Author: Matt Barganier

Seymour Hersh maintains that the Bush administration is determined to strike Iran, though tactics and justifications have changed:

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. …

I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. …

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

But historian Gabriel Kolko writes in to say that “war with Iran is not likely.”

1. THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIES are now in a crisis, and it may be protracted. The dollar is falling in value, Gulf States and others may abandon it, etc. A war with Iran would produce economic chaos, because oil would be scarce. There are states, like Russia and Venezuela, who can sell it. In a word, the balance of world economic power is involved, and that is a great issue.
2. THE GULF STATES do not like Shia Iran, but they export oil, becoming rich thereby. They are dependent on peace, not war.
3. THE U.S. PUBLIC AND CONGRESS are variable factors. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks the Democrats will stop wars is fooling himself or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
4. CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS huff and puff ideologies and are very articulate ideologues. Will they volunteer to fight Iran, and what will they do on the battlefield? How many effective fighters do they have at the Weekly Standard or AEI?
5. THE AMERICAN MILITARY is at the present moment stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another?
6. BUNKER BUSTERS can knock out so many bunkers – not all. If they are nuclear they are very useful, but they are also radioactive. In addition to killing enemies, they may kill friends and nearby U.S. soldiers also. It depends where you must drop them.
7. WHAT WILL IRAN DO, and what sorts of technology do they possess? They fought against Iraq about a decade, and suffered about half a million casualties. Perhaps they will roll over, but it’s not likely. There are a number of tiny islands in the Gulf they have had years to fortify. Can 90 percent of their weapons be knocked out? The remainder will be sufficient to sink many boats and tankers. The oil exported through the Gulf will thereby be reduced, and perhaps cease altogether.
8. ISRAEL may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not. Hence a number of Israeli pilots will realize they are embarking on suicide missions. Will they? Some will, others will not.
9. IRAN IS LIKELY TO GET NUCLEAR BOMBS, sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?

There may be other factors. But these are sufficient.

The Bush-Cheney administration, as the Iraq war proved, is full of mad, irrational people, and there is no way to account for them. But not everyone in Washington thinks like them, especially in the military, and those on Wall Street who have the most to lose from a war have great political influence. We are obligated to count on them because that is they way the U.S. has operated for decades. According to an article in Salon, Sept. 28, “the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions” were it ordered to war against Iran. Without them, there is no danger. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. But the U.S. fights wars and loses most of them. The U.S. is very likely to lose a war with Iran if it fights. It probably will not.

I recommend reading the Hersh piece in its entirety.

They seem to wax and wane in harmony with official U.S. government policy.

(Via.)

Ezra Klein points to this bizarre grilling of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by CBS’ Scott Pelley:

PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush?

AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways.

PELLEY: What do you admire about him?

AHMADINEJAD: He should respect the American people.

PELLEY: Is there anything? Any trait?

AHMADINEJAD: As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire?

PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there’s anything that you’ve seen in President Bush that you admire.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?

PELLEY: Very much so. As you are.

AHMADINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can’t wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn’t sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed. Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don’t think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth.

PELLEY: I take it you can’t think of anything you like about President Bush.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m not familiar with the gentleman’s private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or a determined man. I’m not aware of that. I base my judgment on what I see in his public life. Having said that, I think that President Bush can behave much better. There were golden opportunities for President Bush. He should have used them better.

First, as Klein wonders, what most impresses Scott Pelley about Bush is that he’s “very religious”? Really? Is Pelley very religious himself, or did he not anticipate having his stupid query turned back on him, which forced him to spit out the first thing he could think of?

Second, say what you like about the messenger, but what in Ahmadinejad’s message is the least bit unreasonable? George W. Bush once told an interviewer that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. (Hey, ask a stupid question…) Has Scott Pelley or any other American journalist demanded to know, in light of the events of the last five years, what exactly Bush admires about Jesus’ teachings? Because, as Ahmadinejad indicates, the answer is far from apparent.

And, just as an afterthought, please note that Ahmadinejad implies an ethical unity among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now perhaps he’s speaking with a forked tongue, but if he were really out to antagonize the West and score points among radical Muslims, what better time and place to rail against Jews and Crusaders? Hell, America’s faux-butch warbloggers lambasted Bush for calling Islam a “religion of peace” back in the day – imagine what the al-Qaeda types must be saying about Ahmadinejad now.

Via Jonathan Schwarz:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., said he thought Columbia’s invitation to Ahmadinejad was a mistake “because he comes literally with blood on his hands.”

Click here to read Orwell’s thoughts on the debasement of language in the service of politics. I’ll just note that when you’re as full of sh*t as Joe Lieberman is, such phrases come easily, as when he told an audience of 400 at the Arab American Institute, “We are quite literally brothers and sisters.” Or when he told a DLC conference that a WTO meeting in Seattle “will literally bring the world to our Pacific doorstep.” You mean the literal world, or our literal doorstep?

Feel free to add your favorite Liebermanisms in comments.

After reading the first chapter of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: These guys are major-league anti-Semites. What I can’t understand is how such ardent neo-Nazis were able to hold their tongues for decades as they infiltrated America’s elite universities and became respected members of the establishment. Seems they would have let slip some of their bigotry long ago at faculty gatherings – in vino veritas and all that. How could they suppress the sort of volcanic hatred that has finally come out in this hatey hate-athon of hate?

I feel compelled to offer some samples to quiet the skeptics, but avert your eyes if you wish to remain pure of heart:

“There is a strong moral case for Israel’s existence and there are good reasons for the United States to be committed to helping Israel if its survival is in jeopardy.”

“The lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. As we will describe in detail, it is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership, and it is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy.”

“Like the efforts of other ethnic lobbies and interest groups, the activities of the Israel lobby’s various elements are legitimate forms of democratic political participation, and they are for the most part consistent with America’s long tradition of interest group activity.”

“By making it difficult to impossible for the U.S. government to criticize Israel’s conduct and press it to change some of its counterproductive policies, the lobby may even be jeopardizing the long-term prospects of the Jewish state.”

Ugh. I hope you didn’t actually read any of that garbage.

UPDATE: I see that Clark Stooksbury is similarly chagrined.

Off-message alert! Off-message alert!

Glenn Reynolds lets slip that things in Iraq could be much better (if only Jacques Chirac had helped a brother out back in the day). But Glenn… what about all the painted schools? And the purple fingers – the purple fingers, Glenn! Who could ask for anything more?

(Reynolds link via Clark Stooksbury.)