Still Preparing to Attack Iran: The Neoconservatives in the Obama Era

Reposted from TomDispatch.

What, exactly, does Barack Obama's mild-mannered choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle, have to do with neocons who want to bomb Iran?

A familiar coalition of hawks, hardliners, and neoconservatives expects Barack Obama's proposed talks with Iran to fail -- and they're already proposing an escalating set of measures instead. Some are meant to occur alongside any future talks. These include steps to enhance coordination with Israel, tougher sanctions against Iran, and a region-wide military buildup of U.S. strike forces, including the prepositioning of military supplies within striking distance of that country.

Once the future negotiations break down, as they are convinced will happen, they propose that Washington quickly escalate to war-like measures, including a U.S. Navy-enforced embargo on Iranian fuel imports and a blockade of that country's oil exports. Finally, of course, comes the strategic military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran that so many of them have wanted for so long.

It's tempting to dismiss the hawks now as twice-removed from power: first, figures like John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith were purged from top posts in the Bush administration after 2004; then the election of Barack Obama and the announcement Monday of his centrist, realist-minded team of establishment foreign policy gurus seemed to nail the doors to power shut for the neocons, who have bitterly criticized the president-elect's plans to talk with Iran, withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, and abandon the reckless Global War on Terrorism rhetoric of the Bush era.

"Kinetic Action" Against Iran

When it comes to Iran, however, it's far too early to dismiss the hawks. To be sure, they are now plying their trade from outside the corridors of power, but they have more friends inside the Obama camp than most people realize. Several top advisers to Obama -- including Tony Lake, UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice, Tom Daschle, and Dennis Ross, along with leading Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke, close to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden or Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton -- have made common cause with war-minded think-tank hawks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and other hardline institutes.

Last spring, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, for example, took part in a WINEP "2008 Presidential Task Force" study which resulted in a report entitled, "Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge." The Institute, part of the Washington-based Israel lobby, was founded in coordination with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has been vigorously supporting a confrontation with Iran. The task force report, issued in June, was overseen by four WINEP heavyweights: Robert Satloff, WINEP's executive director, Patrick Clawson, its chief Iran analyst, David Makovsky, a senior fellow, and Dennis Ross, an adviser to Obama who is also a WINEP fellow.

Endorsed by both Lake and Rice, the report opted for an alarmist view of Iran's nuclear program and proposed that the next president set up a formal U.S.-Israeli mechanism for coordinating policy toward Iran (including any future need for "preventive military action"). It drew attention to Israeli fears that "the United States may be reconciling itself to the idea of 'living with an Iranian nuclear bomb,'" and it raised the spurious fear that Iran plans to arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with consultations between the United States and Israel. But the WINEP report is clearly predisposed to the idea that the United States ought to give undue weight to Israel's inflated concerns about Iran. And it ignores or dismisses a number of facts: that Iran has no nuclear weapon, that Iran has not enriched uranium to weapons grade, that Iran may not have the know-how to actually construct a weapon even if, sometime in the future, it does manage to acquire bomb-grade material, and that Iran has no known mechanism for delivering such a weapon.

WINEP is correct that the United States must communicate closely with Israel about Iran. Practically speaking, however, a U.S.-Israeli dialogue over Iran's "nuclear challenge" will have to focus on matters entirely different from those in WINEP's agenda. First, the United States must make it crystal clear to Israel that under no circumstances will it tolerate or support a unilateral Israeli attack against Iran. Second, Washington must make it clear that if Israel were indeed to carry out such an attack, the United States would condemn it, refuse to widen the war by coming to Israel's aid, and suspend all military aid to the Jewish state. And third, Israel must get the message that, even given the extreme and unlikely possibility that the United States deems it necessary to go to war with Iran, there would be no role for Israel.

Just as in the wars against Iraq in 1990-1991 and 2003-2008, the United States hardly needs Israeli aid, which would be both superfluous and inflammatory. Dennis Ross and others at WINEP, however, would strongly disagree that Israel is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ross, who served as Middle East envoy for George H.W. Bush and then Bill Clinton, was also a key participant in a September 2008 task force chaired by two former senators, Daniel Coats (R.-Ind.) and Chuck Robb (D.-Va.), and led by Michael Makovsky, brother of WINEP's David Makovsky, who served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the heyday of the Pentagon neocons from 2002-2006. Robb, incidentally, had already served as the neocons' channel into the 2006 Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. According to Bob Woodward's latest book, The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008, it was Robb who insisted that the Baker-Hamilton task force include an option for a "surge" in Iraq.

The report of the Coats-Robb task force -- "Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development" -- went far beyond the WINEP task force report that Lake and Rice signed off on. It concluded that any negotiations with Iran were unlikely to succeed and should, in any case, be short-lived. As the report put the matter, "It must be clear that any U.S.-Iranian talks will not be open-ended, but will be limited to a pre-determined time period so that Tehran does not try to 'run out the clock.'"

Anticipating the failure of the talks, the task force (including Ross) urged "prepositioning military assets," coupled with a "show of force" in the region. This would be followed almost immediately by a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports and oil exports, meant to paralyze Iran's economy, followed by what they call, vaguely, "kinetic action."

That "kinetic action" -- a U.S. assault on Iran -- should, in fact, be massive, suggested the Coats-Robb report. Besides hitting dozens of sites alleged to be part of Iran's nuclear research program, the attacks would target Iranian air defense and missile sites, communications systems, Revolutionary Guard facilities, key parts of Iran's military-industrial complex, munitions storage facilities, airfields, aircraft facilities, and all of Iran's naval facilities. Eventually, they say, the United States would also have to attack Iran's ground forces, electric power plants and electrical grids, bridges, and "manufacturing plants, including steel, autos, buses, etc."

This is, of course, a hair-raising scenario. Such an attack on a country that had committed no act of war against the United States or any of its allies would cause countless casualties, virtually destroy Iran's economy and infrastructure, and wreak havoc throughout the region. That such a high-level group of luminaries should even propose steps like these -- and mean it -- can only be described as lunacy. That an important adviser to President-elect Obama would sign on to such a report should be shocking, though it has received next to no attention.

Palling Around with the Neocons

At a November 6 forum at WINEP, Patrick Clawson, the erudite, neoconservative strategist who serves as the organization's deputy director for research, laid out the institute's view of how to talk to Iran in the Obama era. Doing so, he said, is critically important, but only to show the rest of the world that the United States has taken the last step for peace -- before, of course, attacking. Then, and only then, will the United States have the legitimacy it needs to launch military action against Iran.

"What we've got to do is to show the world that we're making a big deal of engaging the Iranians," he said, tossing a bone to the new administration. "I'd throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into it." He advocates this approach only because he believes it won't work. "The principal target with these offers [to Iran] is not Iran," he adds. "The principal target of these offers is American public opinion and world public opinion."

The Coats-Robb report, "Meeting the Challenge," was written by one of the hardest of Washington's neoconservative hardliners, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. Rubin, who spent most of the years since 9/11 either working for AEI or, before and during the war in Iraq, for the Wolfowitz-Feith team at the Pentagon, recently penned a report for the Institute entitled: "Can A Nuclear Iran Be Deterred or Contained?" Not surprisingly, he believes the answer to be a resounding "no," although he does suggest that any effort to contain a nuclear Iran would certainly require permanent U.S. bases spread widely in the region, including in Iraq:

"If U.S. forces are to contain the Islamic Republic, they will require basing not only in GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries, but also in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Without a sizeable regional presence, the Pentagon will not be able to maintain the predeployed resources and equipment necessary to contain Iran, and Washington will signal its lack of commitment to every ally in the region. Because containment is as much psychological as physical, basing will be its backbone."

The Coats-Robb report was issued by a little-known group called the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). That organization, too, turns out to be interwoven with WINEP, not least because its foreign policy director is Michael Makovsky. Perhaps the most troubling participant in the Bipartisan Policy Center is Barack Obama's éminence grise and one of his most important advisers during the campaign, Tom Daschle, who is slated to be his secretary of health and human services. So far, Daschle has not repudiated BPC's provocative report.

Ross, along with Richard Holbrooke, recently made appearances amid another collection of superhawks who came together to found a new organization, United Against Nuclear Iran. UANI is led by Mark Wallace, the husband of Nicole Wallace, a key member of Senator John McCain's campaign team. Among UANI's leadership team are Ross and Holbrooke, along with such hardliners as Jim Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Fouad Ajami, the Arab-American scholar who is a principal theorist on Middle East policy for the neoconservative movement.

UANI is primarily a propaganda outfit. Its mission, it says, is to "inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad" and to "heighten awareness nationally and internationally about the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to the region and the world."

Barack Obama has, of course, repeatedly declared his intention to embark on a different path by opening talks with Iran. He's insisted that diplomacy, not military action, will be at the core of his approach to Tehran. During the election campaign, however, he also stated no less repeatedly that he will not take the threat of military action "off the table."

Organizations like WINEP, AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI see it as their mission to push the United States toward a showdown with Iran. Don't sell them short. Those who believe that such a confrontation would be inconceivable under President Obama ought to ask Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Tom Daschle, and Richard Holbrooke whether they agree -- and, if so, why they're still palling around with neoconservative hardliners.

Robert Dreyfuss, an independent journalist in Alexandria, Virginia, is a contributing editor at the Nation magazine, whose website hosts his The Dreyfuss Report, and has written frequently for Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the Washington Monthly. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.

Copyright 2008 Robert Dreyfuss

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Yawn.... the same stuff meant to scare little children. Been peddled since 2001. Without any result. Even Iranians no longer believe this.

[Snoop2]

I think the neocons are greatrly under estimating what will happen in the streets of Ameria if this occurs. Obama was elected so we could stop the relentless military and political aggressions against nations we find different! We can no longer be the one ranger, we Americans are sick of it!

[LibbyBuck]

Just when I was feeling all warm and fuzzy! Damn IT!

We absolutely, positively cannot go to war with Iran.

I realized recently that our expectations have been lowered so dramatically over the past eight years that we're happy to have a President-Elect who can read and write and communicate.

The Inauguration is coming in one month, one month and the monkey prince will be out, keep the pressure on Obama. He needs us as much as we need him.

Peace.

[MagisterLudi]

Realx libbybuck. Shuffling some out-of-context quotes and then padding it with tunnel-vision comments has long been a staple of blog writing. Reality is quote different.Fortunately.

[CarmanK]

The neocons are part and parcel of the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned the nation about at the end of his term. They are war hawks, because war is profitable for them and their investors. And as we have seen with BushCo, they in the observation of Bob Woodward, made WAR part of the ordinary course of business. Bush saw no real urgency in ending the war in Iraq. Obama will end the war in Iraq, and I do not for a minute, think he will undercut real diplomatic efforts to have Iran join the world community. Obama's focus will be the economy, Joe Biden is no neocon.

[geroldf]

It continues to amaze me that people pretend not to know that Israel already has over 200 nuclear weapons. Wake up people.

No Islamic country would ever nuke Israel. No Islamic country can afford to let anyone nuke Israel.

It's true that a very small number of nukes would completely devastate the entire country of Israel. Here is why no Islamic country (or even crazy Islamic terror group) can afford to let that happen: Israel would still be able to retaliate, and would take a terrible revenge.

Imagine what would be left of Islam if Israel would take such revenge. If Muslims detonate nukes in Israel, and the Israelis decide they have nothing left to lose, what could they do?

How is this for a target list:

Mecca, Medina, Ar Riyad
Cairo, Damascus, Beirut
Tehran, Qom, Esfahan, Tabriz

With ten bombs Israel could obliterate the heart of Islam, and still have more than 190 more bombs to spare. They could completely devastate the entire Muslim world. The Israeli nuclear deterant is very real, and even if people in the US don't like to talk about it (especially the "hard-headed realists" in the neocon asylum) the Muslims are very aware of it.

The whole "Iranian nuclear threat" is smoke and mirrors. It will never threaten Israel.

[MagisterLudi]

European Union, IAEA Security Council (including Russia, China) believe differently.
Many Islamic countries, especially Arabs are petrified of nuclear Iran.

Respected German magazine Interviews IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei

SPIEGEL: It is a proven fact that Tehran has spent years trying to keep the international community in the dark over important aspects of its nuclear program.
ElBaradei: That's right.

Elbaradei:...Obviously we are all pushing for the same strategic goal: That Iran should not get nuclear weapons.
ElBaradei: There are concrete suspicions against Iran. That's why I believe that Iran has temporarily forfeited this right ( to build a nuclear plant), and that it will have to regain it with the international community through confidence-building measures.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,503841-2,00.html

[jollyelle]

I've never met a Neocon who isn't a believer of the right-wing Likud/Zionist political party of Israel. Elections in Israel take place in February, we should all be vocal and supportive of the moderate candidate, Livni. When the hawks in Israel are grounded, the hawks in the United States will calm down too.

Meanwhile, it would help to know the boundaries of the State of Israel?? What are they?? Where does their land stop and Palestinian territory begin? Will International Law ever be followed?

Keep in mind, history proves Iran has not STARTED a war in 150 years. Diplomacy and including and acknowledging them as a Middle East major power with conditions is the only solution.
Obama needs to appoint a special envoy to deal exclusively with the I/P conflict, it should not be Dennis Ross who shows extreme BIAS, frankly, the envoy should not be Jewish.

[evagorman]

This IS lunacy, indeed. After reading this article I cannot think clearly, I am reeling with the horror that these neocons plan to pretend they are using restraint but their finger is already on the trigger. Iran needs nuclear power and has a right to nuclear power. Iran has highly imperfect leadership, but much of what is fed to us (including the "death to Israel" b.s.) doesn't translate well. There are huge cultural differences here, people, and bad translations that get repeated. Iranian/American writer (and HP blogger) Hooman Majd, who has done some translating for Ahmadinijad has stated that they never said they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" but that bad translation keeps getting repeated. Yes, they are anti-Israel. Yes, the leadership often appears anti-semitic, SO WHAT? Do they have a history of attacking? No, they don't! Iran's leadership aside, the nation is filled with beautiful, educated, moderately- or non-religious people, PEOPLE THAT ARE A GREAT DEAL LIKE AMERICANS. I know, I am married to one of them. There must be no war in Iran. The idea of it is unthinkable.

[MagisterLudi]

The lunacy is the peddling of these kind of war mongering stories for political purposes.
Ditto for those who believe them.

[RonMar]

Vice President Biden was given a briefing Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008, by a bipartisan group. A major point of the briefing was that we can expect a chemical, biological or nuclear attack on the U.S. by 2013. Iran is pressing forward to develop such capabilities in spite of all efforts at discouragement by the international community. It is wise then to prepare for and to take out Iran's developing capabilities before they become a reality.
Israel can do it as they did in Iraq in 1983 and Syria last year. Israel has exercised for it, been provided weaponry for it, and will do it rather than sit on her hands and wait for destruction of the nation and its people, including the diverse groups living there like the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.
Some of the nearby nations, like Jordan, may even assist Israel. They are smart enough to look at maps, the prevailing winds and predict the results of WMDs impacting on Israel.

[MajorKong]

Why don't you just let us know when you DON'T think pre-emptive military force is the answer to a problem. That would be the "man bites dog" story of the year.

[starboymikey]

Why don't you just let us know when you DON'T think pre-emptive military force is the answer to a problem.
_______________________________________________

LOL. That would certainly save him a lot of typing.

[AyatollahGhilmeini]

I think of myself as a neoconservative and something of an expert on Iran too. America made its choice and selected Obama, but our choice does not change Iran.

First let's address a few things that Dreyfus is flat out wrong about: neocons would be happy to see peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue but don't care how that happens. Dreyfus feels that Iran's nuclear threat is no big deal. It is a huge deal. Israel and the Jewish people cannot survive a nuclear holocaust. A successful nuclear attack on Israel would, in all probability be the end of the Jewish people. While one bomb might not do the job, 2-3 and Israel is finished. The Palestinian problem will be permanently solved too.

Here are the inconvenient truths that Dreyfus denies or dismisses: the Iranian leadership are, without exception, rabidly antisemitic, they deny the holocaust while using the same expressions for Jews that Hitler and the Nazis used. Iran adores suicide bombings and you could say it is the substance of their foreign policy. What if they are willing to accept the entire destruction of their country and people as the price for destroying Israel? This is the core of the problem, the real reason folks like me advocate bombing Iran now: if we are right about this regime that stones teenage girls and hangs gays from cranes, there is no way to undo the damage if Dreyfus is wrong.

[MajorKong]

"Dreyfus is flat out wrong about: neocons would be happy to see peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue but don't care how that happens"

I call BS. You guys have had the hots to attack Iran since 1979. The nuclear issue is just a means to an end.

[starboymikey]

if we are right about this regime that stones teenage girls and hangs gays from cranes, there is no way to undo the damage if Dreyfus is wrong.
_______________________________________________________________

And how do you undo the damage if *you're* wrong? Do you just say, "oh, sorry about that" to the 100,000 or more who would probably die?

As to the inability of Israel and the Jewish people to survive a nuclear holocaust ... tell me who can?

[StephenKMack]

starboymikey,
I'm a gay man and I have no illusions about the regime in Iran.I also harbor no illusions that if the Neo-Conservatives had the power, aided by their Christian confederates, would be engaging in the same barbarities, as you noted in your opening sentence. All committed in the name of "God" and the "Greater Good".
But more to the point: What about the American Intellectual's utter lack of concern for the lives of the "others" that their policies directly affect. Across the political spectrum, an utter shamelessness is the order of the day,for thinkers and writers, whose intellectual constructs become policy; that have broad impact on the lives of millions of people.Some thousands of miles from the experiential domain of these policy makers. When do these itinerant intellectuals and their supporters have their day of reckoning? Mr.Dreyfuss,here, provides a clear and cogent answer:unrelenting scrutiny of the actors,without equivocation! Hysteria mongers beware! Mr.Dreyfuss will fell you with his reportage:he is a clear and present danger to your "enthusiasms".

[jackwaddington]

What if diplomacy towards Iran works? That would be a killjoy for neocons, yeah!

[darthdarcy]

Here's the link to the National Geographic Explorer Report on the Heroin Crisis..

It will be repeated Saturday Night Dec. 6th..on the Nat. Geo. Channel...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3099/overview

The Heroin Crisis and the Info on Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan...

[darthdarcy]

Here's an interesting fact I learned last night..in a great well done documentary on the Heroin trade made recently...

As you may know 90% of all the world's heroin, now comes from Afghanistan...

It transits through Pakistan and Iran and Iran now has the world's highest percentage per person of Heroin addicts...number one in the world place for percentage of Heroin addiction by populace...! With Pakistani Heroin addiction also growing rampant and on the rise big time as well..!

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran all strident fundamentalist Muslim nations..producing transiting and consuming huge amounts of heroin...Afghanistan also Kabul especially full of junkies..heroin addicts..and on the rise..

Now is this why the U.S. is not wiping out this huge easy to find Heroin production and poppy farms...is this a part of U.S. foreign policy and is it to our benefit or in the end does it further endanger our nations national security..?

Will these Heroin addicts be more or less prone to act as terrorists..

Will it destabilize these nations to our benefit or against or best interests..?

Why is it we hear so little of the Junkies of Islam and the massive Heroin production in Afghanistan...which is also getting into the United States and all over Europe as well stronger and cheaper heroin at that...

Just remember and take note that Iran is the number one Junkie nation in the world...ironic isn't it..?

[azadjami]

Salam sir,
Im a muslim and im US citizen also and i also live in Pakistan. I have lived in USA long enough to see how heroin gets to USA. so are we also christian junkies? by the way how do we guys so so much heroin inside USof A can u please tell me?

and are we chritian junkies?

and last point..Afghanistan is under US control. u talk about drugs..guess who is making more money than OIL. hello heloo wake up billy boy. there is more money in drugs for all teh generals of Pakistan and US of A .

dont be so ignorant and call religion bad. we all know how many drugies are there in USA, how many abostions happen. how many death are occuring in USA due to drunk driving, how many AIDS patient are...so lets not get into somthing which begins hating any religion. Like we believe Christ was a Muslim, so was Adam, mosses, Abraham..all of the prophets are our main prophets. and Key elements in Islam.

[zaz33]

darthdarcy - I read sources worldwide and this is news to me. I've come accross reports complimenting the Iranian government's efforts and successes against smugglers. I think one complimentary report came from a US agency.

This could be western propaganda. (this continues unabated)

If allegations concerning Iran and Heroin are true, I'd like to see it come from the United Nations. I gave up on Western sources a long time ago.

[JJMorgan]

This fixation of the neocons on Iran is puzzling. The real problem country in the area is Pakistan, an unstable democracy with lots of problems that already has nuclear weapons.

[kimleehan]

The thing you need to know is that the neo-cons are not the republicans or the conservatives but a party inside of the republican party.Granted they did have a stranglehold on the republican party when Bush and his neo-con freinds came into office, and sure did a lot of damage in the last eight years, but the american people are starting to wake up and seeing them for what they are.Just give it a couple more elections and maybe a better republican party will come out of it.

[ibsteve2u]

In the event that Obama's approach with Iran fails and force becomes necessary, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we could best ensure future world peace and global security by limiting our first strike to dropping our neocons on Iran from about 25,000 feet.

That should show Iran that we are serious about eliminating belligerent uses of force, and might eliminate any need for further escalation.

[Quitcherbichin]

I would bet that you will be talking out of the other side of your mouth if Iran sells a nuke to terrorists who set it off in this country. You will probably be the first one crying that we didn't do enough to prevent it.

[MajorKong]

That only happens on every other episode of 24.