Iran is figuring prominently in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election. In December 2011, Jon Huntsman declared that, if elected president, he would send in ground troops to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rick Santorum recently charged on CNN that bombing Iran would be preventing a true war from starting. Mitt Romney, Wall Street's favorite for the Republican candidacy, announced that, "If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon... If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon."
Despite the contention of international intelligence agencies that Iran shows no evidence of developing nuclear weapons, proponents of an attack on Iran continue to argue that Iran is pursuing nuclear proliferation and that this act does indeed establish a pretext for war. The rhetoric is strikingly similar to arguments preceding the invasion of Iraq.
A retired CIA officer and daily briefer to President George H. W. Bush, Ray McGovern, has been protesting the misrepresentation and misapplication of intelligence information since the 2003 War on Iraq. During Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show on May 4, 2006, McGovern articulated the basic rationale behind American foreign policy using a simple three letter word: O, for oil; I, for Israel; and L, for logistics. In the aftermath of the campaign in Iraq, it was apparent that these three considerations did indeed establish a false pretext for the invasion of Iraq. And now, when the U.S. is involved in a "debate" over Iran and the most effective ways to halt its "ambitions," McGovern's warnings regarding the tripartite interests of elite policymakers, at the expense of this nation and its people, ring true -- yet again. It would be judicious of the American public to consider the facts and determine whether a war against Iran, allegedly in our names, is justified.
O.I.L. in Iraq
Several months before the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush held meetings with American petroleum corporations. Hundreds of documents released to the British newspaper the Independent reveal that Bush had secured the rights of various energy companies to have access to Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the documents reveal that on October 31, 2002, British Trade Minister Baroness Symons held a meeting with British energy companies BP, Shell and BG, agreeing to lobby the Bush administration on their behalves: the United Kingdom would cooperate with the United States in ousting Saddam, but British energy companies were not to be "locked out" of access to Iraq's oil supply. This "oil conspiracy," as Tony Blair called it, turned out to be grounded in reality, after all.
It was only then that the Bush administration began its campaign to persuade the American public that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and that he represented a threat to the United States. Contrary to the assertions of the Bush administration, the overwhelming majority of the U.S. intelligence community maintained that Saddam showed no evidence of possessing WMDs. In March 2006, Paul Pillar, a retired CIA officer, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs, entitled, "Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq." According to Pillar, "The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made." In other words, the administration was guilty of "cherry-picking" information that would substantiate the threat posed by Saddam. They disregarded the recommendations of the intelligence community to avoid war.
In May 2006, Ray McGovern articulated two other factors that dictated American foreign policy: Israel and logistics. During the interview, McGovern stated that, "The people running our policy toward that part of the world have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel, on one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other." Leading up to the war, Israeli politicians encouraged the U.S. to go to war because of the threat Saddam posed to Israel. Saddam had fired Scud missiles into Iraq in 1991 and had been giving money to the families of suicide bombers. Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several other Israeli politicians addressed the Senate and the American public, reinforcing the image of Iraq as the embodiment of all evil.
After the invasion, however, even Israeli military officers stated that the threat from Iraq had been exaggerated. Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli general, told the Associated Press that "Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the United States and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability" and that they had "badly overestimated" the threat to Israel from Iraq. These "bad overestimations" have cost the United States $823 billion in the past nine years.
O.I.L. in Iran
The rhetoric and arguments used by war hawks today are similar to arguments preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And again, the foremost proponents of a strike against Iran, the fourth largest oil producer in the world, are seated in distinguished positions of leadership throughout the political world. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been urging the United States to attack for years now, citing irrational, yet meaningless, statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bolster his argument. On this side of the Atlantic, politicians and intellectuals alike have been sounding the war cry.
In his article, "Time to Attack Iran," Matthew Kroenig argues that a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would "spare the region and the world a very real threat." He continues on to manipulate information such that it appears as though the conclusions of intelligence agencies are in accordance with him on striking Iran; for example, Iran is supposedly "testing nuclear triggering devices and redesigning its missiles to carry nuclear payloads." However, the paper that Kroenig uses is compiled and published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and actually indicates that Iran has no nuclear weapons at the moment and is unlikely to attain any in the near future. Robert Kelley, previous head of the IAEA, states that the November paper regarding Iran's nuclear program rejects the possibility of Iran's having nuclear weapons, but that "the way the data have been presented produces a sickly sense of deja vu."
Having been on the IAEA's Iraq Action Team in 2003, Kelley regrets the invasion of Iraq, during which 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis died. Regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities, Kelley states that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear-arms program in 2004; their conclusion is probably sound because the NIE has a high threshold for evidence. The IAEA paper from November 2011 corroborated this conclusion.
With the United States and Israel preparing for a major missile defense exercise later this year, a strike on Iran may not be as unlikely as many may think. However, the need to understand and heed intelligence assessments before engaging in hostilities with Iran is paramount. Dr. Adam B. Lowther, a member of the faculty at the U.S. Air Force's Air University, describes five reasons not to attack. First off, it is foolhardy to assume that Iran would not respond to focused strikes on nuclear facilities. Furthermore, Iran has the most capable land, naval and air forces the United States has faced in decades. And, if war were to erupt, says Ray McGovern, it could affect other countries in Asia and specifically, the Middle East, including Israel. Iran is also advanced in terms of cyber-sabotage and if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, a feat their navy is capable of, they would wreak economic havoc.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of Iranian defense is that attacking Iran would unite the Iranians. In an article entitled, "Christmas Is No Time for an Iranian Revolution," Iranian-American journalist Hooman Majd avers that, "Most Iranians inside Iran would support the nation -- even the regime -- should foreign forces initiate aggression against their country." If the Iranian regime is the foe, the Iranian people can be either foe or friend. If the regime loses the support of its people, Iran may experience major overhauls, some of which may benefit the United States. In contrast, if the United States pushes the Iranians to war, they will unite, and will cause significant damage to the aggressors. The likelihood of the Shi'i clergy's completely losing power, in contrast, is minimal.
By failing to heed the assessments of the intelligence community, the United States has far more to lose than another decade of war; we would be risking our economic stability, which only now has begun to revive, and billions of dollars. Furthermore, while Israeli intelligence may yet again be exaggerating the need for the United States to go to war, risking our troops' lives would be unwise; going to war at the behest of an equal ally is sensible, though self-interest generally rules the world of geopolitics. Going to war at the request of an ally who has already led us into one disastrous, costly, decade-long war, based on faulty intelligence -- well, that would just be imprudent.
Conrad Black: Time for Obama to Grow Some Cojones on Iran
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran's Nuclear Program - News - The New York Times
BBC News - Iran nuclear: Russia's Lavrov warns against attack
A second Iranian nuclear facility has exploded, as diplomatic ...
Randomly, it's interesting that Haaretz recently reported that it does not seem as though Iran has decided whether to acquire nuclear weapons. Just goes to show, huh?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-israel-very-far-off-from-decision-on-iran-attack-1.407953
About the IAEA report: if you read the IAEA report, it presents raw data--how it's analyzed depends on the interpreter, many of whom have their own agendas. I prefer the interpretation offered by a former director of the IAEA, Robert Kelley (see his piece on Bloomberg.com).
To summarize my article: all I'm saying is that we need actual, concrete proof before we decide anything. Furthermore, the solution to every problem out there is not, "let's annihilate it."
You just said:
"To summarize my article: all I'm saying is that we need actual, concrete proof before we decide anything."
Yet you conclude your own article with:
"Going to war at the request of an ally who has already led us into one disastrous, costly, decade-long war, based on faulty intelligence -- well, that would just be imprudent."
What proof do you have that Israel "led us into one disastrous, costly, decade-long war, based on faulty intelligence?" You decided that from media reports, which merely speculate about Israeli intelligence services, but that in fact offer no actual proof. Didn't you just say not to depend on media reports, and that you want proof before drawing conclusions... And yet, here you yourself are doing it in the same breath. I guess when you said that, you meant only for Iran, right?
How come media reports saying the evidence is clear about Iran's nuclear weapons should not be considered authoritative, but media reports that merely hypothesize about Israel's involvement in the Iraq war, without any proof whatsoever, are enough for you to draw broad policy conclusions and sound your own alarm bells? Explain to us why you get special privileges to do it while decrying it in others?
To address your points however (and BcemXaha's): what could I possibly be biased toward? I'm not Iranian, I have no personal connection to Iran. I'm not even Shi'a Muslim. And I have nothing against Israel. Other than the injustices it commits and the wars it has/might led us into, that is.
If there's anything I am biased toward, it's the interests of the United States--American lives, American money, the future standing of the United States in the world.
As for your question about the double standard: my friend, if you read what I am saying carefully, I am saying that media reports should not be authoritative. Official and precise statements issued by each government bear *some* credence. As do statements issued by UN organizations.
In that regard, an Israeli general himself admitted that Israeli, American, and British intelligence had overestimated and exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam. See what I mean?
The Iranians have always stated the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The IAEA report did not establish anything conclusively. Make sense? It might be possible that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. It's also possible that they are not. Discrepancies in media reporting suggest, more than anything, that we do not know. We must *know* before any action is taken.
As for the IAEA report--if you take a look at it, it's raw data--how it's interpreted depends on who is doing the interpreting. Which is why I value the interpretation offered by a former director of the IAEA and not policymakers who may have their own agendas. You can find Robert Kelley's analysis at Bloomberg.com
Simply put: we've been lied to and manipulated many times before, and we suffered as a result of it. The Iraq War is a prime example. It appears as though this may be happening again with Iran. There isn't solid evidence indicating whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, unless you count the interpretation of various agents who may have agendas of their own (as they did with Iraq--again, see above). But before we take the military route again, let's consider what evidence we have before risking thousands of lives, spending billions of dollars; let's also ask ourselves what other options are available to us, options that take into account the concrete strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian people and the regime.
To make it simpler: we need more concrete proof. And the answer to everything isn't, "let's annihilate it."
You are one of the most hypocritical authors on the huffington post. How do you justify on one hand claiming that we need absolute proof when it comes to Iran, and then turn around and state that the US went to war because of an ally request? What evidence do you have to make such a prosperous assertion?
Try to put away your personal biases and re-think your words in the future, you might not get called out on being hypocritical, and instead be taken a bit more seriously than with a grain of salt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/comments/
Yet another apologist for Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program.
"U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work
United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,”
The report laid out the case that Iran had moved far beyond the blackboard to create computer models of nuclear explosions in 2008 and 2009 and conducted experiments on nuclear triggers. It said the simulations focused on how shock waves from conventional explosives could compress the spherical fuel at the core of a nuclear device, which starts the chain reaction that ends in nuclear explosion. .........
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?pagewanted=all
Let's not pretend that Iran is innocent and that the war is being fomented largely by Israel with nothing done on the part of the Iranian government to create the brinkmanship. The Iranians have been caught causing trouble in many US allies over the years, as well as in the US itself (trying to put out a hit on the Saudi ambassador last year). They also have had created big problems with the Moroccan and Nigerian governments, as well as Gulf Arab countries. Just today Azerbaijan accused Tehran of fomenting trouble in their country. Plus, Tehran is politically colonizing Lebanon via Hizballah, as well as vying for control of Palestine via Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are not innocent parties merely trying to defend themselves from false US-led-by-Israel aggression. They are active aggressors in their own right, positioning themselves to challenge western democracies and our allies for one reason only -- POWER. Iran's mullahs are getting very rich from all this.
Iran is working toward creating weapons grade uranium, and is conducting R&D on how to build a better bomb. Just because they aren't building the bomb this second, does not suggest we should relax our vigil, nor perpetuate the sanctions. Tehran's intentions for their enriched uranium, given their proxies and the havoc they foment throughout the MENA region, is highly relevant. Nobody should trust them. How we deal with it is a different story.
Reza Kahlili (a pseudonym) is reportedly a former CIA spy within the Revolutionary Guards. As he has written:
'Khamenei has been heard to say that the coming of the last Islamic Messiah, the Shiites' 12th Imam Mahdi, is near and that specific actions need to be taken to protect the Islamic regime for upcoming events. Mahdi, according to Shiite belief, will reappear at the time of Armageddon... Many in the Guards and Basij have been told that the 12th Imam is on earth, facilitated the victory of Hezbollah over Israel in the 2006 war and soon will announce publicly his presence after the needed environment is created.
None of them are daunted by that fact that their repeated predictions ever come true.
There's an element of messianism in that stubborn refusal to face the reality.
I'll make it succinct-- there will be no war with Iran.
Now let's focus on tightening regime of economic, political sanctions on Iran.
This is the best way to marginalize and reduce Iran's military capability.
"The latest IAEA reports prove beyond any doubt that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, which is advancing rapidly. Iran recently announced that it will enrich uranium to a 20 percent-level at its nuclear facility in Qom. There is no plausible civilian justification for this action. It blatantly violates numerous resolutions of this Council - and will bring Iran significantly closer to producing weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium.
Each and every member of the United Nations - and particularly this Council - should lie awake at night thinking about what would happen if the regime in Tehran gets ahold of the most dangerous weapon on earth.
Only the pressure of a united international community can stop Iran from continuing its march toward nuclear weapons. The political and economic price that Iran will pay must be clear. Israel commends the recent steps taken by the U.S, the EU, and others in this regard. Although these are important steps, we all must judge them based on their results. It is time for the rest of the international community - and this Council - to join these efforts."
Why don’t you read this: Chain reaction: How the media has misread the IAEA's report on Iran:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/chain-reaction-how-the-media-has-misread-the-iaeas-report-iran
1. There are indications that Iran is preparing to produce weapons-grade fissile material at some point in the future.
2. Iran also is acquiring or – has acquired – the specialized detonators and technology needed for a weapon.
3. Iran is conducting simulations of key aspects of nuclear weapons development.
4. New data (http://csis.org/files/publication/111108_irans_evolving_nuclear_forces.pdf) are provided on how far Iran is moving towards modeling weapons designs.
5. There is now further evidence Iran is developing the neutron initiators needed to sustain a fissile reaction and produce high yields from a fission weapon.
6. Iran is preparing for a nuclear weapon test.
7. Iran is actively developing nuclear missile warheads.
8. Iran's missile systems need warheads with weapons of mass destruction if these missile systems are to be an effective and lethal threat.
Reference: http://csis.org/publication/new-iaea-report-and-irans-evolving-nuclear-and-missile-forces
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-11/iran-nuclear-weapons-charge-is-no-slam-dunk-commentary-by-robert-kelley.html
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/chain-reaction-how-the-media-has-misread-the-iaeas-report-iran
Also: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/comments/
So in case of Iran, international community see clearly through the fabrications as well.
When Saddam was asked why he obstructed the inspections, he replied that he wanted Iran to fear his capabilities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/assassinate-obama-if-he-wont-attack-iran-for-israel-jewish-monthly-suggests/article2310783/comments/
Thanks you for this article. I hope it reached the war mongers and changed their hearts, but I doubt it.
There is the issue of Israel's government, which is worried that Iran's not being crushed encourages others in the region to think they too can resist being bullied, but though the government may wish it could get away with attacking Iran, it knows that doing so is a losing proposition on too many levels to do so.
And the Iranian goverment also doesn't want to see the Cold War go hot, as long as the short and long term negative effects of a hot war exceed the short and long term negative effects of the Cold War.