A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility

President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons – and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could constitute another failure of imagination. Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what they think the American response should be to various scenarios in the region – including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation.

By Leon Hadar
LeonHadar@aol.com

Since the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was issued at the end of the last year, much of the reporting and analysis in the MSM has been promoting the conventional wisdom in Washington: That a U.S. attack on Iran is now “out.”

The Bush Administration had been warning that it might use its military power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But with U.S. intelligence agencies making it clear that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear weapons, the administration had suddenly lost its casus belli. Without one, the conventional wisdom suggested, President Bush would not be able to mobilize American and international support for an attack on Iran, which in any case would have been a very costly operation.

And yet, even as this conventional wisdom was taking hold, the following events also took place:

1. Reports from Israelduring Bush’s recent to the Middle Eastsuggested that the president made it clear he didn’t consider the NIE a reliable source of guidance as far as his policy towards Iranwas concerned. It was not difficult to conclude based on reports quoting “sources” that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to be marginalizing the significance of the NIE – recalling a similar kind of disdain they exhibited towards the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, based on Bush’s behavior then – increasing the number of U.S. troops contrary to the recommendation for establishing a timeline for a withdrawal – members of the press should be considering the possibility that he is just as likely to act against Iran as he was before.

2. The incident in the strategic Strait of Hormuzduring which Iranian speedboats buzzed three USnavy ships and the Pentagon said that US forces were “literally” on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats. That incident should have led journalists to put the scenario in which the United States strikes Iranian nuclear sites on the backburner – and instead consider the possibility that a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf could take place as a result of (a) a provocation by the Iranians (b) a provocation by the Americans or (c) a misunderstanding.

3. Israeli officials also dismissed the NIE conclusions. Moreover, the Israelis expressed concern that Washington seemed to be losing its will to confront Iran and warned that they might have no choice but to launch an Osirak-like unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear installation. Neither officials in the Bush Administration nor Republican or Democratic lawmakers in Congress have challenged Israel’s right to take such a unilateral action, especially against a regime whose leaders have disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish state and even made Holocaust-denying statements. The media should consider the possibility that the Israelis could take action – and that since they believe that a Democratic administration would not be quite as supportive of the Israeli position as the Bush administration, they could decide to take action against the Iranians before or after Bush leaves office.

So here are some of the questions American journalists could be asking the likely Democratic and Republican presidential nominees:

Q.  The recent incident in the Strait of Hormuzhighlighted the danger that provocations by either side or just misunderstanding could ignite a Tonkin-Gulf-like military confrontation between the U.S.and Iranthat could degenerate into an all-out war. Do you believe that President Bush has the legal power to retaliate militarily against an alleged Iranian provocation without Congressional authorization?

Q.  Are you concerned about a so-called “surprise” in a form of a Tonkin-Gulf-in-the-Persian-Gulf that could affect the outcome of the election? Have you or your aides raised this issue with officials in the administration or discussed it with your colleagues in Congress?

Q. Under what circumstances can President Bush count on your support if he decides to strike Iranbefore the election in November? Under what circumstances would he not have your support?

Q. The Israelis have also warned that they could take a unilateral action and strike against Iran’s nuclear sites if the U.S.and the international community fail to prevent the Iranians from pursuing their nuclear military program. Should the president demand that Israelget U.S.permission before deciding to strike Iran’s nuclear sites? What should the consequences be if Israelattacks without U.S.permission?

Q. Would you agree to supply Israelwith bunker busting bombs to help it destroy the Iranian installations?

Q. Can the Israeli government count on your support if it decides to strike Iranbefore the election in November?

Willem Middelkoop: Nieuwe recessie is onafwendbaar

In het gesprek gaat Middelkoop nader in op zijn tweet: 'IMF is duidelijk bezig de wereld klaar te stomen voor a "new world currency"'. Middelkoop vertelt dat het IMF de volgende fase aankondigt in de kredietcrisis: een vervanger voor de dollar als wereldreservemunt. Een stap die na een nieuwe crisis kan resulteren in een wereldmunt.

lees meer

CIA Red Cell-document bevestigt de regel - 3

De eerste groep mensen die bij een militair conflict onder vuur komt te liggen, is het publiek. Zij zijn de eerste slachtoffers in de strijd. Want bij een militair conflict is oorlog slechts een fase. De grootste strijd is die om de hearts and minds van het grote publiek.

lees meer

Daan de Wit geeft lezingen op TU Delft en Universiteit Utrecht

lees meer

CIA Red Cell-document bevestigt de regel - 2

Het CIA Red Cell-advies om de bevolking van Europa te beïnvloeden zodat het de missie in Afghanistan blijft steunen, was opmerkelijk. Maar de realiteit is dat de inhoud van het document de regel bevestigt. In mijn boek De Volgende Oorlog - De Aanval op Iran - Een voorbeschouwing heb ik een aantal feiten over dit soort beïnvloeding op een rij gezet. In het vorige deel van dit artikel stond een aantal voorbeelden. Ook in dit deel volgen nog enkele citaten uit het boek.

lees meer

CIA Red Cell-document bevestigt de regel - 1

Bij een militair conflict is oorlog slechts een fase in de strijd. De grootste strijd is die om de hearts and minds van het grote publiek. Het bijzondere aan de affaire rond het CIA Red Cell-document is dan ook niet de inhoud, maar dat het is gelekt. Het document is schokkend, maar de realiteit is dat de inhoud de regel bevestigt.

lees meer