Andrew Cockburn comments on a new US covert initiative that is truly frightening in its scope…

“Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.”

May 3, 2008 18 Comments

Since the advent of the nuclear age, only two nuclear weapons have ever been employed, both in August of 1945 on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While many will argue that their use was required to avoid directly invading the Japanese islands, an effort that the government and military at the time claimed would cost the lives of upwards of a million US soldiers, the reality was that most of Japan has been decimated by conventional fire bombing, that the government of Japan had been attempting to negotiate a surrender all that summer, and that the people of Japan, despite news reels shown in US movie houses, were not on the streets in force training to repel US forces. They were, in truth, in the grips of near total economic and civic collapse.

The bombs were, in all honesty, dropped for post-war geopolitical reasons. The Soviets, who had coveted most of Eastern Europe in their advance towards Berlin, were viewed as a threat to Western post-war interests. Thus, individuals such as Dean Acheson urged the use of the bombs to demonstrate US military might, a position that was completely abhorrent to the likes of then General Dwight Eisenhower and the majority of the scientists that had worked on the Manhattan Project. They were dropped nonetheless, ushering in a new age of permanent global nuclear proliferation.

From the second that Little Boy detonated above Hiroshima unleashing the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, decimating everything in a 1.6 kilometer radius, evaporating every living thing within the bomb’s primary blast radius, and killing some 140,000 people (during, and by way of radioactive fallout), deterrence immediately became the primary purpose for possessing a nuclear capability. That reality has not changed in the 63 years since.

The Manhattan Project placed the United States at the forefront of the nuclear arms race, but their position as the planet’s lone nuclear power would end when the Soviet Union successfully tested First Lightning, referred to as Joe 1 by US intelligence, on August 29th, 1949. The rest, as they say, is history.

Reason And Emotion

That’s not to say that the world hasn’t flirted with the possibility since. Fortunately, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, cooler heads prevailed. Then again, it should be noted why they prevailed.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both Washington and Moscow had their fair share of Hawks pressing for a confrontation. Thankfully, a handful of individuals on both sides possessed the emotional fortitude to examine the realities of what would become of the world in the aftermath of posturing that had but one outcome. The United States would ultimately view it as a victory, but the reality is that it was nothing more than a victory over political arrogance. Of course, little mention is ever given the role played by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a veteran World War Two Commander who witnessed first hand the horrors of Stalingrad. Khrushchev was no stranger to the realities of war, and in his first transmission to President Kennedy during the crisis made that point very clear – that both he and Kennedy knew full well the ramifications, betraying an emotional state that was extremely uncommon for as Soviet leader.

Emotionality is something that many view as extremely dangerous when it comes to the nuclear equation, but it is perhaps the one thing that perseveres when it comes to facing the realities of mutually assured destruction. Reasonable men can find excuse enough to destroy the world on any given day. It is not until emotionality enters into the equation that the reality of nuclear war becomes abundantly apparent.

The Inescapable Outcome

There is no winning a nuclear contest – that is, not a contest between two or more nations that possess nuclear weapons. The reality is that the modern destructive power of a single nuclear weapon is such that the devastation wrought is not something that can be justified with regards to proportional or superior responses. The loss of hundreds of thousands of lives simply cannot be viewed as acceptable compared to the loss of a million or more lives in response. No citizen of any nation on earth would think that acceptable given the lasting affects of even a single nuclear weapon on a specific city or location.

In the case of Iran, were the Iranians to possess a weapon and use it, or even three, against Israel, they would be facing a nation with approximately one hundred times their nuclear capability. In short, while the Iranians would be able to, for example, strike Tel Aviv, killing multitudes, the Israelis could eradicate every major city in Iran, not to mention a list of other targets.

There is also the political question of approximation to consider. Were Iran to target Israel, the conventional response against groups in Palestine and Gaza would most likely be as immediate as possible, decisive, and unrelenting. Under the circumstances, collateral damage, including the death of civilians in large numbers, would most likely occur. Given the state of mind that the IDF would be in, were such a thing to occur, I do not think that that is at all a stretch.

All of that, of course, is without involving the United States and what their nuclear response would be were Iran to strike Israel. Compared to Israel, the United States possesses vastly more advanced delivery capabilities, the most lethal being the use of Ohio Class Submarines that have the ability to strike multiple targets within minutes if their proximity to those targets is within a certain radius. As it stands now, given that two US battle groups are in the Gulf, there are certainly nuclear boats with them, making their proximity to Iranian targets minimal. A single such boat carries a compliment that could completely wipe out the population of Tehran.

Given the magnitude of both Israeli and American capabilities, even the most crazed lunatic in Iran would be faced with the reality that their nation would be utterly devastated in response to any attack made against Israel. Their family, the families of their friends and counterparts, all would be killed. The government of Iran, along with its entire military, civic, and religious infrastructures would cease to exist. The majority of Persia, as we know it, would basically be gone.

It’s one thing to believe that a group can exist that believes self-sacrifice is required for some greater, albeit fanatical, purpose. It’s entirely another to believe that the government of a nation would sacrifice the majority of its population for the sake of ideological fanaticism and nothing more, with no endgame or stratagem involved. To believe the Iranian government stupid enough to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike option requires the inclusion of the belief that they have no goal other than to ensure their own destruction, that they not only have no regard for the lives of the Iranian people, but their own as well. Even were they to gift a weapon to a terrorist group, the ramifications would be the same, because they would be held responsible. In fact, were Israel attacked with a nuclear weapon, no matter where that attack originated from, Iran would still be the victim of nuclear reprisals, and it is rather unintelligent, in my opinion anyway, to think that the government of Iran isn’t aware of that fact.

In essence, the current position of the United States, Israel, and others, is that the Iranians are seeking to obtain an offensive nuclear capability. Such a position all but promotes the fundamental tenets of the Bush Doctrine, the cornerstone of which is the use of preemptive, unilateral force to deal with those deemed a threat to US national security, its interests, or allies. Mind you, the US is not alone when it comes to such policies. The Israelis also partake in such practices when it suits their purposes, such as violating Lebanese airspace and conducting over-flights over Beirut, which they recently did.

I have said it before, and will exhaustively say it again now – what constitutes a ‘safe’ nuclear power? One that discloses its nuclear practices? The Iranians have been repeatedly accused of hiding their program by nations that have never allowed the IAEA to inspect theirs. Israel, as I have pointed out in the past countless times, has an estimated 300 nuclear weapons, though denies to this day that it even has a weapons program at all and refuses to allow its facilities to be inspected by the United Nations.

So what exactly makes Israel a ‘safe’ nuclear power? They continue to diversify their delivery systems, such as through the acquisition of submarines, and have even been caught stealing nuclear secrets from the United States – something that has, to this very day, never really been addressed by the highest levels of the US government. And yet the world is supposed to believe that the Iranian government is bent on not only acquiring a nuclear capability, but also actually being ignorant enough to employ it knowing full well that the consequences of such actions would result in their destruction?

Why? Because the current Iranian regime refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? I’ll not disagree that that’s a ridiculous position, but it is by no means provides justification for initiating a nuclear exchange that would be tantamount to suicide.

Given the realities of modern nuclear age, are we to believe that the Iranian government, or even a radical faction within its military, is so consumed by madness that it would use nuclear weapons against those that possess the ability to retaliate in an overwhelming fashion? And if we are, then how are we to view the last 63 years since their first employment and the overwhelming proliferation that followed? As nothing more than a game played by sane men using the most insane weapon ever conceived to play an elaborate game of global chess? And if we are, then what exactly does that make us?

Pawns or Kings?

May 1, 2008 44 Comments

If you’re labouring under the misconception that the Bush Administration is going to leave office without first confronting the Iranians, it’s time to start paying serious attention.

The propaganda machine is in full swing, led by a new report by the State Department that labels Iran the most active sponsor of terrorism. If you can believe it, the Sudanese government actually ranked lower despite the fact that it has been complicit in supporting the Janjiweed who have been responsible for a genocidal campaign in Darfur.

Falling conveniently in line with the State Department’s release, the United States has deployed a second US carrier group to the Gulf with the specific purpose of “developing new options for attacking Iran” – a directive issued directly by The Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is justifying the move as a response to what the United States now believes is official Iranian policy – “killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq”. Michael Hayden, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently asserted at a lecture at Kansas State University…

“It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.”

It would seem that it is more than Mr. Hayden’s opinion, and a very crucial question has to be asked – why is the director of the CIA making such claims during a lecture? This is the same man whose agency provides the White House with a daily brief, which means that Hayden’s position has not only been presented the President, but also obviously adopted. If it hadn’t been, the White House would have condemned his assertion during that lecture, which it hasn’t, meaning that Hayden’s mentioning of it is being used as a tool with regards to circulating policy in the press without it coming directly from the President’s mouth.

Added to all of this, rather conveniently, is also another Pentagon assertion that the Iranians are directly aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, a claim that was originally made last year and denounced by both the Iranians and the Afghan government. It should also be noted that it was made around the same time as US allegations that the Iranians were also supporting Sunni extremists in Iraq, which were quickly attacked by various analysts as being utterly preposterous given the massive, and historic, ideological differences between the two. Not surprisingly, the promotion of that information was tracked back to the office of the Vice President.

On the nuclear front, the Israelis are playing their part, with Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, claiming yesterday that Iran will likely possess the ability to produce a nuclear weapon before the end of 2008. His source? Israeli intelligence, of course. Ironically, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Mofaz’s claim, which is interesting being that his office is in direct control of the Israeli intelligence apparatus and has far more insight than that of the office of the Transportation Minister.

So what does all of this add up to? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Fishermen call it baiting a hook; the intelligence community refers to it as Psy-Ops. And if you think it’s the Iranians that are the target with regards to psychological initiatives employing the media as their primary conduit, think again. It is, in fact, the American people being targeted.

The question is, have the people of the United States learned their lesson?

Iraq was invaded because they supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, or, at the very least, were in the process of obtaining them.

After that justification fell through, the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein took its place, and human rights, liberty, and democracy became the bugle call.

After Hussein’s capture, and the continued occupation of the country to combat the insurgency, al-Qaeda was used as the primary justification despite the fact that their numbers in Iraq, which didn’t exist prior to the occupation, constituted less than 5% of the insurgency itself.

And so here we find ourselves, five years after the fact, with the Iranians having become the new justification. Like Hussein’s regime prior to the invasion, the Iranians are being accused of attempting to secure a nuclear weapon. Their intended target? Israel. The consensus, of course, is that were they to acquire one they would use it, that it would not be seen as the acquisition of a deterrent, but rather an offensive weapon.

In my next entry, although I have covered the subject before, I will delve into the reality of why that line of thought is based on nothing more than the desire to militarily confront Iran, not the Iranian regime’s desire to actually engage in a nuclear exchange.

May 1, 2008 13 Comments

The Bush administration is running out of time. Since President Bush singled out Iran as a member of his auspicious Axis Of Evil, the gears have been turning with regards to how best to confront the Iranians. Obviously, condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program was never going to provide substantial pretext given the precedent set during run up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholly erroneous information provided the Security Council, and others, pertaining to Iraq’s quest for nuclear materials, among other things. The best that the administration could hope for to do with that avenue is its use as an exploitative psychological mechanism with regards to American domestic perceptions.

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US, besides perceptions to the contrary, has been baiting the Iranians at every conceivable turn. For example, they parked a carrier group just off the Iranian coast (just far enough out to remain in international waters) and then proceeded to conduct exercises, flying sorties obviously geared towards the possibility of striking Iranian targets. The Pentagon categorized the exercises as being a necessary step in containing Iranian powers.

Given that the clock is running out on the Bush administration, and one of the Democratic Presidential frontrunners has claimed that he would attempt to begin a dialogue with Tehran, the need to find a way in which to confront the Iranians openly has been accelerated, and recent events in southern Iraq have provided the pretext that the administration has been seeking.

Ryan Crocker has openly claimed that Iran is engaged in a full-fledged proxy war against the United States in Iraq. Given that, and recent events in southern Iraq, the Bush administration has been provided the pretext that is has been seeking to accelerate plans to target Iranian facilities near the Iraqi border and perhaps beyond. As to when such operations might begin is anyone’s guess.

Stepping back for a moment, it should be said that, given Iran’s position in the region, it is by no means a stretch to think that they have engaged in supporting Shi’ite militias and possess influence within the ranks of the Iraqi Interior Ministry. It should also not be overlooked that, despite the views of many ordinary Iranians, the government of Iran remains co-opted by a hard line element that has only been emboldened by the occupation. In fact, when one views the similarities between Tehran and Washington they are eerily similar in many ways. The occupation of Iraq is viewed by both as an opportunity to strengthen regional influence, both have used highly conservative bases that include zealous religious support to maintain their positions, though it should certainly be said that the Iranian government is structured to ensure that reality on a permanent basis while the overt exploitation of the religious right in the United States was a political phenomenon that was, in truth, a component of a premeditated political strategy.

In the end, what this all boils down to is – is the United States is willing to take that first step into the unknown. The US Military is utterly overextended, meaning that operations against targets inside Iran will most assuredly be undertaken by air forces and off shore missile strikes. That, of course, will lead to the Iranians countering such incursions with force, employing surface to air missiles and other counter measures, such as retaliatory strikes on US vessels in the Gulf from which missile attacks emanate, or locations in Afghanistan used for the same purpose. And that, no matter how you want to look at it, is war.

Were such a scenario to unfold, the United States would find itself militarily engaged from Afghanistan to Iraq. One would like to think that the Pentagon, and the President’s advisors, aren’t that stupid. Unfortunately, their track record to this point doesn’t leave one with any real sense optimism. Given the overly aggressive tenets of the current foreign policy doctrine of the United States, it cannot be discounted that those who support it want to squeeze every last ounce of opportunity from it prior to the exit of the current administration. And that is a scary prospect indeed.

April 12, 2008 20 Comments

Gareth Porter goes to town regarding the recent Hormuz incident and the Pentagon’s involvement in sensationalizing it…

“Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran’s military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.

Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would “explode” in “a few seconds.” Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS that he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are “just not a major threat to the U.S. Navy by any stretch of the imagination.”

Just two weeks earlier, on Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. But that incident had gone without public notice.”

Interestingly, where was the President at the time? Making speeches in the Middle East. The incident was then used to up the administration’s rhetoric, not to mention grossly over amplify the issue domestically.

January 16, 2008 6 Comments