Hersh's latest on expanding the Iraq War to Iran

Seymour Hersh reports on the Cheney-Bush administration's current war planning for Iran in Shifting Targets: The Administration's plan for Iran in the New Yorker issue dated 10/08/07 (accessed 09/30/07). He reports that Dick Cheney's current approach is no longer a massive bombing campaign on a wide variety of Iranian targets but the new emphasis is "on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq." As Hersh notes, after years of agitation on the topic of Iran's nuclear program, Cheney's new approach means that what was previously "a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism".

Hersh explains the shift as follows:

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Reality, in other words, has been strongly reasserting its claims on Middle East policy.

I find the comment about public opinion especially intriguing. We know that Cheney and Bush have contempt for the opinions of the American public on matters of war and peace, except when they agree with Cheney's plans. Hersh also reports a couple of paragraphs later in the article:

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."

Even dictatorships have to take some account of public opinion. So I have no doubt that managing public perceptions is a major concern of Cheney and Bush. But I would be curious as to just how public opinion against war with Iran gets filtered to Cheney and Bush in a way that causes them to change their planned course of action significantly.

Despite the uncertainty on that point, I do think it's very significant that even though many war critics are rightly disgusted right now at the timidity of Congressional Democrats in asserting their Constitutional role in the matter of military attacks on Iran, the public opposition to the Iraq War is somehow having the effect of restraining even Cheney and Bush in some way in this matter.

But we shouldn't fall into the current Republican habit of imagining that such issues exist almost exclusively in the form of domestic American politics. Even though it might be politically less difficult at first to have a more limited attack, it isn't necessarily the militarily optimal approach. Don't get me wrong. I'm opposed to expanding the war to Iran.

But one of the risks is the Iranian retaliation. If the US overtly attacks Iranian territory, we have to assume Iran will counter-attack in some way. A more limited strike would presumably leave Iran with a much greater capability to retaliate, a retaliation likely to be directed against American soldiers in Iraq.

We also have to remember. This is Dick Cheney and George Bush running this show. Apart from all issues of justification for war, if they expand the war to Iran, they will screw it up. Hersh lays out some of the risks as follows:

He [a recently retired C.I.A. official] added, "The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through."

That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years."...

A limited bombing attack of this sort "only makes sense if the intelligence is good," the [Pentagon] consultant [on counterterrorism] said. 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."

The surgical-strike plan has been shared with some of America's allies, who have had mixed reactions to it. Israel's military and political leaders were alarmed, believing, the consultant said, that it didn’t sufficiently target Iran's nuclear facilities. The White House has been reassuring the Israeli government, the former senior official told me, that the more limited target list would still serve the goal of counter-proliferation by decapitating the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, who are believed to have direct control over the nuclear-research program. "Our theory is that if we do the attacks as planned it will accomplish two things," the former senior official said. (my emphasis)

Any time the Cheney-Bush administration is going to do something major like this and the viability of the action "only makes sense if the intelligence is good", we have good reason to worry.

The Iraq WMD fraud certainly makes our allies more concerned about following the American lead, understandably so. Hersh reports that Gordon Brown's government in Britain is interested in continuing down the same road that the pathetic Tony Blair took by supporting the Cheney-Bush administration in attacking Iran. But even they are worried about the intelligence claims, according to Hersh:

The revised bombing plan "could work - if it's in response to an Iranian attack,” the retired four-star [American] general said. "The British may want to do it to get even, but the more reasonable people are saying, ‘Let’s do it if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq.’ It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.” There is, he added, "a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high." (my emphasis)

Hersh discusses an incident where British commandos seized a big shipment of weapons coming across the Iranian border into Afghanistan, though it wasn't clear whether it was officially sanctioned by the Iranian government:

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.” (my emphasis)

Not surprisingly, less submissive allies are even more skeptical of US intelligence claims from the Cheney-Bush administration:

The French government shares the Administration’s sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program, and believes that Iran will be able to produce a warhead within two years. France’s newly elected President, Nicolas Sarkozy, created a stir in late August when he warned that Iran could be attacked if it did not halt is nuclear program. Nonetheless, France has indicated to the White House that it has doubts about a limited strike, the former senior intelligence official told me. Many in the French government have concluded that the Bush Administration has exaggerated the extent of Iranian meddling inside Iraq; they believe, according to a European diplomat, that “the American problems in Iraq are due to their own mistakes, and now the Americans are trying to show some teeth. An American bombing will show only that the Bush Administration has its own agenda toward Iran.”

Another important point in Hersh's article is the indication of how strongly Dick Cheney intends to make sure that the expansion of the war into Iran happens:

“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.” (my emphasis)

Another grim indicator in Hersh's report is this:

And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)

“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.

It's also important to recognize how drastic would be the contradiction between attacking Iran and our current posture of supporting the pro-Iranian, Shi'a-dominated government of Iraq:

Iran has had a presence in Iraq for decades; the extent and the purpose of its current activities there are in dispute, however. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, when the Sunni-dominated Baath Party brutally oppressed the majority Shiites, Iran supported them. Many in the present Iraqi Shiite leadership, including prominent members of the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, spent years in exile in Iran; last week, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Maliki said, according to the Washington Post, that Iraq’s relations with the Iranians had “improved to the point that they are not interfering in our internal affairs.” Iran is so entrenched in Iraqi Shiite circles that any “proxy war” could be as much through the Iraqi state as against it. The crux of the Bush Administration’s strategic dilemma is that its decision to back a Shiite-led government after the fall of Saddam has empowered Iran, and made it impossible to exclude Iran from the Iraqi political scene. (my emphasis)

Peter Galbraith emphasizes the same point in Mission accomplished - for Iran Salon 09/24/07:

In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. [He refers to the Badr Organization, the militia of SIIC, the lead party in the Iraqi government.]And while the president contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.

Iran's role in Iraq is pervasive, but also subtle. When Iraq drafted its permanent constitution in 2005, the American ambassador energetically engaged in all parts of the process. But behind the scenes, the Iranian ambassador intervened to block provisions that Tehran did not like. As it happened, both the Americans and the Iranians wanted to strengthen Iraq's central government. While the Bush administration clung to the mirage of a single Iraqi people, Tehran worked to give its proxies, the pro-Iranian Iraqis it supported - by then established as the government of Iraq -- as much power as possible. (Thanks to Kurdish obstinacy, neither the United States nor Iran succeeded in its goal, but even now both the U.S. and Iran want to see the central government strengthened.)

Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraqi government. According to a senior official in Iraq's Oil Ministry, smugglers divert at least 150,000 barrels of Iraq's daily oil exports through Iran, a figure that approaches 10 percent of Iraq's production. Iran has yet to provide the military support it promised to the Iraqi army. With the United States supplying 160,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to support a pro-Iranian Iraqi government, Iran has no reason to invest its own resources.

Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching. (my emphasis)

An overt military attack on Iran would be a very, very bad idea.

Tags: bush, cheney, iran war, peter galbraith, seymour hersh