MACDRIVE
Oct 20, 2007, 04:20 AM
The Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16971409/cheney_targets_iran)
Cheney Targets Iran
The vice president is angling behind the scenes for another war in the Middle East
Robert DreyfussPosted Oct 18, 2007 12:02 PM
Sometime early next year, Dick Cheney is planning to start his third war in the Middle East. According to a wide range of Washington insiders — from Cheney sympathizers to anti-war activists — the vice president is angling behind the scenes for yet another unilateral military action, this time aimed at toppling the clerical regime in Iran. "It's an open secret," one leading analyst of Iranian relations tells Rolling Stone. Even though America remains bogged down in twin conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the insiders add, Cheney still has the clout to get President Bush to give the order — despite strong opposition from the State Department and the Pentagon, both of which believe that attacking Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the United States.
"For Bush, the Middle East is everything," says Larry Korb, a former defense official in the Reagan administration. "Cheney reinforces the idea that Bush's legacy will be what happens there. And Cheney can tip the balance."
In May, the vice president made the threat of war explicit when he boarded the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf — from which vast firepower could be unleashed against Iran. "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike," Cheney declared. "We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." The speech, described as "saber-rattling" by one State Department official, was not circulated broadly to other officials in advance. Cheney "still kind of runs by his own rules," according to an American diplomat.
Some observers say that Cheney is losing the policy fight on Iran. Acting against the vice president's advice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is engaging in talks with Iran in search of a negotiated end to its nuclear program. In March, she gained a key ally when Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, a diplomacy-minded officer, was named to head the U.S. Central Command, the war-fighting body with responsibility for the Persian Gulf. Dismissing talk of an attack on Iran as "unhelpful" and "distracting," Fallon declared that "the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go." Other high-level military brass also oppose the idea of war with Iran: According to Chas Freeman, who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush, opposition runs so strong at the Joint Chiefs of Staff that several top generals and admirals might resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran.
Behind the scenes, however, Cheney has been working to short-circuit opposition to war. Last December, the vice president huddled with staff from the American Enterprise Institute, now home to several former Bush administration hawks, including former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and ex-United Nations ambassador John Bolton. Together, Cheney and AEI sold the president on backing the "surge" in Iraq — with a special twist. Announcing the addition of 21,500 U.S. troops in January, Bush went out of his way to blame Iran for the violence in Iraq. Cheney himself appeared on Fox News to sound the alarm, warning of the possibility of "a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil" and "prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world."
Such bellicose language — coupled with the halfhearted negotiations being pursued by Rice — effectively guarantees that diplomacy won't work. "The so-called diplomacy that is being engaged in now is very inadequate," says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S. "The United States is pursuing policies that make it impossible to succeed."
And that, say Washington insiders, is precisely what Cheney is counting on. It is the same pattern the vice president used in pursuing a war with Iraq: ignore objections from the State Department and the military, engage in token talks and then mobilize American troops after declaring the U.N.'s efforts pointless. This summer, as other aides counseled restraint, Cheney reportedly demanded that the United States conduct air strikes against purported bases in Iran used by Iranian-allied insurgents in Iraq. He also dispatched David Wurmser, then his top Middle East adviser, to begin circulating ideas in Washington about how to bring about a military confrontation with Iran. According to those familiar with the move, Wurmser has made it clear that Cheney disagrees with the president's decision to use diplomacy to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Another neoconservative on Cheney's staff who has been pushing for war with Iran is John Hannah, his adviser for national-security issues. "The vice president's office has been the focal point for the view that puts the focus on hard power, on military power, as a way of achieving goals," says Dennis Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat who has been close to Hannah for years. "I think it's going to come to a head sometime in 2008."
Attacking Iran would likely involve at least 1,500 separate bombing raids over many days or weeks, striking not only Iran's several dozen nuclear research and industrial sites but also its military facilities. "You're not talking about a surgical strike," according to Wayne White, a former top intelligence official who has seen classified plans for what an attack on Iran might look like. "You're talking about a war against Iran. The Iranians will do everything in their power to retaliate."
That's what worries military brass, who fear that Iran would hit back against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and activate terrorist allies in the Middle East, further destabilizing a region already struggling with two major wars. Such scenarios have apparently been war-gamed at the Pentagon, with sobering results.
Some analysts argue that politics will restrain Bush and Cheney, since the country is in an anti-war mood and that any escalation of the conflict in the Middle East could cost Republicans dearly at the polls next November. Among conservatives in Washington the question of the day is: Are the president and vice president willing to sacrifice the future of the Republican Party on the altar of the failed war in Iraq and a new war in Iran?
According to most analysts, the answer is yes. "We see a stubbornness in the president that is virtually unique," says Doug Bandow, a foreign-policy expert and former Reagan aide. "What does he care about the party's future? He parachuted into politics on his father's coattails. He's never been much of a party guy, and I think he could care less. Cheney is more of a Republican, but he's at the end of his career. He just might be ready to bring the whole house down on top of them if that's what it takes."
What I'm wondering is: how well will Hillary protect us from Iran's wrath once Cheney and Bush are gone? :confused:
Cheney Targets Iran
The vice president is angling behind the scenes for another war in the Middle East
Robert DreyfussPosted Oct 18, 2007 12:02 PM
Sometime early next year, Dick Cheney is planning to start his third war in the Middle East. According to a wide range of Washington insiders — from Cheney sympathizers to anti-war activists — the vice president is angling behind the scenes for yet another unilateral military action, this time aimed at toppling the clerical regime in Iran. "It's an open secret," one leading analyst of Iranian relations tells Rolling Stone. Even though America remains bogged down in twin conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the insiders add, Cheney still has the clout to get President Bush to give the order — despite strong opposition from the State Department and the Pentagon, both of which believe that attacking Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the United States.
"For Bush, the Middle East is everything," says Larry Korb, a former defense official in the Reagan administration. "Cheney reinforces the idea that Bush's legacy will be what happens there. And Cheney can tip the balance."
In May, the vice president made the threat of war explicit when he boarded the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf — from which vast firepower could be unleashed against Iran. "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike," Cheney declared. "We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." The speech, described as "saber-rattling" by one State Department official, was not circulated broadly to other officials in advance. Cheney "still kind of runs by his own rules," according to an American diplomat.
Some observers say that Cheney is losing the policy fight on Iran. Acting against the vice president's advice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is engaging in talks with Iran in search of a negotiated end to its nuclear program. In March, she gained a key ally when Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, a diplomacy-minded officer, was named to head the U.S. Central Command, the war-fighting body with responsibility for the Persian Gulf. Dismissing talk of an attack on Iran as "unhelpful" and "distracting," Fallon declared that "the idea that we have yet another conflict in this region strikes me as not where we want to go." Other high-level military brass also oppose the idea of war with Iran: According to Chas Freeman, who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush, opposition runs so strong at the Joint Chiefs of Staff that several top generals and admirals might resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran.
Behind the scenes, however, Cheney has been working to short-circuit opposition to war. Last December, the vice president huddled with staff from the American Enterprise Institute, now home to several former Bush administration hawks, including former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and ex-United Nations ambassador John Bolton. Together, Cheney and AEI sold the president on backing the "surge" in Iraq — with a special twist. Announcing the addition of 21,500 U.S. troops in January, Bush went out of his way to blame Iran for the violence in Iraq. Cheney himself appeared on Fox News to sound the alarm, warning of the possibility of "a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil" and "prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world."
Such bellicose language — coupled with the halfhearted negotiations being pursued by Rice — effectively guarantees that diplomacy won't work. "The so-called diplomacy that is being engaged in now is very inadequate," says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S. "The United States is pursuing policies that make it impossible to succeed."
And that, say Washington insiders, is precisely what Cheney is counting on. It is the same pattern the vice president used in pursuing a war with Iraq: ignore objections from the State Department and the military, engage in token talks and then mobilize American troops after declaring the U.N.'s efforts pointless. This summer, as other aides counseled restraint, Cheney reportedly demanded that the United States conduct air strikes against purported bases in Iran used by Iranian-allied insurgents in Iraq. He also dispatched David Wurmser, then his top Middle East adviser, to begin circulating ideas in Washington about how to bring about a military confrontation with Iran. According to those familiar with the move, Wurmser has made it clear that Cheney disagrees with the president's decision to use diplomacy to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Another neoconservative on Cheney's staff who has been pushing for war with Iran is John Hannah, his adviser for national-security issues. "The vice president's office has been the focal point for the view that puts the focus on hard power, on military power, as a way of achieving goals," says Dennis Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat who has been close to Hannah for years. "I think it's going to come to a head sometime in 2008."
Attacking Iran would likely involve at least 1,500 separate bombing raids over many days or weeks, striking not only Iran's several dozen nuclear research and industrial sites but also its military facilities. "You're not talking about a surgical strike," according to Wayne White, a former top intelligence official who has seen classified plans for what an attack on Iran might look like. "You're talking about a war against Iran. The Iranians will do everything in their power to retaliate."
That's what worries military brass, who fear that Iran would hit back against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and activate terrorist allies in the Middle East, further destabilizing a region already struggling with two major wars. Such scenarios have apparently been war-gamed at the Pentagon, with sobering results.
Some analysts argue that politics will restrain Bush and Cheney, since the country is in an anti-war mood and that any escalation of the conflict in the Middle East could cost Republicans dearly at the polls next November. Among conservatives in Washington the question of the day is: Are the president and vice president willing to sacrifice the future of the Republican Party on the altar of the failed war in Iraq and a new war in Iran?
According to most analysts, the answer is yes. "We see a stubbornness in the president that is virtually unique," says Doug Bandow, a foreign-policy expert and former Reagan aide. "What does he care about the party's future? He parachuted into politics on his father's coattails. He's never been much of a party guy, and I think he could care less. Cheney is more of a Republican, but he's at the end of his career. He just might be ready to bring the whole house down on top of them if that's what it takes."
What I'm wondering is: how well will Hillary protect us from Iran's wrath once Cheney and Bush are gone? :confused:
