http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order
to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine
activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major
air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence
officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of
targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into
Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact
with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that
President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity
to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
American and European intelligence agencies, and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on
developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are
widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether
diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it.
Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be
delayed or deterred.
There is a growing conviction among members of the United States
military, and in the international community, that President Bush=E2=80=99s
ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.
Iran=E2=80=99s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of
the Holocaust and said that Israel must be =E2=80=9Cwiped off the map.=E2=
=80=9D
Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf
Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s=
the
name they=E2=80=99re using. They say, =E2=80=98Will Iran get a strategic we=
apon and
threaten another world war?=E2=80=99 =E2=80=9D
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in
the Pentagon said that Bush was =E2=80=9Cabsolutely convinced that Iran is
going to get the bomb=E2=80=9D if it is not stopped. He said that the
President believes that he must do =E2=80=9Cwhat no Democrat or Republican,
if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=
=9Cthat
saving Iran is going to be his legacy.=E2=80=9D
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for
the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was
premised on a belief that =E2=80=9Ca sustained bombing campaign in Iran will
humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and
overthrow the government.=E2=80=9D He added, =E2=80=9CI was shocked when I =
heard
it, and asked myself, =E2=80=98What are they smoking?=E2=80=99 =E2=80=9D
The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by
Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a
supporter of President Bush. =E2=80=9CSo long as Iran has an Islamic
republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least
clandestinely,=E2=80=9D Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on March 2nd. =E2=80=9CThe key issue, therefore, is: How long will the
present Iranian regime last?=E2=80=9D
When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that =E2=80=9Cthis Administration is
putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.=E2=80=9D However, he added, Iran had
no choice other than to accede to America=E2=80=99s demands or face a
military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad =E2=80=9Csees
the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be
ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.=E2=80=9D Clawson said that
he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities,
such as =E2=80=9Cindustrial accidents.=E2=80=9D But, he said, it would be p=
rudent
to prepare for a wider war, =E2=80=9Cgiven the way the Iranians are acting.
This is not like planning to invade Quebec.=E2=80=9D
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and
the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a
campaign of =E2=80=9Ccoercion=E2=80=9D aimed at Iran. =E2=80=9CYou have to =
be ready to
go, and we=E2=80=99ll see how they respond,=E2=80=9D the officer said. =E2=
=80=9CYou have
to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.=E2=80=9D =
He
added, =E2=80=9CPeople think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since
9/11,=E2=80=9D but, =E2=80=9Cin my view, if you had to name one nation that=
was his
focus all the way along, it was Iran.=E2=80=9D (In response to detailed
requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on
military planning but added, =E2=80=9CAs the President has indicated, we are
pursuing a diplomatic solution=E2=80=9D; the Defense Department also said
that Iran was being dealt with through =E2=80=9Cdiplomatic channels=E2=80=
=9D but
wouldn=E2=80=99t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were
=E2=80=9Cinaccuracies=E2=80=9D in this account but would not specify them.)
=E2=80=9CThis is much more than a nuclear issue,=E2=80=9D one high-ranking =
diplomat
told me in Vienna. =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s just a rallying point, and there=
is
still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be
fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue
is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten
years.=E2=80=9D
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar
view. =E2=80=9CThis White House believes that the only way to solve the
problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means
war,=E2=80=9D he said. The danger, he said, was that =E2=80=9Cit also reinf=
orces
the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to
have a nuclear capability.=E2=80=9D A military conflict that destabilized t=
he
region could also increase the risk of terror: =E2=80=9CHezbollah comes into
play,=E2=80=9D the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is
considered one of the world=E2=80=99s most successful, and which is now a
Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. =E2=80=9CAnd here comes =
Al
Qaeda.=E2=80=9D
In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks
on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress,
including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House
Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has
discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had
been =E2=80=9Cno formal briefings,=E2=80=9D because =E2=80=9Cthey=E2=80=99r=
e reluctant to brief
the minority. They=E2=80=99re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.=E2=80=
=9D
The House member said that no one in the meetings =E2=80=9Cis really
objecting=E2=80=9D to the talk of war. =E2=80=9CThe people they=E2=80=99re =
briefing are
the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are
raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you
going to get deep enough?=E2=80=9D (Iran is building facilities underground=
..)
=E2=80=9CThere=E2=80=99s no pressure from Congress=E2=80=9D not to take mil=
itary action,
the House member added. =E2=80=9CThe only political pressure is from the gu=
ys
who want to do it.=E2=80=9D Speaking of President Bush, the House member
said, =E2=80=9CThe most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic
vision.=E2=80=9D
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are
already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from
carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons
delivery missions=E2=80=94rapid ascending maneuvers known as =E2=80=9Cover =
the
shoulder=E2=80=9D bombing=E2=80=94since last summer, the former official sa=
id,
within range of Iranian coastal radars.
Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in
Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the
National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987,
provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran=E2=80=99s
nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known
facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would
have to be hit. He added:
I don=E2=80=99t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran
probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We
would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just
recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with
sheltered aircraft. . . . We=E2=80=99d want to get rid of that threat. We
would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf
shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian
diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to
target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special
Operations units.
One of the military=E2=80=99s initial option plans, as presented to the Whi=
te
House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster
tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground
nuclear sites. One target is Iran=E2=80=99s main centrifuge plant, at Natan=
z,
nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer
under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to
hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried
approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of
centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty
nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept
the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A.
inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a
major setback for Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional
weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of
facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if
they are reinforced with concrete.
There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers
with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American
intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a
huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the
underground facility was designed for =E2=80=9Ccontinuity of
government=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94for the political and military leadership to su=
rvive a
nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and
Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still
exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified.
=E2=80=9CThe =E2=80=98tell=E2=80=99 =E2=80=9D=E2=80=94the giveaway=E2=80=94=
=E2=80=9Cwas the ventilator shafts,
some of which were disguised,=E2=80=9D the former senior intelligence
official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that =E2=80=9Conly
nukes=E2=80=9D could destroy the bunker. He added that some American
intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians
design their underground facility. =E2=80=9CWe see a similarity of design,=
=E2=80=9D
specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.
A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his
view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to =E2=80=9Cgo in there and
do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure=E2=80=94it=E2=80=
=99s
feasible.=E2=80=9D The former defense official said, =E2=80=9CThe Iranians =
don=E2=80=99t
have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we=E2=80=99ll keep
knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like
we=E2=80=99re ready to go.=E2=80=9D He added, =E2=80=9CWe don=E2=80=99t hav=
e to knock down all
of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really
work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground,
too, but it=E2=80=99s difficult and very dangerous=E2=80=94put bad stuff in
ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.=E2=80=9D
But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the
former senior intelligence official, =E2=80=9Csay =E2=80=98No way.=E2=80=99=
You=E2=80=99ve got
to know what=E2=80=99s underneath=E2=80=94to know which ventilator feeds pe=
ople, or
diesel generators, or which are false. And there=E2=80=99s a lot that we
don=E2=80=99t know.=E2=80=9D The lack of reliable intelligence leaves milit=
ary
planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice
but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. =E2=80=9CEvery other
option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,=E2=80=9D
the former senior intelligence official said. =E2=80=9C =E2=80=98Decisive=
=E2=80=99 is the
key word of the Air Force=E2=80=99s planning. It=E2=80=99s a tough decision=
.. But we
made it in Japan.=E2=80=9D
He went on, =E2=80=9CNuclear planners go through extensive training and lea=
rn
the technical details of damage and fallout=E2=80=94we=E2=80=99re talking a=
bout
mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over
years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is
the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don=E2=80=99t have a clue,
and whenever anybody tries to get it out=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94remove the nuclear
option=E2=80=94=E2=80=9Cthey=E2=80=99re shouted down.=E2=80=9D
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious
misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added,
and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the
evolving war plans for Iran=E2=80=94without success, the former intelligence
official said. =E2=80=9CThe White House said, =E2=80=98Why are you challeng=
ing
this? The option came from you.=E2=80=99 =E2=80=9D
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the
Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked
to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon
civilians and in policy circles. He called it =E2=80=9Ca juggernaut that has
to be stopped.=E2=80=9D He also confirmed that some senior officers and
officials were considering resigning over the issue. =E2=80=9CThere are very
strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear
weapons against other countries,=E2=80=9D the adviser told me. =E2=80=9CThi=
s goes
to high levels.=E2=80=9D The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he sai=
d,
because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal
recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering
the nuclear option for Iran. =E2=80=9CThe internal debate on this has
hardened in recent weeks,=E2=80=9D the adviser said. =E2=80=9CAnd, if senior
Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive
nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.=E2=80=9D
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear
weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science
Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld. =E2=80=9CThey=E2=80=99re telling the Pentagon that=
we can
build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,=E2=80=9D he said.
The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an
Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January,
2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an
ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for
Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel=E2=80=99s report
recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of
the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability =E2=80=9Cfor those occasions
when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is
essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.=E2=80=9D Several
signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush
Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security
adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security.
The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. =E2=80=9CThe
Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have
no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the
country,=E2=80=9D he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran
could provoke =E2=80=9Ca chain reaction=E2=80=9D of attacks on American fac=
ilities
and citizens throughout the world: =E2=80=9CWhat will 1.2 billion Muslims
think the day we attack Iran?=E2=80=9D
With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably
expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official,
who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have
vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because =E2=80=9CIran is a
much tougher target=E2=80=9D than Iraq. But, he added, =E2=80=9CIf you=E2=
=80=99re going
to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie
across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of
other problems.=E2=80=9D
The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air
Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that
=E2=80=9Cninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation.
There are people who believe it=E2=80=99s the way to operate=E2=80=9D=E2=80=
=94that the
Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing
campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.
If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops
now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets
with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian
casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant
with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also
working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the
north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast.
The troops =E2=80=9Care studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around
money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and
shepherds,=E2=80=9D the consultant said. One goal is to get =E2=80=9Ceyes o=
n the
ground=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94quoting a line from =E2=80=9COthello,=E2=80=9D he s=
aid, =E2=80=9CGive me the
ocular proof.=E2=80=9D The broader aim, the consultant said, is to
=E2=80=9Cencourage ethnic tensions=E2=80=9D and undermine the regime.
The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld=E2=80=99s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the
military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the
Pentagon=E2=80=99s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such
activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a
Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of
Congress.
=E2=80=9C =E2=80=98Force protection=E2=80=99 is the new buzzword,=E2=80=9D =
the former senior
intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon=E2=80=99s
position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as
preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not
intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to
congressional oversight. =E2=80=9CThe guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say
there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,=E2=80=9D he said. =E2=80=9CWe nee=
d to
have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do
everything we want.=E2=80=9D
The President=E2=80=99s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his
determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by
allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of
the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist
activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s
official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been
connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the
deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in
Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he
remains on the F.B.I.=E2=80=99s list of most-wanted terrorists.
Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere
for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard
colleagues in the Iranian government =E2=80=9Care capable of making a bomb,
hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They=E2=80=99re apocalyptic Shiites.
If you=E2=80=99re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they=E2=80=99ve got n=
ukes and
missiles=E2=80=94you=E2=80=99ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, =
and
there=E2=80=99s no reason to back off.=E2=80=9D
Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power
base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they
had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One
former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience
with Iran, depicted the turnover as =E2=80=9Ca white coup,=E2=80=9D with om=
inous
implications for the West. =E2=80=9CProfessionals in the Foreign Ministry a=
re
out; others are waiting to be kicked out,=E2=80=9D he said. =E2=80=9CWe may=
be too
late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the
revolution.=E2=80=9D He said that, particularly in consideration of China=
=E2=80=99s
emergence as a superpower, Iran=E2=80=99s attitude was =E2=80=9CTo hell wit=
h the
West. You can do as much as you like.=E2=80=9D
Iran=E2=80=99s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered =
by
many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad.
=E2=80=9CAhmadinejad is not in control,=E2=80=9D one European diplomat told=
me.
=E2=80=9CPower is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the k=
ey
backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don=E2=80=99t think they
are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the
nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his
approval.=E2=80=9D
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that =E2=80=9Callowing Iran =
to
have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent
downstream to a terror network. It=E2=80=99s just too dangerous.=E2=80=9D H=
e added,
=E2=80=9CThe whole internal debate is on which way to go=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94i=
n terms of
stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that
Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans=E2=80=94and forestall the
American action. =E2=80=9CGod may smile on us, but I don=E2=80=99t think so=
.. The
bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The
problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear
state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is
going to happen.=E2=80=9D
While almost no one disputes Iran=E2=80=99s nuclear ambitions, there is
intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do
about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on
nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service
at Georgetown, told me, =E2=80=9CBased on what I know, Iran could be eight =
to
ten years away=E2=80=9D from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Gallucci added, =E2=80=9CIf they had a covert nuclear program and we could
prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the
threat of sanctions, I=E2=80=99d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do
it=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94bomb Iran=E2=80=94=E2=80=9Cwithout being able to show t=
here=E2=80=99s a secret
program, you=E2=80=99re in trouble.=E2=80=9D
Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel=E2=80=99s intelligence agency, told
the Knesset last December that =E2=80=9CIran is one to two years away, at t=
he
latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion
of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter.=E2=80=9D In a
conversation with me, a senior Israeli intelligence official talked
about what he said was Iran=E2=80=99s duplicity: =E2=80=9CThere are two par=
allel
nuclear programs=E2=80=9D inside Iran=E2=80=94the program declared to the I=
..A.E.A.
and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary
Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but
Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard
Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush=E2=80=99s first term, told
me, =E2=80=9CI think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program=E2=80=94I be=
lieve
it, but I don=E2=80=99t know it.=E2=80=9D
In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new
access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic
bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is
accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at
least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In
the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on
Iran=E2=80=99s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. =E2=80=
=9CThe
picture is of =E2=80=98unquestionable danger,=E2=80=99 =E2=80=9D the former=
senior
intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that
Khan has been =E2=80=9Csinging like a canary.=E2=80=9D) The concern, the fo=
rmer
senior official said, is that =E2=80=9CKhan has credibility problems. He is
suggestible, and he=E2=80=99s telling the neoconservatives what they want to
hear=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94or what might be useful to Pakistan=E2=80=99s Preside=
nt, Pervez
Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on
terror.
=E2=80=9CI think Khan=E2=80=99s leading us on,=E2=80=9D the former intellig=
ence official
said. =E2=80=9CI don=E2=80=99t know anybody who says, =E2=80=98Here=E2=80=
=99s the smoking
gun.=E2=80=99 But lights are beginning to blink. He=E2=80=99s feeding us
information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in
from our own sources=E2=80=94 sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., whi=
ch
was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the
Vice-President=E2=80=99s office saying, =E2=80=98It=E2=80=99s all new stuff=
..=E2=80=99 People in
the Administration are saying, =E2=80=98We=E2=80=99ve got enough.=E2=80=99 =
=E2=80=9D
The Administration=E2=80=99s case against Iran is compromised by its history
of promoting false intelligence on Iraq=E2=80=99s weapons of mass
destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled
=E2=80=9CFool Me Twice,=E2=80=9D Joseph Cirincione, the director for
nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
wrote, =E2=80=9CThe unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effo=
rt
to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.=E2=80=9D He noted sever=
al
parallels:
The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on
the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S.
Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most
serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation
the leading supporter of global terrorism.
Cirincione called some of the Administration=E2=80=99s claims about Iran
=E2=80=9Cquestionable=E2=80=9D or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him,=
he
asked, =E2=80=9CWhat do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How
urgent is all this?=E2=80=9D The answer, he said, =E2=80=9Cis in the intell=
igence
community and the I.A.E.A.=E2=80=9D (In August, the Washington Post reported
that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate
predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)
Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what
it said was new and alarming information about Iran=E2=80=99s weapons progr=
am
which had been retrieved from an Iranian=E2=80=99s laptop. The new data
included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons
systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for
a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process.
Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times
and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the
materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American
officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline
in the Times=E2=80=99 account read, =E2=80=9CRELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEK=
S TO
PROVE IRAN=E2=80=99S NUCLEAR AIMS.=E2=80=9D
I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence
officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less
revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop
had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence
operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in
him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian
counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some
family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over
at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic
=E2=80=9Cwalk-in.=E2=80=9D
A European intelligence official said, =E2=80=9CThere was some hesitation on
our side=E2=80=9D about what the materials really proved, =E2=80=9Cand we a=
re still
not convinced.=E2=80=9D The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper
accounts suggested, =E2=80=9Cbut had the character of sketches,=E2=80=9D the
European official said. =E2=80=9CIt was not a slam-dunk smoking gun.=E2=80=
=9D
The threat of American military action has created dismay at the
headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency=E2=80=99s officials
believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but
=E2=80=9Cnobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel
nuclear-weapons program in Iran,=E2=80=9D the high-ranking diplomat told me.
The I.A.E.A.=E2=80=99s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years aw=
ay
from building a nuclear bomb. =E2=80=9CBut, if the United States does
anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter
of Iranian national pride,=E2=80=9D the diplomat said. =E2=80=9CThe whole i=
ssue is
America=E2=80=99s risk assessment of Iran=E2=80=99s future intentions, and =
they
don=E2=80=99t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.=E2=80=
=9D
In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year
between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.=E2=80=99s director-general, who won
the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary
of State for Arms Control. Joseph=E2=80=99s message was blunt, one diplomat
recalled: =E2=80=9CWe cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran
is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and
our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an
understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will
undermine us. =E2=80=9D
Joseph=E2=80=99s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since
the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against
Iran. =E2=80=9CAll of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the
Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases=E2=80=94one
hundred per cent totally certified nuts,=E2=80=9D the diplomat said. He add=
ed
that ElBaradei=E2=80=99s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders
=E2=80=9Cwant confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side=E2=80=
=9D=E2=80=94in
Washington. =E2=80=9CAt the end of the day, it will work only if the United
States agrees to talk to the Iranians.=E2=80=9D
The central question=E2=80=94whether Iran will be able to proceed with its
plans to enrich uranium=E2=80=94is now before the United Nations, with the
Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A
discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at
this point, =E2=80=9Cthere=E2=80=99s nothing the Iranians could do that wou=
ld
result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it.
Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe
them. It=E2=80=99s a dead end.=E2=80=9D
Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, =E2=80=9CWhy would the West take the
risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to
the I.A.E.A. to verify? We=E2=80=99re low-cost, and we can create a program
that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.=E2=80=9D A Western
Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House=E2=80=99s
dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, =E2=80=9CIf you don=E2=80=99t believe th=
at the
I=2EA.E.A. can establish an inspection system=E2=80=94if you don=E2=80=99t =
trust
them=E2=80=94you can only bomb.=E2=80=9D
There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or
among its European allies. =E2=80=9CWe=E2=80=99re quite frustrated with the
director-general,=E2=80=9D the European diplomat told me. =E2=80=9CHis basic
approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with
equal weight. It=E2=80=99s not. We=E2=80=99re the good guys! ElBaradei has =
been
pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment
program, which is ludicrous. It=E2=80=99s not his job to push ideas that po=
se
a serious proliferation risk.=E2=80=9D
The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that
President Bush and Vice-President ***** Cheney believe a bombing
campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change.
=E2=80=9CEveryone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United
States wants regime change,=E2=80=9D a European diplomatic adviser told me.
He added, =E2=80=9CThe Europeans have a role to play as long as they don=E2=
=80=99t
have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or
going along with Washington on something they don=E2=80=99t want. Their
policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can
live with. It may be untenable.=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CThe Brits think this is a very bad idea,=E2=80=9D Flynt Leverett, =
a former
National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution=E2=80=99s Saban Center, told me, =E2=80=9Cbut the=
y=E2=80=99re
really worried we=E2=80=99re going to do it.=E2=80=9D The European diplomat=
ic
adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war
planning in Washington but that, =E2=80=9Cshort of a smoking gun, it=E2=80=
=99s
going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.=E2=80=9D He sa=
id
that the British =E2=80=9Care jumpy about the Americans going full bore on
the Iranians, with no compromise.=E2=80=9D
The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its
record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but =E2=80=9Cto the best of
our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they
could successfully run centrifuges=E2=80=9D to enrich uranium in quantity.
One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran=E2=80=99s essential
pragmatism. =E2=80=9CThe regime acts in its best interests,=E2=80=9D he sai=
d=2E
Iran=E2=80=99s leaders =E2=80=9Ctake a hard-line approach on the nuclear is=
sue and
they want to call the American bluff,=E2=80=9D believing that =E2=80=9Cthe =
tougher
they are the more likely the West will fold.=E2=80=9D But, he said, =E2=80=
=9CFrom
what we=E2=80=99ve seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the
moment they back off.=E2=80=9D
The diplomat went on, =E2=80=9CYou never reward bad behavior, and this is n=
ot
the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose
sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It=E2=80=99s going to be
a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price
imposed=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94in sanctions=E2=80=94=E2=80=9Cis sufficient, they =
may back down.
It=E2=80=99s too early to give up on the U.N. route.=E2=80=9D He added, =E2=
=80=9CIf the
diplomatic process doesn=E2=80=99t work, there is no military =E2=80=98solu=
tion.=E2=80=99
There may be a military option, but the impact could be
catastrophic.=E2=80=9D
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush=E2=80=99s most
dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial
scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was
=E2=80=9Cinconceivable.=E2=80=9D Blair has been more circumspect, saying pu=
blicly
that one should never take options off the table.
Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value
of an American bombing campaign. =E2=80=9CThe Iranian economy is in bad
shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,=E2=80=9D the European
intelligence official told me. =E2=80=9CHe will benefit politically from
American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.=E2=80=9D An
American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including
those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. =E2=80=9CIran is no longer living
in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies
and books, and they love it,=E2=80=9D he said. =E2=80=9CIf there was a charm
offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long
run.=E2=80=9D
Another European official told me that he was aware that many in
Washington wanted action. =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s always the same guys,=E2=80=
=9D he said,
with a resigned shrug. =E2=80=9CThere is a belief that diplomacy is doomed =
to
fail. The timetable is short.=E2=80=9D
A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose
leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to
begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several
officials that the White House=E2=80=99s interest in preventing an Israeli
attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the
region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational
planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush
depicted Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s hostility toward Israel as a =E2=80=9Cserious
threat. It=E2=80=99s a threat to world peace.=E2=80=9D He added, =E2=80=9CI=
made it
clear, I=E2=80=99ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to
protect our ally Israel.=E2=80=9D
Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to
consider the following questions: =E2=80=9CWhat will happen in the other
Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us
globally=E2=80=94that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure
on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished
international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and
the U.N. Security Council?=E2=80=9D
Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day,
would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world=E2=80=99s oil
markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the
thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches
the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official
dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that
the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions
and putting mine- sweepers to work. =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s impossible to blo=
ck
passage,=E2=80=9D he said. The government consultant with ties to the
Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed,
pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep
America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I
spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the
price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a
hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the
duration and scope of the conflict.
Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former
cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might
be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. =E2=80=9CThey would be at risk,=E2=80=
=9D he
said, =E2=80=9Cand this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West.
You will have a messy world.=E2=80=9D
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and
elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington
Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks =E2=80=9Cis consumi=
ng
a lot of time=E2=80=9D at U.S. intelligence agencies. =E2=80=9CThe best ter=
ror
network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the
past several years,=E2=80=9D the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said
of Hezbollah. =E2=80=9CThis will mobilize them and put us up against the
group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against
Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take
them out, they will mobilize against us.=E2=80=9D (When I asked the
government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if
Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, =E2=80=9CIsrael and the new
Lebanese government will finish them off.=E2=80=9D)
The adviser went on, =E2=80=9CIf we go, the southern half of Iraq will light
up like a candle.=E2=80=9D The American, British, and other coalition forces
in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from
Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is
predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in
Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight
thousand British troops in the region, =E2=80=9Cthe Iranians could take Bas=
ra
with ten mullahs and one sound truck.=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CIf you attack,=E2=80=9D the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienn=
a,
=E2=80=9CAhmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but
with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit
down with the Iranians.=E2=80=9D
The diplomat went on, =E2=80=9CThere are people in Washington who would be
unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and
regime change. This is wishful thinking.=E2=80=9D He added, =E2=80=9CThe wi=
ndow of
opportunity is now.=E2=80=9D=20
---0---
.
|
