Seymour Hersh: WH is afraid Congress will vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran

seafan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-06-07 09:15 PM
Original message

Seymour Hersh: WH is afraid Congress will vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran

Seymour M. Hersh
November 20, 2006:

If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put �shorteners� on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

The White House�s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. �They�re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, � la Nicaragua in the Contra war,� a former senior intelligence official told me.
In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the first in a series of �Boland amendments,� which limited the Reagan Administration�s ability to support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua�s left-wing Sandinista government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate illegal fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons, via Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties. Cheney�s story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President�s authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the Vice-President�s office said that it had no record of the discussion.) .....Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, �I know what the President thinks,� about Iraq. �I know what I think. And we�re not looking for an exit strategy. We�re looking for victory.� He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. �The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,� he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. �And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.�

Jeffrey Goldberg
February 5, 2007:

(Senator Christopher) Dodd wants a binding resolution to stop the President�s Iraq buildup, even though such a measure would almost certainly fail. �There�s nothing wrong with losing a vote if you�re making a point that people want us to make,� he said. �Things are going to get a lot harder in the next month or two. If we�re going to stop this, we have to stop it before the new troops get to Iraq. You�re not going to cut off their funds once they�re there. The window is closing. The country is way ahead of the Senate on this.�

(Jeffrey Goldberg) asked Dodd if he has spoken to any other senators who are as optimistic as Lieberman is about Iraq. �I�ll tell you, I bet this has happened fifteen times in the last few days�conservative Republicans have said to me that they�ve told the White House that this is
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070212fa_fact_goldberg"> the last vote you�re going to get out of them, a vote against the Iraq resolution,� Dodd said. �They�re angry, and they sure don�t believe the new plan is going to work.�

Seymour M. Hersh
November 20, 2006:

Another critical issue for Gates will be the Pentagon�s expanding effort to conduct clandestine and covert intelligence missions overseas. Such activity has traditionally been the C.I.A.�s responsibility, but, as the result of a systematic push by Rumsfeld, military covert actions have been substantially increased. In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as �part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.� (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime�s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group �equipment and training.� The group has also been given �a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.� (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)

Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence operations, do not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the President would, by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the Senate. The lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress. This fall, I was told, Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that finances classified military activity, pointedly asked, during a closed meeting of House and Senate members, whether �anyone has been briefing on the Administration�s plan for military activity in Iran.� The answer was no. (A spokesman for Obey confirmed this account.)

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. �Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran�s nuclear facilities before leaving office,� he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a pre�mptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives �need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.�
The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President�s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser �believes that, so far, there�s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq,� the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney�s office �want to end the regime,� the consultant said. �They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran.�

The Administration�s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House�s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)
The C.I.A.�s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House�s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. �They�re not looking for a smoking gun,� the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. �They�re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.�

The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. �An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we�ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us�and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It�s an analyst�s worst nightmare�for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.� (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)
According to the Pentagon consultant, �The C.I.A.�s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran�s nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran�s hands�bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.�
The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration�s options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because �we�ve cried wolf� before.

(The Pentagon consultant) added, with obvious exasperation, that within the intelligence community �we�re going to be fighting over the quality of the information for the next year.� One reason for the dispute, he said, was that the White House had asked to see the �raw��the original, unanalyzed and unvetted�Israeli intelligence. Such �stovepiping� of intelligence had led to faulty conclusions about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war. �Many Presidents in the past have done the same thing,� the consultant said, �but intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff in the raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read �Ulysses.� � ..... Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank, told me that the �biggest moment� of tension has yet to arrive: �How does the United States keep an Israeli decision point�one that may come sooner than we want�from being reached?� Clawson noted that there is evidence that Iran has been slowed by technical problems in the construction and operation of two small centrifuge cascades, which are essential for the pilot production of enriched uranium. Both are now under I.A.E.A. supervision. �Why were they so slow in getting the second cascade up and running?� Clawson asked. �And why haven�t they run the first one as much as they said they would? Do we have more time?

�Why talk about war?� he said.

In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, (Israeli Deputy Defense Minister) Sneh expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in curbing Iran:

The danger isn�t as much Ahmadinejad�s deciding to launch an attack but Israel�s living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . . Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That�s why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.

A similar message was delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a speech in Los Angeles last week. �It�s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,� he said, adding that there was �still time� to stop the Iranians.

The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the Israelis, �they won�t do anything on their own without our green light.� That assurance, he said, �comes from the Cheney shop. It�s Cheney himself who is saying, �We�re not going to leave you high and dry, but don�t go without us.� � A senior European diplomat agreed: �For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice.�

Israel's war is to be sold as America's war.---Patrick J. Buchanan, January 31, 2007