An understated headline moved me yesterday; it
was atop AP's explosively formed story about the "explosively formed penetrators"
traced to Iran that are killing our troops in Iraq: "Democrats Skeptical
of Starting Row With Iran." Yawn.
Webster's: "row" "a noisy disturbance or quarrel."
What about starting another unwinnable war this time with Iran? If you are
a member of Congress, does it suffice to be "skeptical" about that?
On Jan. 19, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., chair of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, told The New York Times he believes the White House is developing
a case for taking action against Iran, even though U.S. intelligence is not
well informed about politics in Iran. "To be quite honest, I'm concerned
that it's Iraq again," said Rockefeller. "This whole concept of moving
against Iran is bizarre."
Ten days later he told Wolf Blitzer, "I have a great deal of worry that
this [escalation of the war in Iraq] could expand
into some kind of action
with respect to Iran, which I think would be an enormous mistake."
Then why not stop it, Senator Rockefeller? Stop the war against Iran before
it starts. You are chair of the intelligence committee. You don't have to be
stonewalled, as previous chair Sen. Bob Graham was in September 2002. Yes, he
voted against the war in Iraq because he knew of the games being played with
the intelligence. But he failed to play a leadership role; he didn't tell his
99 colleagues they were being diddled. It's time for some leadership.
Several of your colleague senators were reeking of red herring when they arrived
home from yesterday's talk shows. Many of them allowed the administration to
divert attention from the main issue with Iran its nuclear development plans.
Instead, the focus was on explosive technology Iran is reported to be giving
to Shi'ite elements to blow up U.S. vehicles on the roads of Iraq. This transport
problem is compounded by the unfriendly skies there, where a handful of U.S.
helicopters have been shot down in recent weeks. So the problem with "explosively
formed penetrators" in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at roadside
is real enough.
Why not take the Army's PowerPoint show-and-tell to Tehran, confront the Iranian
leaders and demand they stop? Sorry, I forgot: we don't talk with bad people.
Well, we might try it, just this once.
The real fly in the ointment the real aim of the U.S. military buildup in the
Persian Gulf and of threatening gestures elsewhere has to do with Iran's nuclear
plans. Recent revelations that the Bush administration summarily rejected Iranian
overtures in 2003 to include this neuralgic topic among others in a broad bilateral
discussion strengthens the impression that President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney actually prefer the military option to destroy Iranian
nuclear-related facilities. In any case, the recent hype and provocative actions
are likely to end up with an attack on Iran, unless Congress moves quickly to
head it off.
Show Me the Intelligence
Where is the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
on prospects for Iran's nuclear capability? You, Senator Rockefeller, now have
the power to ensure that such estimates are done regularly and in a timely way.
An estimate is said to be under way, but at a seemingly leisurely pace completely
inappropriate to the circumstances. And there has been no NIE on this key issue
since spring 2005.
As you know, the Bush/Cheney administration is no fan of NIEs, unless they
can get the likes of former Pentagon functionary Douglas Feith and former CIA
director George Tenet to fix the estimate to the policy as the recent Defense
Department inspector general report's proved.
In any case, the 2005 NIE concluded that Iran would not be able to produce
enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next
decade," with general consensus that 2015 would probably be the earliest.
Interestingly, since 1995, U.S. intelligence officials continually estimated
Iran to be "within five years" of the capability to make nuclear weapons.
The new NIE in 2005, though, was the first key estimate managed by widely respected
Thomas Fingar, the State Department officer who took leadership of the National
Intelligence Council earlier that year. Its key judgments were not welcome downtown,
however, since they were issued at a time when Vice President Dick Cheney was
warning of a "fairly robust new nuclear program," in Iran, and was
painting the threat and particularly the danger to Israel as far more imminent.
Several patriotic truth tellers (AKA leakers) told The Washington Post
of the NIE's main judgments. The exposure of the intelligence judgments came
amid credible reports that the vice president had ordered up contingency plans
for a large-scale air assault on Iran that included tactical nuclear weapons
to take out hardened underground nuclear facilities.
The 2005 estimate noted indications that Iran was conducting clandestine work,
but there was no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons
program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) still has found no conclusive
evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. (Does that bring back
painful memories of Iraq four years ago?) But unlike Iraq, which had been frightened
into awarding full cooperation with UN inspectors in early 2003, Iran was far
less than candid in responding to IAEA questions, and the agency has suspended
some aid to Iran and criticized it for concealing certain nuclear-related activities.
The ambiguities are such that, if we bombed Iran, we would once again be going
to war in the subjunctive mood.
The dearth of hard evidence shines through some of the more disingenuous pleading
of senior administration officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, in particular, who have argued that with all the
oil at Iran's disposal it does not need nuclear energy. The trouble is that
when Cheney was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, he and then-Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld persuaded Ford to give the shah a nuclear program
to meet its future energy requirements. There is even more credibility to that
claim now. Energy experts note that oil extraction in Iran is already near peak
and that the country will need alternatives to oil in the coming decades.
In 1976, Ford reluctantly signed a directive offering Iran a deal that would
have brought at least $5.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and
General Electric, had not the shah been unceremoniously ousted three years later.
The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear-fuels cycle
essentially the same capability that the United States, Israel, and other
countries now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire. This is, of course,
no secret to Khomeini's successors.
What Can Be Said
What Iran is seeking is an enrichment capability,
and that capability would allow it eventually to produce nuclear weapons. Whether
the Iranians intend to use that technology in the near term for that purpose
is open to debate. But if they can develop a commercial/civilian enrichment
capability, they will have what Israel calls the "nuclear option."
What cannot be honestly said at this point is what Nicholas Burns, number three
in the State Department, has been saying: "There is no doubt Iran is seeking
nuclear weapons." You would think they would take care not to use the exact
same phrases they used just four years ago making spurious charges regarding
"Iraq's nuclear program."
One can argue, as French President Jacques Chirac did in a recent moment of
candor, that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would not be "very dangerous,"
because Iran is well aware that if it fired it at Israel, Tehran would be immediately
"razed." And the post-WWII experience saw mutual deterrence work for
45 years. But the suggestion that the Israeli government try to relax into the
concept of deterrence, in view of the formidable nuclear arsenal Israel already
has, tends to fall on deaf ears. And, given memories of the Holocaust and the
ranting of Iran's current president, this is in some degree understandable.
But there is an equally compelling reason to dissuade Iran from going nuclear.
And that is the nuclear proliferation to which that would inevitably lead in
the Middle East. The U.S. needs to engage in direct talks with Tehran; we do
have common interests and concerns, and we could work toward devising ways to
alleviate Israeli fears. But, given the testosterone and myopia that color the
Bush administration's behavior in that region, appeals to those realities and
approaches seem to fall on deaf ears.
Congress Must Act
Please, Senator Rockefeller, the National Intelligence
Estimate on Iran's nuclear situation is said to be targeted for completion in
March. That's too late; you need to read it before the bombs and missiles start
falling on Iran.
An attack on Iran would bring catastrophe. Americans would want to know our
reasons for doing so. "Explosively formed penetrators" are unlikely
to persuade. Nor will a nuclear threat to the U.S. 10 years hence be found convincing.
Iran poses no immediate threat to America. It is right that we be concerned
about the security of Israel, but the burden of proof should be on those who
argue that deterrence cannot work in that situation.
Most important, bilateral talks with Iran are a sine qua non. Given
the circumstances, including heightened tensions and the danger of miscalculation,
avoiding face-to-face encounters makes little sense.
This piece originally appeared at TomPaine.com.