The Father and Daughter Who War-Monger Together

The Cheney tag team is in the ring at the same time versus Iran.

In recent days we've seen headlines from Bush's European farewell tour like this from the London Times: "President George Bush starts talking language of a dove." Also, in an apparent admission that his beef with Iran might not be settled during his presidency, Bush, as reported by Agence France Press, said: "I'll leave behind a multilateral framework to work this issue."

Speaking of multilateral, Steven Lee Myers and Nazila Fathi write in their recent New York Times article, "European Leaders Back Bush on Iran" that, "President Bush won European support. . . to consider additional punitive sanctions against Iran, including restrictions on its banks." In response, Iran has begun "transferring billions of dollars from European banks to Iranian and Asian banks. . . apparently to protect its windfall oil revenue from any new sanctions."

Yet that very oil revenue is already protected, reports Nuclear Threat Initiative, thanks to "Record high oil prices [that] have insulated Iran from U.N. and U.S. economic sanctions." An Iranian banker claimed that, "So long as we are selling the oil nothing [such as sanctions -- Ed.] will work."

But, Bush's conciliatory tone aside, just two weeks ago Elaine Sciolino reported in the New York Times that, "in an unusually blunt and detailed report [the International Atomic Energy Agency said] that Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained 'a matter of serious concern' and that Iran continued to owe the agency 'substantial explanations.'"

At Asia Times Online, erstwhile Iran commentator Kaveh Afrasiabi felt compelled to ask, "What magic was pulled on the IAEA to bestow sudden legitimacy on [what it previously termed] 'unreliable' and 'dubious' information (other than the heat of US pressure)?"

The information to which he referred is that downloaded from the Laptop of Mass Destruction smuggled out of Iran. It was chock full of nuclear designs that Tehran maintains had been uploaded by the West. "Is this now the end of the IAEA's hitherto heroic standing up to [the US]?" he asked.

As for Europe's motive for backing heightened sanctions, in their Times article, Myers and Fathi quote analyst Julianne Smith: "I think this was a European attempt to show the Bush administration that Europe takes the threat seriously and to [keep] Israel or the United States" from a military strike.

To put a kind face on it, perhaps the IAEA's firmer stance, like Europe's, is also an attempt to preempt Bush & Co.'s preemptive tendencies. Instead it may just be adding fuel to the fire.

Dion Nissenbaum reports for McClatchy on June 12 in "Strike on Iran nuclear sites under discussion again:" "Now, thanks [in part to] newly stated concerns by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the idea of a targeted strike meant to cripple Iran's nuclear program is getting a new hearing." Also, "In public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case [for] a military strike."

Aside from the "decider" himself, our number one "decision-maker" is Vice President Cheney. Wait, isn't he yesterday's news? In "Pentagon blocked Cheney's attack on Iran" at Asia Times Online and other sites, Gareth Porter reported on Cheney's proposal last August to launch air strikes at suspected training camps for Iraqi fighters in Iran. "Pentagon officials argued that no decision should be made. . . without a thorough discussion of. . . Iranian retaliation for such an attack."

In other words, by shifting the focus of the discussion to escalation, the Pentagon was able to push Cheney's pot o'war to the back burner, where it continued to simmer.

But its chances of being turned up to a full boil are increasing. In "Hawks still circling on Iran," Inter Press Service's Jim Lobe reports on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent visit to the US. He appeared to "have left the White House after meeting with President George W Bush and an earlier dinner with Vice President Dick Cheney quite satisfied. . . that the administration plans to carry out a 'massive' attack in the window between the November elections and Bush's departure from office."

Worse, Cheney's aide-de-nepotism -- daughter, Elizabeth -- despite leaving her job as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs two years ago after the birth of her fifth child, has once again rallied to his cause. At the recent AIPAC conference, "Deferment Baby"* attacked her former boss, Condoleezza Rice, and her policies, such as seeking a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before Bush leaves office.

Lobe quoted fille Cheney: "When we focus on [Israeli-Palestinian peace talks], we don't have time to focus on Iran." If Iran doesn't heed UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment, it "will face military action," she said.

The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes (Cheney's favorite writer according to Lobe) chimed in by accusing Rice of betraying the Bush Doctrine. Lobe concludes that Hayes and Elizabeth's closeness to the vice president and "views [which] are so harsh and so public suggests to me that Cheney feels more confident than he has felt for some time."

Worse, "Bush and Olmert reportedly spent much more time during their meeting on Iran than on [Israel-Palestine]," Lobe writes, "suggesting that the president. . . accepted Liz's notion [that] Iran should take precedence."

"That does not mean they will prevail," he concludes. But it's apparent that "the Cheneys have gained some ground."

Deciphering the Bush administration's signals has become a cottage industry in Washington. But, while nobody keeps a secret better than the vice president, it's no secret that attacking Iran has long been his heart's desire.

With Bush, however, it isn't secrecy that makes reading his tea leaves a challenge. It's that when he's not the Decider, as with Iraq, he's the Undecided, as with Iran. If a political cartoonist hasn't yet, he or she should consider portraying Bush with a devil -- Cheney -- squatting on one shoulder muttering, "Attack." On the other perches an angel -- Rice (okay, fallen angel) -- murmuring, "Palestinian peace process."

By definition, foreign policy is swaddled in secrecy. Will FDR or won't he join England in the war with Germany? Is JFK really going to play chicken with Russia over the Cuban missiles? Thus we fail to notice how submitting to this incessant -- with Iran, at least since 2005 -- guessing game demeans us.

Bush & Co. make wild swings back and forth from sanctions to negotiations to preparing for an attack. Iran, on the other hand, exhibits behavior typical of a state subservient to another more powerful: Test the waters, push the envelope, two steps forward one step back.

Divining the administration's intentions for Iran on any given day is hard enough. But we're also tasked with staring down the two larger issues into which it folds -- first, a foreign policy that's at best peremptory, at worst preemptive, and, second, said secrecy. Reforming the State Secrets Privilege, as John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee has been trying to do, as well as abolishing warrantless surveillance, would be a start.

*The title of an article on Slate four years ago by Timothy Noah, who wrote that her "birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands." That is, pere Cheney, needed a child to continue to evade the draft.

Comments

[randyjet]

At least LBJ had the decency to have both of his son-in-laws go to Vietnam and fight in the war. Where are the Cheney and BUSH son-in-laws in the war on terror?

[lthuedk 1]

"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral." --General Peter Pace

This man, commanders, betrayed your country and it's people through acts of treason.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/cheney_v_wilson.html

Well, commanders? Why would any officer willfully commit the crime of participating in a war of aggression or mass murder? Why would any commander want to be so mentioned in the history books?

Go ahead, join the Petraeus kiss-a-dictator's-ass club. We will not miss a single name.

Not one.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/the_joy_of_a_dictatorship.html

[realityczech4u]

There should never be a military action- preemptive or not. I agree with Obama but probably not with exactly what he had in mind by talking to Ahmahdinejad. He should be invited over here for a conference. At that conference he should be notified that the USA has no desire for hostilities of any kind and should be assured that we will not launch any sort of preemptive strike. He should then be given an approximate inventory of our nuclear capabilities. It should be made clear to him that no matter what his scientists are able to design and what his country is able to produce, we will always have x thousand times the capability. He should then be put on notice that should his country use a nuclear weapon of any sort against us directly or any other country, our IMMEDIATE response will be to unleash whatever we have that will assure complete and total destruction of every square mile (
hectare) of Iran.This is roughly what Hillary Clinton had to say awhile ago. But it should not be a threat made in the heat of a political campaign. It should be a calmly delivered statement of policy.Even with all the Islamic nonsense about martyrdom and going to bang scores of virgins in the afterlife, I do not believe they are crazy enough to bring about their own extinction

[dexxjones]

if only they could be in prison together.

[altohone]

The SCOTUS just ruled that since we won't call them prisoners of war, detainees at GITMO deserve a hearing as criminals.

There is no third legal category these people fall into.

With the official declaration of the end of the War on Terror and the start of the Police Action on Criminal Terror, it's time for those powers claimed by Bush due to the "War" to end.

Bush/Cheney deciding to attack ANOTHER country that hasn't attacked us, and has no ability to attack us, would be the final act of cowards. Creating a crisis during a transition of power that their successors would be stuck with is the ultimate avoidance of accountability.

The first casualty of an attack on Iran would be the end of any hope for Iraq.
Cheney would be destroying Bush's only chance at some vague future legacy.

[oldpotsmuggler]

The only principle that BUSHCO has been absolutely consistent in following is "chaos for the sake of chaos". Not too many months ago it helped facilitate an oil development deal been Iraqi Kurds and a big money right wing oil guy from Texas. And just a few weeks ago Iran attacked Kurds on Iraqi soil while the U.S. stayed silent. Needless to say the tension engendered in that region by such events does nothing but make the price of oil go up.

Kurds are neither our friends nor our enemies. Equally in the eyes of BUSHCO, Iran is neither our friend nor our enemy. All are only bit players on a world stage being directed with an unwaivering goal of furthering the financial interests of the folks who own the Bush presidency.

Talking about an attack on Iran raises the chaos level to a clearly acceptable degree. An actual attack not so. Bombing Iran would push the chaos meter so high that no one could state with any confidence that the world economy would be able to function normally in the aftermath. These conditions would almost certainly cost BUSHCO a vast fortune.

I personally am betting on tons of talk, and no truly scary action.

[Nooneyouknow]

Don't be too sure; Bushco invaded Iraq on the insane assumption that it could impose the oil companies on the Iraqi people and virtually steal their oil. That hasn't worked out too well, but Bushco is still building those huge bases and planning for indefinite occupation of Iraq (indefinite meaning 'until all the oil is gone.'), which is never going to happen. Who knows what delusional plans support their desire to attack Iran?