[THS] !!! Ray McGovern: Loose Lips on Iran Can Sink America

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25394.htm

Loose Lips on Iran Can Sink America

By Ray McGovern

May 06, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The omnipresent World War II-era
poster with the words “Loose Lips Sink Ships” served as a warning to members of the
U.S. military to take heed lest they divulge information that could tip off the enemy
and result in defeat in battle.

I believe we need a new poster, because loose lips can also sink whole countries —
including our own.

This is a lesson that members of Congress and Washington's media honchos should
have learned from the disastrous invasion of Iraq; especially the ones whose lips
helped President George W. Bush portray Saddam Hussein as a monster bristling
with “weapons of mass destruction.”

In that time frame, of course, cooperating with Bush was “the smart play” for one’s
career, even for many Democrats and liberal opinion leaders.

But those politicians and pundits now should share responsibility for having allowed
Bush to mislead the nation into a war that has maimed and killed thousands of
American soldiers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, with
millions more driven from their homes into fetid refugee camps.

The complicit lawmakers also helped sail the American ship of state into a vast
iceberg of debt.

However, holding such powerful people accountable has become what former White
House counsel and then Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, would call “quaint” or
“obsolete” — like adhering to the Geneva Conventions.

But wait; unless our Constitution has been relegated to the same status, we do have
a chance every two years to make a judgment about politicians, whether they should
continue to represent us or be driven from office. (Sadly, there’s less public leverage
over the fate of pundits.)

Yet, recently I have been looking on in disbelief as some of the same Democrats (and
media personalities) who helped grease the skids for the unnecessary, unprovoked
attack on Iraq, are doing a reprise — changing the script from Iraq to Iran.

The same kind of macho language (by no means limited to testosterone-prone men)
is coming from lips of lawmakers who think that hyping the “threat” from Iran will
position them well in winning an election (or perhaps buy some street cred with some
campaign funders or the media mainstream).

‘Real Men Go to Tehran!’

Think back seven years and recall the Blackwater-style bravado from the lips of
neoconservatives like Donald Rumsfeld’s crony Kenneth Adelman — the fellow who
assured us all that Iraq would be a “cakewalk.”

Even as this proved to be a fantasy, his neoconservative colleagues were beating
their breasts like Tarzan and setting their eyes on Iran. The neocon joke at the time
questioned what the next target should be – Syria or Iran? – with the punch line,
“Real men go to Tehran!”

Both then and today, however, it was not just Tarzans who were spoiling for a fight
in the Middle East, but some Janes, in particular – Rep. Jane Harman, a California
Democrat who was a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time
of the Iraq invasion.

From her position on the Intelligence Committee, Harman was better positioned than
most of her colleagues to know that Bush was hyping or inventing the evidence of
Iraq’s alleged WMD, but she still joined the stampede to war.

After the invasion and an exhaustive investigation, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairman Jay Rockefeller concluded that the Bush/Cheney administration “presented
intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-
existent.”

However, back in 2003, it would have taken some political courage to call out Bush
and his team on their flimsy “evidence” or their outright lies. Career-wise, there was
plenty of upside – and no discernable downside – to go along.

But why am I reprising this history now, you ask? Because it turns out Jane and some
of the Tarzans are at it again, hyping the “threat” from Iran, where “real men” —
and apparently some “real women” — still want to go.

Speaking on the floor of Congress on April 22, Harman said:

“I am often asked to name those countries I think pose the greatest threat to the
security of our country and the world. 
 My answer every time is Iran, Iran, Iran. 

Given its myopic obsession with the destruction of Israel 
 and its implacable,
duplicitous march toward a nuclear weapons capability, in my view no other country
comes close.”

(More objective observers might say, “Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan,” an unstable
Islamic nation that actually acquired nuclear weapons with the acquiescence of the
Reagan administration in the 1980s and is today the home for al-Qaeda and other
terrorist groups, including the trainers of alleged Time Square bomber Faisal
Shahzad. Shahzad's father, Bahar Ul Haq, was a former Pakistani air vice marshal
reportedly with some responsibility over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.)

Iran Obsessed

But Harman is focused on Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, has renounced any intention of having nukes, and is considered years away
from building one even if it wanted to.

To punish Iran for its speculative interest in nuclear weapons, Harman called for
sanctions to “cripple Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum products.” (As a
Harvard-educated lawyer, she should be aware that, under international law, such a
blockade would be an act of war. It also would inflict widespread hardship on the
Iranian people.)

But Israel’s right-wing Likud government and America's neocons have identified Iran
as the new enemy. So, in line with that assessment, Harman ended her oration
thusly:

“Iran with nuclear weapons not only poses an existential threat to Israel; it poses an
existential threat to us [vocal emphasis hers] and to countries everywhere which
espouse democratic values.”

Not even hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes that far. At a formal press
conference in Qatar, she said, “Iran doesn’t directly threaten the United States,”
though she added that Iran was a threat to U.S. friends in the region.

Clinton’s momentary deviation from the more alarmist rhetoric that Official
Washington favors when discussing Iran came while answering a question at a
formal press conference in Doha, Qatar on Feb. 14. (Check it out; last time I looked,
it was still on the State Department’s Web site.) Clinton said:

“Part of the goal 
 we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision
regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech

 the evidence is accumulating that that [pursuing a nuclear weapon] is exactly
what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn't directly
threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and
partners here in this region and beyond.”

When his turn came, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Al-Thani did not join in the fear
mongering, even when asked directly about “the danger that the Secretary just
alluded to 
 if Iran gets the bomb.”

In answer, he implied, diplomatically but clearly, that he was at least as much afraid
of what Israel and the U.S. might do, as what Iran might do. [For more, see
Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Iran Really a Threat?”]

Unspoken Friend

The chief unspoken “friend” that Secretary Clinton claims is “directly threatened” by
Iran is, of course, Israel, a nation which already has 200-300 nuclear weapons, has
refused to sign the NPT and won’t even acknowledge its own nuclear arsenal in
defiance of U.S. policy favoring adherence to the NPT and greater transparency on
nuclear weapons..

The Israeli arsenal could easily incinerate Iran – if Iran does manage to build one or
two nukes and is eager to commit suicide by attacking Israel.

But let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that the Israeli leaders really do consider
non-nuclear Iran an “existential threat” to Israel. Should American lawmakers and
opinion leaders hype a theoretical threat to Israel as a threat to the United States?

On one level, Clinton’s candor that Iran is not threatening the United States was
refreshing. She seemed to be following the example of the Director of National
Intelligence and his subordinates, who are carefully hewing to the judgments of the
most recent formal National Intelligence Estimate, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and
Capabilities,” approved unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in November
2007.

That Estimate began with these words: “We judge with high confidence that in fall
2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-
high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons


“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear program
as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear
weapons


“Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

That National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is now being updated, but recent
congressional testimony by senior intelligence community officials has been consistent
with the judgments of late 2007.

Gen. Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Gen. James
Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed these issues in
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 21.

Answering the question as to how soon Iran could have a deliverable nuclear
weapon, Gen. Cartwright said:

“Experience says it is going to take you three to five years” to move from having
enough highly enriched uranium to having a “deliverable weapon that is usable.”

The NIE of 2007 stated that if Iran does decide to pursue nuclear weapons, “We
judge with moderate confidence that Iran probably would be technically capable of
producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the
2010-2015 time frame.”

It appears if anything the time line for the hypothetical Iranian “threat” is slipping
backward, not leaping forward.

According to press reports, the NIE-update will not be ready until August, and the
Obama administration won’t release its key judgments, as was done in late 2007. It is
a safe bet, though, that we shall learn of the revisions in due course and thus have a
better take on any changes in Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions.

Getting Played Again

What concerns me greatly, however, is that the American people are being played
again by those both in government and the media who wish to zap Iran.

“Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?” Americans were asked in
a CNN poll taken earlier this year (Feb. 12-15). Seventy-one percent of Americans
polled answered incorrectly, Yes.

That’s very close to the percentage of Americans misled into believing that Saddam
Hussein was developing nuclear weapons before the attack on Iraq in March 2003.
Only later was the Bush administration forced to admit that its claims about an active
Iraqi nuclear program were bogus.

Of equal concern to me are the statements of politicians who apparently believe we
have forgotten the hype that got us into the Iraq mess — and are trying again to
stoke a confrontation with Iran.

The front-burner question today is whether loose lips and looser thinking will lead to
an even more disastrous war with Iran BEFORE the intelligence community finishes
its update on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions.

Given the consistency of the recent testimony of top intelligence officials, I will be
much surprised if the NIE update comes to conclusions that differ substantially from
the judgments of November 2007.

Ironically, that possibility provides more incentive for those who wish to attack Iran
sooner rather than later, much as President Bush pushed United Nations inspectors
out of Iraq in March 2003 and rushed ahead with the invasion before Americans
woke up to the fact that the inspectors weren't finding any Iraqi WMD stockpiles
because none existed.

I worry that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will take the initiative now and provoke
hostilities with Iran, judging that political realities in the United States would then
leave President Barack Obama little choice but to “finish the job.”

No Confidence in the FCM

Another concern is that the Fawning Corporate Media remains as easily manipulated
by the neocons and other hardliners as it was in 2003. Again, there are plenty of
career rewards for talking tough about Iran and none for showing moderation.

In this overheated climate of anti-Iran hysteria, politicians also will be tempted to
ratchet up their rhetoric to come across as tough and “realistic.” That, in turn, might
convince Netanyahu that the time is right to force Obama’s hand.

One might have hoped that after the Iraq fiasco, American voters would be smarter –
and more resistant to clever propaganda – but the CNN poll on their misplaced
confidence about Iran having nukes provided little reassurance.

As for Harman, she is facing a strong Democratic challenger, progressive Marcy
Winograd, in the June 8 primary for California’s 36th district.

Because Harman has a personal fortune of about a half-billion (that’s right, billion)
dollars from which to draw – and Winograd says she is accepting “not one dime” of
corporate money – the race is viewed as a test of whether it is possible for candidates
to win without heaps of money for ad buys and other expenses.

The race also could measure whether Democratic voters will demand some
accountability for lawmakers who sided with President Bush and the neocons in
rushing the United States off to war in Iraq – and who now are spoiling for another
fight with Iran.

I don’t know how those tests will work out, especially given the continued sludge of
one-sided propaganda that flows from the FCM.

What I do know is that incendiary rhetoric from lips like Harman’s about the option of
a military strike on Iran, her strident advocacy of an act of war (blockade), and her
pretense that Netanyahu’s claim of an “existential threat” from Iran applies also to
the United States is a highly flammable mix.

It is just the kind of rhetoric that could give Netanyahu confidence that he can take
matters into his own hands.

This will go in spades if Harman proves to be correct in deeming that her constituents
are just as gullible as the ones who answered CNN pollsters in mid-February.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church
of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. An Army infantry/intelligence officer in the
early 60s, he then served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, during which he chaired
National Intelligence Estimates and prepared/briefed The President’s Daily Brief.
Exactly four years ago, he confronted Donald Rumsfeld on live TV, an encounter that
is still garnering hits on YouTube.

This item was first posted at consortiumnews.com