  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Is Bush Stopped in His Tracks on Iran?Posted on Dec 16, 2007By Chris Hedges This column was originally published by The Philadelphia Inquirer. The release of the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran’s nuclear status marks the latest in a series of assaults by the Pentagon and the intelligence community against the war posturing of the Bush administration. President Bush, seven years after assuming power, may finally be halted in his tracks—not by a resurgent Democratic opposition, sagging opinion polls, or an organized antiwar movement, but by the entrenched power structure in Washington he set out to emasculate. The tug of war between those within the administration who advocate as many as 1,000 air strikes on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities and those who oppose an attack will be the most dramatic battle of the final Bush years. Director of Central Intelligence Gen. Michael V. Hayden and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have turned out to be formidable foes to the Bush agenda of preemptive war in the Middle East. Gates, along with Adm. William Fallon, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. George Casey, the Army’s new chief of staff, are openly opposed to a war with Iran. And they will not, unlike their predecessors, permit the Bush White House to use cooked and fabricated intelligence to whip the country into war frenzy. The effort by the vice president’s office to change or suppress the NIE report, which was ready during the summer and stated that Iran had halted its attempt to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, has consumed the internal mechanisms of government for the last few weeks. The existence of the report did nothing to prevent either Bush or Vice President Cheney from asserting before it was made public that Iran was working to develop a nuclear weapon and could trigger, in the president’s words, “World War III.” Bush called on Iran on Tuesday to explain why it had a secretive nuclear-weapons program, and he warned that “for the sake of world peace,” no such efforts should be allowed to flourish. “Iran is dangerous,” Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. “We believe Iran had a secret military-weapons program, and Iran must explain to the world why they had such a program.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is also determined to prevent Iran from developing facilities that could produce a nuclear weapon. And Olmert insists Bush is on board, even if top U.S. generals and intelligence officials are not. Repeatedly during Bush’s presidency, the Israeli government, with strong backing from the White House, has turned to force rather than diplomacy to further Israeli interests in the Middle East. Israel unleashed a disastrous bombing campaign against Lebanon last year. This Sept. 6 it carried out air strikes against a Syrian facility that it said was meant to develop nuclear material. Israel has quarantined the 1.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and imposed draconian cuts in electricity and fuel. During the Bush years, the effort to negotiate a solution to the Palestinian conflict has never gone beyond the photo opportunities that characterized the charade in Annapolis, Md. Israel, like Washington, prefers to speak to its adversaries in the language of violence. A strike on Iran fits neatly into this pattern. “At the beginning of the month, as you know, the National Intelligence Council of the United States published its updated estimation of Iran’s intentions and capabilities in the nuclear field,” Olmert told the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies on Tuesday. “I attribute great importance to the declaration by the president of the United States, George Bush, that nothing has changed; Iran was and remains dangerous, and we must continue the international pressure with full force to dissuade Iran from its nuclear tendencies. I trust and am confident that the United States will continue to lead the international campaign to stop the development of a nuclear Iran.” White House lawyers conceivably could use the 2001 congressional authorization to use military force against Afghanistan and the 2002 authorization to use force against Iraq to justify an attack on Iran without going back to Congress for approval. The 2001 resolution gave the president the right to use force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and anyone who “harbored such organizations or persons.” The 2002 resolution handed the president the power to defend the country against “the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” The allegations that Iran is involved in supporting and arming insurgents in Iraq, along with the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, could be twisted by White House lawyers to legitimize air strikes against Iran. “This unexpected bump in the road has, in my opinion, stimulated the Bush administration to develop its own new rationale to justify what will in effect be a full-speed-ahead continuation of past and present policy toward Iran, almost as if the NIE issue had never intervened,” said Ray Close, a retired Middle East specialist for the CIA. The Bush White House has tried to use the report to assert that Iran remains intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and is a threat. “Convinced that they have been viciously sabotaged by a partisan anti-Bush intelligence community, and desperate to justify the basic philosophy and doctrine that underlies their specific policies, these people are painfully wounded and thus in a dangerous frame of mind,” Close said. “With hopes for a strengthened international sanctions regime fading, and no reasonable excuse available for launching an early preventive military attack, but with their pride deeply injured and their nerves sandpapered raw, I would not be surprised at all to see a heightened level of provocative and threatening rhetoric emanating from the White House in the months ahead.” The covert operations taking place in Iran, if they are stepped up, could provoke retaliatory acts by Iran against U.S. personnel or facilities in Iraq or the Gulf. Any action by Iran deemed by the Bush White House to be hostile to the United States or Israel could, Close argues, be instantly seized upon by the president to carry out air strikes against Iran. This could ignite a deadly chain reaction. “I think the publication of this NIE, rather than cooling the atmosphere, as many analysts predict,” Close warned, “is actually going to lead to a more dangerous and unstable situation in the region in the months and years ahead.” Previous item: Looking Beyond the Haircut Next item: Take Me Out to the BALCO Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Jon, December 18, 2007 at 1:13 pm # “Bush called on Iran on Tuesday to explain why it had a secretive nuclear-weapons program, and he warned that ‘for the sake of world peace,’ no such efforts should be allowed to flourish.” First, Chris Hedges needs to get his facts straight. The president said, “nook-you-lur” and not “nuke-lee-ur” as was reported. Really, one of the president’s advisors (or maybe his wife or even his mother) needs to stick his or her neck out and explain to him how difficult it is for people to take seriously anything he says when he appears unable to master a three-syllable word. The “good ol’boy” thing may be cute, even charming in a way, when you’re the governor of Texas pretending to be a cowboy, but for the president to continually mispronounce a word he uses so often comes off as practiced ignorance.
By sns, December 18, 2007 at 9:12 am # Well Russia is delivering the nuclear fuel to Iran. So a nuclear power plant (bad idea in ANY country) is immanent. Unless of course it’s bombed. But Putin, when last in Tehran, EXPLICITLY announced a “new cold war” with the West. So who’s stopped in what tracks now? And Clinton is just, in Nader’s words, another bad Republican. In fact, I’d love to see her get elected, which won’t happen, and essentially continue the Bush agenda. Hillary will be so gung-ho to invade Iran—but what to do w/ Russia? Or China for that matter? They have a lot to loose.....they are tired of losing......It’s not that black and white.....though i’m not a big fan of a theocracy w/ nukes....
By Patrick Cummins, December 17, 2007 at 7:47 pm # It's surprising that so manyIt’s surprising that so many readers accept the thesis being advanced by Mr. Hedges. I, for one, am not buying - an attack on Iran seems to me extremely unlikely. For a different point of view, I recommend Immanuel Wallerstein’s most recent commentary: http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm Wallerstein argues that the NIE is the result of a reversal in policy toward Iran that has already occurred.
By dick, December 17, 2007 at 12:00 pm # Israel's demands trump all elseIsrael’s demands trump all else in Washington, and they fit in well with the desire of the power elite for continuous war.War with Iran it will be.
By Sharon Ash, December 17, 2007 at 6:53 am # Well, you know North KoreaWell, you know North Korea had to hate that report because if Bush can’t harp on Iran, than it’s back to harping on North Korea. Bush has to constantly attempt to keep the focus on the bogey man somewhere else, and off of his misdeeds. I am guessing he is as anxious to see 1-20-09 arrive as the rest of us so he can slither back to Texas and stay.
By weather, December 17, 2007 at 2:28 am # As long as the MediaAs long as the Media deceives and the Israeli Lobby bribes and extorts Iran is a fixed target of distraction. Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article