Shifting Targets: The US Plans for Iran

It's interesting. On the very day that Sir David Manning, the outgoing British Ambassador to the United States, tells us that - as far as he is concerned - the United States is determined to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem, Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker is telling an altogether darker tale.

Manning appears to me to be determined to take the Bush administration at it's word. Which is simply astonishing when one considers that this is the same administration that assured us that it was not seeking war with Iraq and that all it wanted was for Saddam to disarm. We now know from the Downing Street memo and its Spanish equivalent that Bush was invading no matter what Saddam did, despite all his public rhetoric to the contrary.

Hersh reports that the emphasis within the administration has now shifted towards surgical strikes as the administration have now conceded that the case for war against Iran is one that they have won only amongst their most rabid supporters and that the public at large remain largely unconvinced.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.”

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Hersh reports that although the President has still not issued an "execute order" to allow operations within Iran - and, indeed, may never do so - nevertheless, the increase in tempo towards an Iranian attack is startling.

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency.

The aim of the US now appears to be to play the victim, to say that they are reacting to Iranian interference in Iraq, an interference that they have never been able to prove.

General David Petraeus, the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his report to Congress in September, buttressed the Administration’s case against Iran. “None of us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern,” he said. Iran, Petraeus said, was fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”

This is, of course, blatantly false. Indeed, Iraq's leaders have gone out of their way to stress that they regard the Iranians as "helpers" in Iraq, despite the US insistence in portraying the Iranians as responsible for the counter insurgency.

One would be forgiven for thinking that, if Iran were really the source of so much trouble in Iraq, that the Iraqi Prime Minister would share this American viewpoint. However, he is currently enjoying a three day visit to Tehran where he has been photographed holding hands with Ahmadinejad, which is very strange behaviour if the American accusations hold any validity.

Indeed, Mailiki is reported to have stated:

Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.

Bush has responded to this by stating:

"Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.

Nor is this the first time in recent weeks that Bush has been at odds with Iran's neighbours about that country's intentions. At a recent meeting with President Karzai of Afghanistan, Bush was put out when Karzai stated that Iran was " a helper" in Afghanistan.

So, Petraeus and the US are claiming that the Iraqis agree with their assessments of Iranian interference when this is manifestly false. Both the Iraqis and the Afghans strongly disagree with the picture that the Bush administration insist on painting, but that's not stopping people like Petraeus from publicly stating the opposite.

And there are others questioning the American line on this:

Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me that “there are a lot of Iranians at any time inside Iraq, including those doing intelligence work and those doing humanitarian missions. It would be prudent for the Administration to produce more evidence of direct military training—or produce fighters captured in Iraq who had been trained in Iran.”

So, having failed to prove Iranian involvement in Iraq, and having armed Sunni insurgents ostensibly to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, the one thing that is blatant is that the US is failing to restore order to that country. Indeed, were order even a priority then one would expect the US to be engaging in talks with everyone, including the Iranians, a suggestion put forward by the Baker Report and rejected by Bush in favour of his "surge" policy.

In fact, according to Hersh, the opposite is taking place, with Cheney et al preparing plans for a series of attacks.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.”

So, despite what Sir David Manning is saying, all indications are that the Cheney cabal have lost none of their enthusiasm for striking Iran. Indeed, by claiming the Clinton analogy, the surgical strikes - which Cheney bizarrely insists will NOT be an act of war - may very well be the first stage of a more protracted campaign.

If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.”

And all of this is taking place at a time when Mohamed ElBaradei is stating that the Iranians are years away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb.

The diplomat added, referring to hawks in the Bush Administration, “They don’t like ElBaradei, because they are in a state of denial. And now their negotiating policy has failed, and Iran is still enriching uranium and still making progress.” The diplomat expressed the bitterness that has marked the I.A.E.A.’s dealings with the Bush Administration since the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “The White House’s claims were all a pack of lies, and Mohamed is dismissive of those lies,” the diplomat said.

Hans Blix, a former head of the I.A.E.A., questioned the Bush Administration’s commitment to diplomacy. “There are important cards that Washington could play; instead, they have three aircraft carriers sitting in the Persian Gulf,” he said. Speaking of Iran’s role in Iraq, Blix added, “My impression is that the United States has been trying to push up the accusations against Iran as a basis for a possible attack—as an excuse for jumping on them.”

So the same kind of people who told us that the US was looking for a peaceful solution to Iraq - Sir David Manning and others - are now telling us that the US is looking for a diplomatic solution to Iran. And the same people who told us that we were being led up the garden path before Iraq - ElBaradei and Hans Blix - are now telling us that the US is looking for an excuse to attack Iran.

Indeed, the belief that the Americans are looking for any excuse to attack Iran is so widespread that it is said to be influencing the way the Brits hand over intelligence to the US.

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.

The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”

Despite Manning's claims, it is obvious that the Brown administration fear that the US is gearing up for an attack on Iran, an attack that will have disastrous consequences.

We've all been here before. The only difference between now and the period of time before the invasion of Iraq was that back then we all knew that nothing was going to stop an American invasion. Now, it's hard to believe that even this administration are dumb enough to launch an attack on Iran.

But, our incredulity apart, the signs on the ground are all exactly the same.

UPDATE:

Uri Avnery has a brilliant article at AntiWar.com which argues why Bush might be tempted to attack Iran and why doing so, although it is being pushed by pro-Israelis, might actually be incredibly harmful to Israeli interests. It's well worth reading.

He goes as far as to compare such a mistake as repeating the errors of Saddam himself:

One thing I am ready to predict with confidence: whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.

Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.

The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk – after all, Khomeini had killed off most of the officers, and especially the pilots, of the shah's military. He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.

Both Americans and Israelis may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.

Click title for Hersh article.

Tags: Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Iran, Cheney, airstrikes, uranuim enrichment, United nations, ElBaradei, Hans Blix, Gordon Brown, George Bush