Tag: Iran

As a writer, Thomas Friedman is a goddamned miracle.

In the space of the first four paragraphs of today’s column in the New York Times, Friedman compares US-friendly Persian Gulf countries to carnival workers at a weight-guessing booth, and also to the stuffed animals that a lucky carnival-goer could win at that booth.  

The United States is — I think, having read this three times — like a carnival-goer trying to win a stuffed animal at the weight-guessing booth.  But Friedman’s point is not that the United States wants to win a US-friendly Persian Gulf country, which is what you’d think Friedman must mean, if those countries are stuffed-animal prizes at the weight-guessing booth; and his point is not that the United States wants to win something from a US-friendly Persian Gulf country, which is what you’d think he must mean if those countries are the carnies running the booth.

His point, which I confess I did not see coming, is that Iran is like a drug dealer.  Paragraph five:

The Gulf Arabs feel like they have this neighbor who has been a drug dealer for 18 years. Recently, this neighbor has been very visibly growing poppies for heroin in his backyard in violation of the law. He’s also been buying bigger and better trucks to deliver drugs. You can see them parked in his driveway.

Maybe a lot of carnies are drug dealers.  Maybe they use stuffed animals to smuggle heroin into the United States, with trucks.  I have no idea.  At various points over the next several paragraphs, the US is the police, and also holding a stuffed animal — but Friedman doesn’t mean that the US is holding a US-friendly Persian Gulf country stuffed with heroin that the US found in a truck.

I don’t know.

What I do know is that Friedman manages to insert a few paragraphs in the midst of that literary tsunami that are both wildly misleading and indicative of current misunderstandings in Washington punditry on the subject of Iranian nuclear enrichment.

Remember this moment from President Bush’s Dec. 4 2007 press conference?

[The President]: People said, well, why is it that you can’t get exact knowledge quicker? Well, the answer is, is because we’re dealing with a regime that is not very transparent and, frankly, we haven’t had a very good presence in Iran since 1979. And that’s why I instructed the intel community to beef up its intelligence on Iran, so we could have a better sense for what they’re thinking and what they’re doing. And this product is a result of intelligence reform and, more importantly, the good, hard work of our intelligence community.

Yeah.  Well.  Look at what we see in this morning’s LA times.  Turns out that when Bush came into office, he gutted Iranian intelligence operations, to boost intelligence on Iraq.  He partially, but only partially, revived intelligence work on Iran in 2005.  

Crossposted at Invictus

More than one author has described writing about the intelligence world as akin to walking into a hall of mirrors. It’s difficult to know what’s what, who to believe, or even know where you stand. Truths are fungible. Lies are opaque versions of tomorrow’s news.

When the U.S. released its limited version of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, the revelation that Iran does not have a working nuclear arms program landed with a thud upon the collective heads of the D.C. pundits. Bush’s pugnacious news conference which followed, wherein he repeated ad nauseaum his intention that Iran never get the “knowledge” to construct a nuclear weapon, signalled no real change in direction from the administration that was only weeks before dangling World War III before the glazed eyes of a fearful electorate.

In discussions with colleagues, I was struck by the fact that the authorship of the new NIE was from the same man who wrote the previous NIE, and the same man who assured the administration that there was a nuclear weapons program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, CIA stalwart, Robert Walpole, who was (if he in fact is still), according to the Washington Post, “chief CIA officer for nuclear programs”. In other words, I smelled a rat.  

Just when you thought Bush and Cheney might have to rethink starting World War III, Matt Rotshschild has to spoil your mood.  Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, writes:

Hold on a second here.

The risk of Bush attacking Iran is not yet over.

When the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran came out earlier this week, a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that Cheney and the hardliners have lost, and so we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Well, I’m not exhaling at the moment.

Because I still believe Bush and Cheney are going to do the deed.

And he may well be on to something.

If there’s one thing our own, DC-based Axis of Evil learned in the runup to the Iraq war, it’s that if one argument doesn’t work you should just keep making others, until you wear down the resistance and something finally sticks.

And if it turns out later that you were wrong or lying about it, so what?  

Will bombing be enough?  Sending ground troops might be problematic, since most of those available are bogged down in another quagmire at the moment.  And World War III will be a bit of an overstatement when it turns out Iran has no nukes and little ability to fight back.  So maybe, despite Bush’s hype, it’s just another dirty little war.

Rothschild posits that Bush will simply switch gears and find another reason to attack:

“Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” [Bush said.]

Note well that he didn’t say Iran will be dangerous when it acquires such a weapon, but prior to that, when it acquires the knowledge to make one. That’s a big difference, and it shortens the timetable laid out in the NIE, which doubted Iran would have such a weapon until 2015.

Who knows when Iran will have the “knowledge to make” one? Maybe it has that knowledge already and lacks only the technical sophistication…

He reiterated that “Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace,” adding: “My opinion hasn’t changed.” And he remained as macho as ever in boasting that he wouldn’t allow Iran to acquire such a weapon while he’s around.

There’s more.  And it doesn’t read like paranoia.

“Psychology 101 ain’t working. It’s just not working. I understand the issues, I clearly see the problems, and I’m going to use the NIE to continue to rally the international community for the sake of peace.”

And with that he gave an unconvincing little jump and stalked off.

I recognize that speech having given it many times myself.  It’s the Ghostbuster speech-

See you on the other side Ray.

Why haven’t I been reading more Glenn Greenwald?

He hits another one out of the park today with his blistering dissection of Fred Hiatt’s September 5th WaPo editorial, Rogue Regulator, and the other neocon chicken hawk cheerleaders and conspirators like John Bolten who have been smearing Elbaradi for years so they can get their war on.

Our serious foreign policy geniuses strike again

Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

Tuesday December 4, 2007 03:59 EST

How far does the rot go?  To very core of our policy and media establishment-

…

Somehow, it was decided in our political establishment that being completely wrong about the worst strategic disaster in our country’s history — the invasion of Iraq — is not a cause for any diminished credibility at all (and having been right is no cause for enhanced credibility). Even after the invasion of Iraq, our Hiatt-modeled political establishment even proceeded to smear and target those such as Mohamed ElBardei who were clearly proven right, as though being right was a crime.

Is Cheney Wailing?

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

The finding also come in the middle of a presidential campaign during which a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

“Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might – if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible – prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program,” the estimate states.

I have always believed the Iran scare was mostly a red herring by the cynical Bush Administration (not the Cheney cabal however) to take the focus off of IRaq and and that the only way there would be war with Iran would be if a pretext was concocted via the Iraq Debacle. I think that is more true than ever.

Thus, being firm on the Kyl Lieberman is admirable but being firm on NOT funding the Iraq Debacle is MUCH MORE important. It is one of the principal reasons I am displeased with Senator Jim Webb’s actions on these issues.

It’s not often that serial liar Condoleezza Rice says something that merits approval and publicity, but miracles do happen.

According to the Associated Press:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.

“There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he’s on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus,” Rice said.

The latter part is, of course, what we expect from Rice. The administration’s attempts to drum up support for a war have been blatant and blatantly dishonest; but this statement needs to be publicized and emphasized:

There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view.

Meanwhile, the Guardian, yesterday, had yet more evidence of the insane efforts to find some rationale- any rationale- for attacking Iran:

US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.

Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

Needless to say, if the evidence was there, the efforts to find it wouldn’t be quite so obsessive. Clearly, the administration wants war. Just as clearly, there’s an understanding that they’re getting neither the evidence to justify one nor the public support that would make it politically safe to launch one. In fact, a CNN/Opinion Research polll, last week, showed, in addition to record high opposition to the Iraq War:

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

Does any of this mean the administration won’t launch a war? Of course not. But it does suggest that they do understand that this effort at warmongering is not working. And now, Condoleezza Rice has made clear that Congress did not, in fact, give the administration a green light to attack. Lieberman-Kyl was terrible and asinine, but it was not a war resolution. Condoleezza Rice even says so. We need to keep emphasizing that fact.

A new polll has good news, on two fronts.

On the Iraq War:

Opposition to the war in Iraq has reached an all-time high, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday morning.

Support for the war in Iraq has dropped to 31 percent and the 68 percent who oppose the war is a new record.

Only a quarter of those polled think the U.S. is winning the war. The American people get it. Those with brains, anyway. Now, if only someone would do something about this disaster…

The other result is very encouraging, particularly to those who saw the strange recent Zogby Poll, which concluded that a slight majority of Americans favored an attack on Iran. That poll struck me as an outlier, although we’ll have to see more results, to really know. But the CNN/ORC result shows this:

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

That sounds more accurate. We’ll see.

The new polls also says 56% say they are dissatisfied with the progress in the “war on terror.” Which begs the questions:

What progress?

What war on terror?

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent, and Pakistan now has a dictatorship. Okay, maybe there is progress. Just not in the right direction.

TERRORISM TAKES A HOLIDAY: So, today is http://www.infopleas… >the day the Brits celebrate an anti-Christian, civilian-bombing, government-hating insurgent by going door-to-door and asking for money (“Penny for the Guy?”). Why do the British hate America? . . . . Michael Mukasey would approve: After he was captured, before he could detonate his bomb that was intended to destroy the Protestant Parliament, Fawkes was tortured, at the explicit direction of King James, who instructed that the torture should be gentle at first, and increase in severity. (And yes, I’m sure King James had a note from his solicitor general saying that the whole thing was perfectly OK, provided there was no organ failure.) “The torture only revealed the names of those conspirators who were already dead or whose names were known to the authorities,” according to Wikipedia. Why does Wikipedia hate America?