer and a CIA analyst for 27 years, and now serves on
the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This item was first published by Consortiumnews.com http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20140.htm |
|||||||||
