Yesterday afternoon as I made dinner and cleaned up my house before my husband returned home, I listened to NPR’s Fresh Air and Terry Gross’ interview with Seymour Hersh regarding his article in The New Yorker about President Bush’s desire for war in Iran. It was so disturbing I had to listen to the full 44 minutes of it and then it was last night’s dinner topic.
Seymour reports that Democratic Congress gave Bush his requested funds for “covert operations” within Iran. These operations’ goal is to destabilize Iran’s government from within. According to Hersh’s New Yorker article Preparing the Battlefield he notes:
. . . Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy. The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.)
Does this sound familiar? Iraq anyone? Very very disturbing!
You know what’s interesting?
If we go to war with Iran (I seriously doubt we will), it will be funded by a Democratic congress.
Just like the war with Iraq, which is currently funded by the Democratic congress.
Should we say that the Democratic Congress is secretly allied with President Bush to create perpetual war? Why not heap some blame there too? It’s one giant conspiracy for eternal violence!
That is EXACTLY what was so disturbing for Hersh, Zach. He argues that the Dems have absolutely NO will power and are showing ZERO leadership.
RCM
I think it highlights quite well the political problem in the US and the inability for leadership in both “parties.” It’s not just a Republican problem. It’s not just a Democrat problem. It’s a US problem.
Sad, I wish that would change. The country would benefit greatly from a Democratic party that was something more than platitudes.
Henry,
That comment exemplifies what people are talking about when they say you ‘equivocate for a living’.
Henry,
That said, I agree – there is a leadership crisis in 21st century America. Although I don’t think it is endemic to “the system” or anything like that.
Zach
Show me the equivocation. What an odd little comment.
It as as though Bush blocks completely from his mind what the secondary consequence of this new war in the whole Middle East region would be.
Others have judged this as turning the M.E. into a huge M.E “fireball”.
The secondary consequeces of the unjust Iraqi invasion and occupation have been a destabilizing of the region and a further empowering of Shi’ite Iran,–i.e., the creation of the situation we are now using as a pretext for further military action, now in Iran.
Is it not unreasonable to consider that Bush and his cadre on some sick level WANT and and are IN FACT proceeding STEP BY STEP TO CREATE a showdown of World War III proportions?
All that overblown Islamo-fasctist enemy rhetoric seems have been pining away for a corresponding reality to match.
Mark,
You are so crazy!
We’re basing this all on a Seymour Hersh article. Really?
Henry,
I suppose I meant to say that most of your comments blur distinctions in an
attempt to make the two political parties in the US look the same.
This is also to say that I had a brain fart and briefly forgot what the word equivocate means. Sorry.
Should we say that the Democratic Congress is secretly allied with President Bush to create perpetual war? Why not heap some blame there too? It’s one giant conspiracy for eternal violence!
Precisely! War is the true religio of the united states.
What a load of hooey. The massive difference here is (or maybe not such a massive difference?) is that Iran is insisting on acquiring nuclear weapons, and being very vocal about it – which, of course, they must not be allowed to do.
Zach,
It is a simple fact that Irag was a Sunni run country. We went in, with the faulty advice of many–and on man in particular–whom we knew were sympathetic to Iran. We ignored and even fired high ranking, seasoned generals who gave us the advice/warning that it would take 350,000-550,000 troops to even adequatly stabilize a post Hussein Iraq. You know, the Iraq of three long fighting factions that werefudged together in the 20s into a ‘nation’by Great Britain and whom Buish 41 did not want to overthrow, because of the dangers of a non Sunni, post Hussein government, in terrms of our interests of limiting the power of its neighboring ShiiteIran. The result of such omission was chaos verging on–if not veering into– civil war and the ascendancy of its Shiite faction, long sympathetic to and on many varying levels cahoots w/ Iran.
Any student of a community college ME 101 class would know this.
Refute any of this and we can have a conversation.
I read this article yesterday. First I am highly doubtful that Bush wants War with IRAN. Where will he get the troops? Will he withdraw them from South Korea?
In a sense we are at war with Iran as well as our Iraqi allies right now. They are directly involved in Iraq and currently the Iraqi forces backed by the Unted States are currently them in The provinces of Maysan and surrounding areas Kicking them out.
We live in a curious world where we cannot talk about the The Iranain Ramazan Corps in IRaq that is very much responsible for much of the chaos and death in Iraq because how it enable the IRanian network to get into all the regions.. If Bush mentions it then he is accused of wanting to invade Iran.
Ironies indeed. So we pretend this does not exist and the Americn public which would be hard pressed to name a city outside Bagahdad is in blissfull ignorance.
There are a lot of issueat play here. THe least of which is IRan’s Nuclear ambitions that will if they occur lead to disaster. I don’t find it shocking that the Democrats approve of covert operation in Iran. Ithink they have the good sense to realize what course the Iranian Govt is on
Mark, I think most evidence and the latest events on the ground s showing that the majority of IRaqi Shiites do not want to be ruled by Tehran.
jh
Where did I say they want to be ruled by Tehran?
The massive difference here is (or maybe not such a massive difference?) is that Iran is insisting on acquiring nuclear weapons, and being very vocal about it – which, of course, they must not be allowed to do.
The only country to ever use a nuclear weapon is the united states and they pose an immanent threat to the rest of the world. The u.s. should be invaded because they must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Michael,
Joseph Sobran, another Catholic anarchist, agrees with you. He wrote that faith in war is the closest thing America has to a national religion.
Michael ,
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon it will set off a Nuclear arms race in the middle east that will be frightening. Welocme back to the terrors of the cold war .
Mark
I am referring to the many levels that you referred too as to the Shia being in cahoot with Iran.WHile there are some no doubt it is no where near the majority
Maybe Bush is like Alan Jackson ? “Don’t know the difference between Iraq and Iran” ?
Iran would have seemed the proper ‘candidate’ in the first place. I’m hoping for Israel to waste
Iran’s nuclear capability. You certainly don’t want apocalyptical fanatics (no, not Pat Robertson) with nukes.
Nuclear weapons aside, neo-cons, along with Mr McCain, are the ones now saying almost verbatim, “Iran is the biggest obstacle to our success in Iraq”, along with the old “Iraq is the key battleground in our historically monumental War on Terror.”
Conveniently fits a narrative, does it not? (Even if Lieberman has to whisper every now and then into McCain’s ear at press conferences, in order for the latter to get all the details right).
Zach and RCM,
You guys are right. This Democratic Congress has been and is pathetic. Sad thing is, it is quite likely that the Dems will maintain their majority this November.
The only country to ever use a nuclear weapon is the united states and they pose an immanent threat to the rest of the world. The u.s. should be invaded because they must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
More hooey. Let me know if Mexico and Canada are fearful of having the U.S. use nuclear weapons against them – I seriously doubt any sane-minded person in either place believes that the U.S would eradicate Mexico City or Toronto.
Isreal, on the other hand, rightly fears being attacked by nuclear means, even if only by a dirty bomb. Their very presence in the Middle East is a provocation to the Muslim countries.
Has Israel ruled out a first nuclear strike against any of its neighbors?
Mark,
It is just not Neo Cons talking about the problems if IRAN as to IRAQ. Thereis no conspiracy here. When Iran is operating in Iraq there is a problem. THis is why 300,000 Shia a fews ago(last time I looked no one was calling them Neo Cons ) signed a petition asking the Iranians to quit interfering in Iraq.
Thereis nothing “convienet’ about these observation.
I suspect in the end some deal will be struck with IRan especially of the current Govt falls in the next election
jh,
You are missing my overall point: this all could have and should have ben foreseen on the U.S’s part!
Isreal (sic), on the other hand, rightly fears being attacked by nuclear means, even if only by a dirty bomb. Their very presence in the Middle East is a provocation to the Muslim countries.
Um, because they too rightly fear an attack from Israel, backed by the nuclear arsenal of the united states. According to the u.s.’s own post-9/11 logic, other countries have a legitimate right to forcefully disarm the united states.
I actually don’t think Iran feels threatened by the State of Israel. If anything, Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons was a bigger factor in them wanted nukes. Israel only seems interested in engaging in wars with nations bordering it, not regional domination.
Um, because they too rightly fear an attack from Israel, backed by the nuclear arsenal of the united states. According to the u.s.’s own post-9/11 logic, other countries have a legitimate right to forcefully disarm the united states.
I welcome evidence on your first point. And equally on your second. Both, I suspect, are simply emotional responses which will not be backed up with evidence.
However, if you provide statements from Israel stating that it plans to use nuclear weapons on anyone, or statements from the United States stating simply that the acquisition of weapons by any entity gives rise to a right to forcibly disarm that entity, I would welcome those as well, and consider myself corrected.
The act of holding nuclear weapons, by any country, is gravely immoral. That holds for Iran and for the US.
Jonathan, Surely you are familiar with the National Security Strategy of the United States, published in September of 2002, particularly section V: “Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction” which clearly claims the right to “preempt emergent threats” militarily. That’s merely one example of the U.S.’s repeated claims to this right, not to mention the U.S.’s concrete actions to “disarm” Iraq although it had no WMD. Surely you’re not that naive?
Hmm…Jonathan, I haven’t much agreed with Michael I, but I do think he correctly states how the US has articulated its policy – mere possession (or even attempt to possess) nuclear weapons by certain regimes is grounds for forcible disarmament. Or have we arleady forgotten the “axis of evil” rhetoric?
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon it will set off a Nuclear arms race in the middle east that will be frightening. Welocme back to the terrors of the cold war .
Objective historians will write that ISRAEL and the UNITED STATES set off the nuclear arms race in the Middle East: Israel by STEALING nuclear secrets from the United States and developing nuclear weaponry secretly and in defiance of her own ally, and the United States by illegally occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq and forcing her back into colonial subservience to Western oil interests.
The outgoing BJP defense secretary of India George Fernandes (a member of a government that was a strong supporter of American foreign policy) was asked by a news reporter, “What is the lesson that Third World countries should learn from the American invasion of Iraq?” His response: “Acquire nuclear weaponry as fast as you can!”
War is not a last resort in our government’s foreign policy.
“United States by illegally occupying the sovereign nation of Iraq and forcing her back into colonial subservience to Western oil interests.”
Digby what happens after the next Iraqi election if the Govt continues wants us not to to do a rapid withdrawal?>Will you still be calling this an “occupation”? THere does seem to be perhaps a tad of unhealthy Paternalism in viewing the IRaqis that was on full display in April when they starting their offensive
As to Western OIl Companies which are really Global in nature would it be better if they were Russian OIl companies
IRan getting a nuclear weapon is problem that cannot be ignored or wished away and the resulting arm race that would develop is a horrific real possibility.
“War is not a last resort in our government’s foreign policy.”
That is very false
jh,
Were you alive yet in 2003?
Digby what happens after the next Iraqi election if the Govt continues wants us not to to do a rapid withdrawal?>Will you still be calling this an “occupation”?
When the elites of the occupied country cooperate with the imperial power, yes, it is still an occupation.
“This is very false.”
No, unfortunately very true. We are perpetually at war, in some form or another, against some enemy or another. War is a normal state of affairs for our government, regardless of which party runs it.
C Matt,
M.I. states that the U.S. has claimed a unilateral right to prevent “any other” country from acquiring nuclear weapons. In fact, that is not the case. The U.S. has claimed the right to prevent “our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which is different than what he originally claimed. In addition, your statement of “certain regimes” is one with which I am in agreement.
What I find disturbing is that you’re listening to that vaguely anti-Catholic Terry Gross.