What President George W. Bush, FOX news, and the Washington Times were
saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's
vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious
nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time
in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear
The next IAEA milestone will be reached on March 6, when its director, Mohamed
ElBaradei, makes a formal report to the Security Council regarding what steps
Iran needs to take to allay growing suspicions. The Bush administration, however,
has already mounted a full-court press to indict and convict the Iranian leaders,
and the key question is why.
Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and insists (correctly) that the
treaty assures signatories the right to pursue nuclear programs for peaceful
use. And when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claims, as she did last month,
"There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume
uranium enrichment," she is being, well, disingenuous again.
If Dr. Rice has done her homework, she is aware that in 1975 President Gerald
Ford's chief of staff Dick Cheney and his defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld
bought Iran's argument that it needed a nuclear program to meet future energy
requirements. This is what Iranian officials are saying today, and they are
supported by energy experts who point out that oil extraction in Iran is already
at or near peak and that the country will need alternatives to oil in coming
Ironically, Cheney and Rumsfeld were among those persuading the reluctant
Ford in 1976 to approve offering Iran a deal for nuclear reprocessing facilities
that would have brought at least $6.4 billion for US corporations like Westinghouse
and General Electric. The project fell through when the Shah was ousted three
It is altogether reasonable to expect that Iran's leaders want to have a nuclear
weapons capability as well, and that they plan to use their nuclear program
to acquire one. From their perspective, they would be fools not to. Iran is
one of three countries earning the "axis-of-evil" sobriquet from President
Bush and it has watched what happened to Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons,
as well as what did not happen to North Korea, which does have them. And Iran's
rival Israel, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but somehow
escapes widespread opprobrium, has a formidable nuclear arsenal cum delivery
Israeli threats to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities simply provide additional
incentive to Tehran to bury and harden them against the kind of Israeli air
attack that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981. Although
the US (together with every other UN Security Council member) condemned that
attack, Dick Cheney and other senior officials do not disguise their view that
it was just what the doctor ordered at the time ... and that the same prescription
might take care of Iran.
Who Is Threatened by Iranian Nukes?
The same country that felt threatened by putative nuclear weapons in the hands
of Iraq. With at least 200 nuclear weapons and various modes of delivery at
their disposal, the Israelis have a powerful deterrent. They appear determined
to put that deterrent into play early to pre-empt any nuclear weapons capability
in Iran, rather than have to deal with one after it has been put in place. Israeli
leaders seem allergic to the thought that other countries in the region might
be able to break its nuclear monopoly and they react neuralgically to proposals
for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Bending over backwards to such sensitivities,
the US delegation to the IAEA delayed the proceedings for a day in a futile
attempt to delete from Sunday's report language calling for such a zone. The
final report called for a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."
This is the first time a link has been made, however implicitly, between the
Iranian and Israeli nuclear programs.
The argument that the US is also threatened directly by nuclear weapons in
Iranian hands is as far-fetched as was the case before the war in Iraq, when
co-opted intelligence analysts were strongly encouraged to stretch their imaginations
- to include, for example the specter that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
could be delivered by unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs) launched from ships off
the US coast. No, I'm not kidding. They even included this in the infamous National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 1, 2002.
That canard was held up to ridicule by the US Air Force, which was permitted
to take a footnote in the NIE. The scare story nonetheless provided grist for
the president's key speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002 - three days before
Congress voted to authorize war. That was also the speech in which he also warned,
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the
smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
While Congress was voting for war on October 10, more candid observations
came in highly unusual remarks from a source with excellent access to high-level
thinking at the White House. Philip Zelikow, at the time a member of the prestigious
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and confidant of then-national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice (and later Executive Director of the 9/11
commission), said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:
Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell
you what I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990 - it's
the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name ... the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically,
because it is not a popular sell.
More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming
Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also
created a rhetorical lash-up of the US and Israel, referring three times in
the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the US, as if to condition
Americans to the notion that the US is required to join Israel in any confrontation
with Iran. For example, on February 1 the president told the press, "Israel
is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need
be." Asked if he meant the US would rise to Israel's defense militarily,
Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll
In repeatedly labeling Israel our "ally," Bush is following his
own corollary to the dictum of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels that
if you repeat something often enough, most people will believe it. In an unusual
moment of candor in a discussion of domestic affairs last May, Bush noted:
That's the third time I've said that. I'll probably say it three more times.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again
for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
Why No Treaty?
The trouble is that, strictly speaking, allies are not picked by presidential
whim - or by smart staffers like the top Bush aide who bragged that he and his
colleagues are "history's actors ... creating new realities." Bush's
speech writers are acting as though the "new realities" they create
can include defense treaties. But unless they've changed the Constitution, in
our system nations become allies via treaty; and treaties have to be approved
by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
There is no treaty of alliance with Israel.
But why? Earlier, I had had the impression that it must be because of US reluctance
- despite widespread sympathy for Israel - to get entangled in the complexities
of the Middle East and gratuitously antagonize Arab countries. Comparing notes
with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues with more
experience in the Middle East, however, I learned that the Israelis themselves
have shown strong resistance to a US-Israel defense treaty - for reasons quite
sound from their perspective, and quite instructive from ours.
The possibility of a bilateral treaty was broached after the 1973 Yom Kippur
war as a way to reduce chances of armed conflict between Israel and its Arab
neighbors. But before the US could commit to defending Israel, its boundaries
would have had to be defined, and the Israelis wanted no part of that. Moreover,
the Israelis feared that a defense pact would curb their freedom of action -
as would signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They were aware that in a crisis
situation, the US would almost certainly discourage them from resorting to their
familiar policy of massive - often disproportionate - retaliation against the
Arabs. It became quite clear that the Israelis did not want the US to have any
say over when they would use force, against whom, and what (US or non-US) equipment
might be employed.
Aside from all that, the Israelis were, and are, confident that their influence
in Washington is such as to ensure US support, no matter what. And, as President
Bush's rhetoric demonstrates, they are correct in thinking they can, in effect,
have their cake and eat it too - a commitment equivalent to a defense treaty,
with no binding undertakings on Israel's part.
That is a very volatile admixture. Congress would do well to wake up to its
Constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities in this key area - particularly
now that the juggernaut to war has begun to roll.
Preparing the Public
One major task is to convince the public and, as far as possible, our allies
that the Iran-nuclear problem is critical. This would be an uphill task, were
it not for the success of our domesticated media in suppressing the considered
judgment of the US intelligence community that Iran is nowhere near a nuclear
Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer, to her credit, drew on several inside
sources to report on August 2, 2005, that the latest NIE concludes Iran will
not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until
"early to mid-next decade," with general consensus among intelligence
analysts that 2015 would actually be the earliest. That important information
was ignored in other media and quickly dropped off the radar screen.
In the Washington of today there is no need to bother with unwelcome intelligence
that does not support the case you wish to make. Polls show that hyped-up public
statements on the threat from Iran are having some effect, and indiscriminately
hawkish pronouncements by usual suspects like senators Joseph Lieberman and
John McCain are icing on the cake. Ahmed Chalabi-type Iranian "dissidents"
have surfaced to tell us of secret tunnels for nuclear weapons research, and
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keeps reminding the world that Iran is the
"world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Administration spokespeople
keep warning of Iranian interference on the Iraqi side of their long mutual
border - themes readily replayed in FOX channel news and the Washington Times.
This morning's Chicago Tribune editorial put it this way:
There will likely be an economic confrontation with Iran, or a military confrontation,
or both. Though diplomatic efforts have succeeded in convincing most of the
world that this matter is grave, diplomatic efforts are highly unlikely to
On Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist insisted that Congress has the
political will to use military force against Iran, if necessary, repeating the
mantra " We cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation." Even Richard
Perle has come out of the woodwork to add a convoluted new wrinkle regarding
the lessons of the attack on Iraq. Since one cannot depend on good intelligence,
says Perle, it is a matter of "take action now or lose the option of taking
action." One of the most influential intellectual authors of the war on
Iraq, Perle and his "neo-conservative" colleagues see themselves as
men of biblical stature. Just before the attack on Iraq, Perle prophesized:
If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely
and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total
war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.
Those songs have turned out to be funeral dirges for over 2,250 US
troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing
arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years
and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity