Month: June 2012

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Kenneth N. Waltz argues “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” The article is a welcome example of calm and sobriety in what is mostly a sea of irrational pro-war hysterics. Waltz argues that the apocalyptic rhetoric railing against Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon (which is not imminent) on the grounds that they would use it in a first strike against Israel or use the deterrence it would afford them to be more aggressive with proxies like Hezbollah is way off the mark of what we would expect to see from a nuclear Iran.

[E]very time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge.

As we’ve reiterated over and over again here at Antiwar.com, the international hysterics over Iran’s nuclear program are way overblown. First and foremost, there is no known weaponization going on in Iran. Additionally, the chances that Iran would become more aggressive with nuclear weapons or use them against Israel are essentially zero. As Waltz writes, “Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by ‘mad mullahs’ but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders.”

Furthermore, there is so much talk about Iran’s role in destabilizing the region and how a nuclear Iran would fuel a destructive arms race in the Middle East. Yet there is very little talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons and the role they are playing in fueling an arms race and, indeed, provoking certain Iranian postures in the nuclear context.

Almost always absent in the mainstream analysis is what Iran’s current posture actually is. Again, Waltz explains precisely what I have been writing about for the past year:

[One] possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.

Such a breakout capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran’s rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation).

This is another vital piece of the story which should, if policymaking were rational, warrant the reduction of the garrisoning of Iran’s surroundings, the constant threats and intimidation, the crippling economic warfare, the sabotage, extrajudicial assassinations, etc. Yet these have not ceased.

Importantly, Waltz describes a few policies now being followed by the US and Israel which are likely to result in exactly the outcome they claim to be trying to prevent. Israel’s “risky efforts at subverting Iran’s nuclear program through sabotage and assassination,” Waltz writes, “could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks.” Similarly, “the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped,” Waltz argues, since “they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose.” Sanctions could also lead to an emboldened, nuclear Iran, as opposed to their “official” stated purpose, which is to prevent an Iranian bomb.

One has to expect that the Obama administration is aware of all this, yet the pressure, sanctions, and intimidation continue unabated. The reason seems to be that Obama is fearful of appearing weak, and so keeps up this counterproductive belligerence. The other reason is that Washington doesn’t give a hoot about Iranian nuclear proliferation. Rather, it is important to them to keep Iran weak and without nuclear capability, so as to leave open “avenues for regime change.” If Iran has a deterrent, US dominance is jeopardized.

Update: Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations says the argument that a nuclear Iran wouldn’t be destabilizing is the general consensus among political science scholars. See here for more expert and academic opinions on that.

The National Security Archive has obtained through a FOIA request newly released CIA documents pertaining to 9/11. There do not appear to be any great revelations in the release, although one of them further illustrates what a liar former Vice President Dick Cheney is.

The fact that the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular, actively promoted the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was somehow tied to al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11th is at this point uncontroversial. It was a deliberate propaganda campaign to help rally Americans to support a war on Iraq that had already been decided upon.

Two months after the 9/11 attacks, on December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and, when asked by Tim Russert whether “Iraq was involved in September 11,” mentioned a “report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”

Despite heavy redactions, one of these just-released CIA documents reveal that one day before Cheney’s appearance on Meet the Press, the CIA confirmed in a briefing that was sent to the White House Situation Room that “11 September 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000.”

Two years later, on September 14, 2003, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney appeared once again on Meet the Press. Here is part of the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know…With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.

In fact, it had been completely discredited two years earlier, one day prior to Cheney’s first television utterance of it. It was actually well known at that point, in the government and the press, that an Iraq-Qaeda connection didn’t exist and the Atta visit in Prague was fabricated. Frontline:

As Paul Pillar, former CIA analyst and National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, wrote in his recent book: “The supposed alliance between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’ida clearly did not drive the Bush administration’s decision to launch the war [in Iraq] because the administration was receiving no indications that any such alliance existed,” adding that “this fact did not stop the administration from nonetheless promoting publicly the notion of such an alliance.”

By August 2003, after another year that included the most intensive selling of the war, more than two-thirds of Americans thought Saddam had been involved in 9/11. Some of this belief was due to innuendo such as the vice president’s repeated references to a phantom meeting in Prague between an Iraqi and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. It was due mostly to the administration’s rhetorical drumbeat that repeatedly mentioned Iraq, 9/11, and “war on terror” in the same breath.

After knowingly lying the country to war, Dick Cheney now sits comfortably, writing his memoirs and retaining respect and status, totally immune from any responsibility for his crimes.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just released a report [PDF] on US policy in the Middle East. Much of the study describes how Washington will maintain key military bases and troop presence throughout the entire region and how to overcome challenges to maintaining such dominance, which is vital because the region is “home to more than half of the world’s oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas.”

One excerpt stuck out in which the Committee admits that US military presence in the region as well as US support for brutal dictatorships has generated widespread hatred and blowback. According to the report, the challenge is to maintain the imperial dominance over the region, but avoid the messy “backlash” and embarrassing support for “human rights abuses.”

The United States must carefully shape its military presence so as not to create a popular backlash, while retaining the capability to protect the free flow of critical natural resources and to provide a counterbalance to Iran. Earlier American deployments in Saudi Arabia and Iraq generated violent local opposition. What the West views as a deterrent against aggression could also be misconstrued or portrayed as an occupying presence.

As is usual, the most fundamental facts about US foreign policy toward the Middle East are openly talked about in high-level government agencies and bureaucracies, even while they remain too treasonous to explain on network news. What is striking is that Washington continues to insist on maintaining this military and economic dominance over the region, despite the horrors it has caused for the populations and for the safety of the US (think 9/11, which was a direct response to this kind of interventionism).

The United States should preserve the model of ‘‘lily pad’’ bases throughout the Gulf, which permits the rapid escalation of military force in case of emergency. The Obama administration has adopted this architecture by retaining only essential personnel in the region while ensuring access to critical hubs such as Camp Arifjan [in Kuwait], Al Udeid [Qatar], Al Dhafra [in the UAE], Jebel Ali [in the UAE], and Naval Support Activity Bahrain. An agile footprint enables the United States to quickly deploy its superior conventional force should conflict arise, without maintaining a costly and unsustainable presence. Sustaining physical infrastructure and enabling functions such as intelligence, surveillance, and logistics, while keeping certain war reserve materiel forward positioned, is more important than deploying large numbers of U.S. forces.

Preserving the model of “lily pad” bases peppered throughout the Gulf, which are afforded to Washington because it bribes undemocratic regimes with money and weapons, is how Washington maintains overweening power over the most geo-politically vital region in the world. This has been US policy since WWII, as a Top Secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.” After Obama administration failed in its efforts to maintain a large contingent of US forces in Iraq, following their predecessors launching of a criminal war there, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said he envisions about 40,000 troops will be stationed in the Middle East going forward.

Not only does this lead to US support for all kinds of repression and state terror, but it is detrimental to US security in the long term. The “backlash” the Committee is so worried about cannot be avoided and the veritable garrisoning of Iran’s surroundings makes the Islamic Republic more guarded, which amplifies tensions and increases the likelihood of unnecessary conflict. The alternative, minding our own business, is incomprehensible.

Via Ali Gharib, what the Obama administration is providing the Syrian rebels:

• LOGISTICS AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE – U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that “U.S. intelligence operatives and diplomats have stepped up their contacts with Syrian rebels in part to help organize their burgeoning military operations.” This includes helping with logistics and communications. The officials also told the Journal that the U.S. was considering providing intelligence to the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces.

• CONSULTING ON ARMS SALES – As in Libya, the U.S. is reportedly not directly involved in arming rebel forces. But that doesn’t mean — in either case — the U.S. is not involved at all. The New York Times reported last week that Syrian activists claimed the U.S. was “consulted” on arms deals where Saudi Arabia and Qatar paid for the Turks to make the transfers (U.S. officials said “they recognized that Syria’s neighbors would do so”).

• GATHERING INTELLIGENCE ON REBELS – The Journal also noted that “stepped-up links with the FSA are also part of an effort to gain a better understanding of the rebels’ capabilities and of the identities” in a bid to split the FSA from extremist anti-government fighters. This is in line with an earlier report that the administration considered facilitating allies’ work to arm anti-government forces.

• TECHNOLOGICAL AID AND TRAINING – Time Magazine reported last week that the administration ran a robust program of helping rebel communications not only among each other and allies, but also with the outside world. Those enraging videos of Assad’s foces shelling densely urban areas? Some of them are captured by rebels carrying guns in one hand and U.S.-provided cameras in the other, and uploaded to the web over satellite communications provided by the U.S. and operated with U.S. training.

This is at least what has been made public on US assistance to the Syrian opposition fighters. See here and here for some of why this aid is problematic and likely to exacerbate the conflict. Partly making up the rebels are elements of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists and UN reports have confirmed they have committed serious crimes and atrocities.

Making the rounds is this clip of a Face the Nation interview with Mitt Romney. In it, he declares the Constitution irrelevant and argues he alone can make the decision to use military force against Iran.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, just consider for a moment that the Republican nominee can now openly say that as president he can make war without the consent of Congress. That’s what passes for a campaign pledge from the Grand Old Party’s leadership in 2012.

Obama also believes in the president’s ability to make war on his own, despite laws mandating he seek the consent of Congress. But at least Obama does it in secret or by proxy. That said, the Obama administration, terrible as it is, has expended considerable political capital in staving off a US-Israeli war on Iran. Obama officials, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, have been paraded in front of Congress for months emphasizing their estimate that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated no intention to do so. Then Obama secretly contacted the Supreme Ayatollah through Turkey’s prime minister in a diplomatic fashion. He then released to the press the results of a Pentagon war simulation which demonstrated that war with Iran would result in the outbreak of a regional conflict which would be almost impossible to contain. The administration did this while getting hammered by the GOP candidates and the Israeli leadership.

As Pillar has written, Iran has “ample reason” to believe, “ultimately the main Western interest is in regime change.” I believe that too. But as of right now, it appears the Obama administration views the military option as too costly. Even establishmentarian voices, like Aaron David Miller, who I’ve personally witnessed saying “a unilateral attack [on Iran] would be totally discretionary. It would be a war of choice,” not of necessity. George Perkovich of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace interjected Miller’s statement for emphasis on what an unprovoked military strike actually is, saying “it would be illegal.”

Daniel Larison writes that Romney excerpts like this make it clear what kind of president he would be. “No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected,” he argues. Maybe. It’s also possible that Romney would conduct foreign policy indecipherably from Obama and is just saying this to show he is tougher and get Republicans to vote for him. Either way, watching Romney talk about foreign policy makes one thing abundantly clear: he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.

Chris Woods of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that the Obama administration seems to have officials notified Congress of the hostilities they’ve undertaken in Yemen and Somalia, which seems to hint of some law-abiding principles pursuant to the War Powers Resolution:

News of the surprise acknowledgment came in a letter from President Obama to Congress on the evening of June 15 – a six monthly obligation under the War Powers Resolution passed in 1973, in which he is required to inform politicians about US military actions abroad. Obama openly described ‘direct action’ – military operations – in both Yemen and Somalia.

[Obama’s letter said:] “The U.S. military has also been working closely with the Yemeni government to operationally dismantle and ultimately eliminate the terrorist threat posed by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the most active and dangerous affiliate of al-Qa’ida today. Our joint efforts have resulted in direct action against a limited number of AQAP operatives and senior leaders in that country who posed a terrorist threat to the United States and our interests.”

There were similar references to operations in Somalia, with the President noting that in ‘a limited number of cases, the US military has taken direct action in Somalia against members of al-Qa’ida, including those who are also members of al-Shabaab, who are engaged in efforts to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests.’

Previously any such details were reported only in a confidential annex to the reports, with US officials refusing to confirm or deny even the existence of military strikes – an increasingly bizarre stance given the widespread reporting of such operations.

The Wall Street Journal noted that much of the impetus for the partial disclosure came from General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

His spokesman told the paper: ‘When U.S. military forces are involved in combat anywhere in the world, and information about those operations does not compromise national or operational security, Gen. Dempsey believes the American public should be kept appropriately informed.’

Unfortunately, the chances the Obama administration will consider using force in Yemen and Somalia as at all up to Congress is essentially zero. That they disregarded these legal obligations in the war in Libya last year is evidence enough. Doubly unfortunate, is that Congress is not likely to exercise its authority in this respect or to even have the inclination to end hostilities in these countries. Anyways, as Woods notes, the WSJ article noted that “officials said details about specific strikes in Yemen and Somalia would continue to be kept secret.”