Iran Attack Getting Closer

If there is to be a poster boy for the scheduled 2008 attack on Iran by us, it will be this smiling affable fellow shown here, Dick Cheney, self-selected Vice- President of the United States.

If your are still in doubt as to whether there will be an attack, we invite to read our summaries and updates here, here and here.

This is just the latest update from Steve Weissman writing for truthout, detailing Brother Cheney's efforts at tying up the loose ends before the possibly late summer attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all here, Cheney duplicity, Pentagon compliance and media complacency.

If you are enjoying Iraq, you are going to purely love Iran. If you are not liking Iraq so much, please, please don't say nobody warned you about Iran.

We think the only possible positive outlook for the Iran attack is that it will be such a military, diplomatic, public relations and humanitarian catastrophe that Bro. Cheney and his sidekick, George W., will get the war crimes and treason trials they have so long deserved.

And the Beat Goes On

The beat, of course, refers to the continuing drumbeat calling for war against Iran. You can see our earlier posts for details to date.

So what does smoke rising from the Green Zone in Baghdad have to do with war against Iran. You need only listen to the call and response between General David Petraeus and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The General had been decrying Iranian interference with Iraqi affairs (we set aside, again, the bitter irony and amazing chutzpah of any American spokeman criticizing interference by an immediate neighbor in the affairs of a nation we came 10,000 miles to invade and "liberate" more than five years ago).

So Lieberman asked probing question:

"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

There is a war going on in Iraq that we started, now a morass of conflicting interests and militias. "Murder" might possibly be applied to some killings in Iraq, but is it really legitimate as between U.S. forces and local militias, however they were armed ? Will Petraeus buy into Lieberman's blatant war pandering or bring his more sophisticated and informed perspective to bear ?

"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

So much for information and sophistication.

Notice, please, that Lieberman has neatly blamed Iran for the "murder" of some significant fraction of the 4000+ Americans who have died in this war. Could this be part of a design to take us to war ? Is it reminiscent of any other ?

This President Bush probably remembers that "protecting American lives" was part of his father's justification for the invasion of Panama and that time none had been lost.

And somebody's speed boats are still bothering our warships in the Persian Gulf. Its all starting to add up.

Lying Our Way to Tehran (Part 2)

In Part One of this post we caught R. James Woolsey in a blatant lie designed to undercut the authority of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

Part Two presents a more important lie because it represents, if relied on by the Administration, the very foundation of the argument for the attack on Iran. This is the argument that we must act to prevent nuclear weapons falling in to the hands of Muslim fanatics bent of world destruction.

AHMADINIJAD AND HOJJATIYA

The matter of the NIE was problematic and had to be dealt with some way and, it appears, that a straightforward lie was all that was available. The alleged link between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and the Islamic fundamentalist group known as Hojjatiya is more subtle, but also vastly more important. It is here that we will be asked to find to existential threat to justify our pre-emptive bombing.



Woolsey’s version of Hojjatiyah is truly frightening and anybody might be tempted to take extreme measures to protect themselves from such fanatics. Woolsey tells us that Hojjatiyah believes, along with many Shia, that the end of the world will be preceded by the return of the Twelfth Imam (or “Hidden Imam” or “Mahdi”). Unlike ordinary Shia, according to Woolsey, the Hojjatiya believe that the coming of the Twelfth Imam can be hastened:

“if you can just work to get about 1/3 of the people in the world killed and another third to die of pestilence then the cries of pain will be great enough that the Hidden Imam will hear them . . . he will then return with Jesus as his Shiite deputy and lead the battles that will end the world.” (Woolsey’s speech here, 1:10-1:37 on the timer)

Head of the Hojjatiya, again according to Woolsey, again delivered as if this stuff was the most routine, common understanding among knowledgeable people, is the Ayatollah Mezbah Yazdi. Mezbah Yazdi, says Woolsey, is so extreme he was banished to the holy city of Qom by the Ayatollah Khomeni in 1979 for being too radical. Woolsey’s expression here suggests that it is almost impossible to imagine anyone too radical for Khomeni.




Mezbah Yazdi is, according to Woolsey, the spiritual mentor of President Ahmadinijad, and now the horrific picture begins to take shape.

If Mezbah Yazdi’s student Ahmadinijad gets his hands on nuclear weapons, the Hojjatiya will try to execute their insane apocalyptic scheme to destroy a third of mankind and bring back the Hidden Imam. If we are tempted to think this scheme is too crazy to be real, Woolsey solemnly reminds us of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

The only problem with Woolsey’s foundation and analysis is that, once again, it is all false.

We are not scholars of Iranian society, nor of Islamic theology. Thanks to the internet, we need not be and a few googles and keystrokes away we find the Encyclopedia Iranica, which has been in existence since 1979 and is a highly regarded project of Columbia University in New York.

As Woolsey offered not a scrap of evidence for any of his assertions we are content to rely on this much admired and scholarly work to refute him on virtually every point he made. Unless otherwise noted, everything that follows is drawn from the Iranica article on the Hojjatiyah

We could not find any evidence at all, in the Iranica or elsewhere, that Hojjatiyah holds the apocalyptic views Woolsey describes. In fact, they are described in Iranica as holding a “quietest” view that “while advocating . . . ‘awaiting’ the savior, discourages active revolt in order to hasten the appearance of the Mahdi.” Iranica, here.

This view of Hojjatiyah is supported in a long piece from the New York Times of October 10, 2006, where Noah Feldman reported:

“One small, semi-secret Iranian organization, the Hojjatiya Society, was banned and persecuted by Khomeini’s government in part for its quiescent view that the mahdi’s arrival could not be hastened.”

Later in the same paragraph the point is made again in connection with Ahmadinejad’s alleged link to Hojjatiyah:

“Rumors, possibly spread by Ahmadinejad’s enemies, have tied him to the outlawed Hojjatiya — a link mistakenly interpreted outside Iran as evidence that he might want to bring back the imam by violence, rather than that he might prefer to wait piously and prepare for the imam’s eventual return on his own schedule.”
(Both these quotes appear in the ninth paragraph of Section V.)

There is nothing in the Iranica, nor anywhere else that Google could take us, that supports Woolsey’s characterization of Hojjatiyah as a sinister cabal bent on unprecedented bloodshed in pursuit of fanatical goals. All the evidence is to the contrary.

Mr. Woolsey is an intimate of the people who designed and delivered our present war on Iraq. Whether the lies outlined here are the final foundation for the Iran attack remains to be seen. They are, at least, evidence of the lengths the neocons are prepared to go to realize their deadly ambitions regarding Iran.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We now stand on the brink of being fooled twice. If we permit this to happen we will stand without excuse in the court of world opinion.

Forewarned is forearmed. This article is offered to prepare anyone who is interested to meet the arguments of those who want to bomb Iran. Assuming any arguments are offered.

Lying Our Way to Tehran (Part 1)

As can be seen from our earlier post (Maybe We Should Just Relax, below), we are concerned that the Bush Administration is fixated on a bombing campaign designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear program, although this topic has largely disappeared from the media. We watch nervously for signs of activity, remarks by Bush or Cheney, unexplained force deployments or curious arrangements of the tea leaves in our cup.

It appears that one legitimate straw in this wind has now appeared. Its source and tenor are exactly what we might expect, judging by what we learned in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Here is the first of two parts on this harbinger of Bush’s next war.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE

The last time lies took us to war we were told that Iraq had a hand in the attacks of 9/11, that it had weapons of mass destruction and represented a threat to the United States. We have learned that these were all lies, but they sufficed to take this country to the longest war in our history.

We may have been given a preview of at least some of the lies that will be offered to stampede us into a “pre-emptive” strike against Iran. R. James Woolsey (seen above) gave us a peek on March 10, 2008 in a speech before the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) and carried live on C-SPAN.



Tape of the speech can be found on YouTube (Part 2 contains the lies) and we recommend it for its disarming, avuncular style; its just old Woolsey telling us a few unavoidable truths without passion or hysteria. You could never tell by the delivery that they are all deliberate, transparent lies.

Although there are many lies contained in Woolsey’s speech, we will focus here on just two. In Part 1 we look at his charge that the National Intelligence Estimate issued in December 2007 was dangerously misleading and, in Part 2, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adheres to a dangerous and fanatical form of Islam known as “hojjatieh” or "hojjatiyah".



THE L.I.E. ABOUT THE N.I.E.

Last December’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a document representing the consensus of all 16 of our intelligence agencies, found

“ . . . that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.”

as reported in the New York Times.

The Times further reported that ;

“Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

For those who are trying to make the case that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is real and imminent this report came as a devastating blow. Here was the entire U.S. intelligence community saying with “moderate confidence” that Iran could possibly have enough fissile material to make a bomb by late 2009, but it was “unlikely”. Further, it was judged that Iran would probably not have enough material for a weapon until the 2013-2015 time frame.

This, it would appear, takes the pressure off the need for an immediate attack on Iran. There is still time for talking.

So, if you are among those in favor of an attack on Iran, how do you counter the considered judgment of all 16 of our intelligence agencies ? Why, of course ! You lie.
Enter Woolsey, long time fan of an Iran attack and with, among other neocon credits, his signature on the 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Bill Clinton urging an invasion of Iraq.

In his remarks to the AFPC took dead aim at the December NIE and simply said it doesn’t say what we, the Times, and most other commentators, think it said. The secret, says Woolsey, is the footnote.

“Go back and look at the NIE of December . . . you want to be sure to read the footnote as well as the headline and the lead. The footnote makes it clear that what the Intelligence Community was talking about was simply the Iranian warhead design program. They were not saying that the Iranian enrichment program for fissionable material or ballistic missile program was held up at all and those of course are the long poles in the tent.” [Italics added][ Material found on YouTube recording here at 6:03-6:45 on the timer.]

We invite you to compare this characterization by Woolsey with the actual language of the NIE footnote which is found on Page 6 of that document:

“1 For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.” (Italics and boldface added)

Woolsey was arguing that nuclear warheads are childishly simple to build and since that was all the Iranians had halted there was no reassurance at all to be had from the NIE assertion that such work was halted in 2003.

This was a demonstrable lie. The footnote says the Iranians had halted their “nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.” Warhead design work is, presumably, included in "nuclear weapon design", but the footnote is far from restricted to such work.

Woolsey wondered aloud why the authors had buried the fundamental truth of the report in a footnote. We wonder how Woolsey expects to get away with a lie that is exposed by the slightest glimpse of that footnote.

It seems an astonishing lapse of judgment for a man who to utter so bold and clear a lie when refutation was only mouse clicks away. Others might call it arrogance and a disdain for the intelligence of his immediate and broadcast audiences that beggars belief.

We realize this is a longish post by blogosphere standards and urge you to take a break. You can reach Part 2 of this post simply by scrolling up.