 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 25, 2008 at 06:32:25
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 10/25/08: by Cheryl Biren-Wright Page 1 of 6 page(s) |
|
|
3
2
1
Generally we don’t expect death, destruction and illegality to rest on the preventive side of the equation. Then again, after March 19, 2003, perhaps we should. When WINEP uses the word preventive they mean "preventive military action." More precisely - a military attack on another country, in this case Iran that is neither in self-defense nor in response to an immediate threat of attack. The likelihood of a military strike against Iran either by the United States or Israel has been debated for years waxing and waning with the geopolitical climate. What is not in question is the steady effort by some to lay the ground work for such an action. The Washington Institute founded by Martin Indyk, a former research director for AIPAC, seeks to "bring scholarship to bear on the making of U.S. policy" in the Middle East. Among its programs is the Presidential Study Group "charged with drafting a blueprint for the next administration’s Middle East policy." WINEP’s board of advisers includes noted figures such as Richard Perle, R. James Woolsey and until 2001 Paul Wolfowitz. Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow and director of WINEP’s Military and Security Studies Program wrote a three-page article in September 2006 entitled "Iran: The Complex Calculus of Preventive Military Action." Eisenstadt discussed the factors that would be in play if the U.S. took preventive military action to "thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions." 
He tackled first the matter of congressional authorization for a planned attack on Iran. He referred to it as "consulting Congress." Quickly bypassing Congress’ constitutional power to declare war citing precedence, Eisenstadt laid out two options. 1. Inform a select group of members of Congress prior to launching a strike, but compromise public support for "subsequent actions." 2. Allow Congress to openly debate the "merits of military action" and seek a joint resolution, but preclude surprise and risk defeat.
Bearing in mind WINEP’s mission to use scholarship to assist in policy making, it is worth noting a glaring omission. Mr. Eisenstadt made no room for discussion of the UN Charter ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1945 thereby making it the law of our land. It requires that member nations refrain from the threat or use of force and that if a dispute is not settled it shall be referred to the Security Council which will make recommendations.
While the Charter allows for military action in self-defense and the issue of a preemptive attack in the face of "imminent danger" has been a point of contention in recent years, no strong case for an "imminent" attack was even put forth in the article. What Eisenstadt was considering was a preventive strike to "thwart ambitions."
To minimize national backlash - a rally around the flag in Iran – Eisenstadt recommended that the U.S. engage in a "high-profile information campaign" to convince the Iranian people that an attack on their country is in their best interest. The article concluded that while seeking diplomacy, military prevention should be on the table.
In summer 2007, Eisenstadt published another article on preventive action "The Complex Calculus of Preventive Military Action." Along with the title the article was, with a few exceptions, the same as the one he authored in 2006.
In 2006, his reason was "faltering diplomacy" over Iran’s nuclear program. In 2007, he pointed to Bush administration claims that Iran was supplying IED’s that were being used against U.S. forces in Iraq. This was a big news item at the time. What was not big news was that proof of those claims never fully materialized.
Both articles shared an important statement, "[One] should not dismiss the possibility that the intelligence picture concerning Iran’s nuclear program could change rapidly." And change it did. In December 2007, the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran were made public. Among the findings: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."
Thus began the campaign to discredit the 2007 NIE on Iran.
Bending, conspiring, duping and ruining our day
The first to let his fingers fly was Norman Podhoretz. Writing for the Commentary, he penned an article in June 2007 entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran." On September 11, his book World War IV: The Long Struggle against Islamofascism was released.Hours after the key judgments of the NIE were made public, he accused the intelligence community of "bending over backward" to dispute what he claimed is universally believed - that Iran is "hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons." He continued, "But, I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again."
Patrick Clawson, WINEP’s deputy director for research offered his own spin. He asked "how much does weaponization matter?" and claimed that the findings only suggest a change in sequence by Tehran. For good measure, Clawson lamented about the U.S. intelligence community’s "poor track record."
Next up: Kenneth Timmerman. Writing for Newsmax, Timmerman cited the publication’s alleged sources in Tehran and claimed that "Washington has fallen for ‘a deliberate disinformation campaign’ cooked up by the Revolutionary Guards."
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 25 comments |
|
fantastic, informative article
Thanks, Cheryl, for pulling together several different pieces that, taken as a whole, suggest the US may well continue its wars of aggression, despite Nuremberg principles. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:52:50 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: thank you
thanks rady. i keep hoping america will snap out of it. this post-9/11 bush doctrine type thinking is gradually becoming an accepted policy in the eyes of too many americans and our so-called leaders. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:40:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Another crooked AIPAC stunt.
Another crooked AIPAC stunt that will put our national security in jeopardy for Israel. These people are not just advisors. They have enormous coercive power over our congress. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:13:35 AM (0+)
|
|
It's all been done.
Thank you Cheryl. Excellent, informative piece of writing. The posture reflected here reminds me of ancient Rome... The concern is that the people making up these reruns of ancient policy- like this very Roman idea of pre-emptive war- don't seem to understand that it's all been done before, nor to recall outcomes. I think we're past our Third Punic War [and/or Boehr War] here. Since events unroll much faster now than they did back in the day of the chariot, we'll see their outcomes much more quickly as well. Some think tank- more like a petri dish if you ask me. I just wish the "conventional thinkers" [an oxymoron] would get the heck out of the way and allow for some actual thinkers to do some real policy work. by Jennifer Hathaway (16 articles, 16 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 761 comments [220 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:02:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Another "Pearl Harbor"?
Maybe they'll need another "Pearl Harbor" type event like the one that so convienently happened on Sept. 11, 2001 to energize their schemes. by Larry McCombs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:36:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Excellent Informative Piece
But of course, I already knew they would never, EVER give up their war mongering ideas. Why aren't these people in jail? Is it legal for private corporations to openly plot wars to push the American State into? When I went to their site the first thing that caught my was an ad: 2008 Scholar-Statesman Award DinnerHenry Kissinger received the Institute's 2008 Scholar-Statesman Award at a ceremony in New York, where Dr. Kissinger discussed the past, present, and future of American statecraft. Watch online. In view of their rather dubious bedfellows, is there any reason to go farther with any comment? These people are a college of WAR CRIMINALS. As long as WE let them get away with it they will continue to kill millions; for profit. by Syndi Yellowbird (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:05:45 PM (0+)
|
|
The Bu$h cabal are a very dangerous group
of fascist's Goon's and Thug's in control during times that can bring upon the world the final prediction that a Confederate General Albert Pike foretold over 150 years ago. He also was able to declare both world wars, with time and reason quite accurately. by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1255 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:04:12 PM (0+)
|
|
The good news is...
Dumbya is suddenly aware of his soon to be hideous legacy and is now working on trying to start a permanent diplomatic mission to Iran. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081023/wl_mcclatchy/3080999_1 Too say this is too little too late is probably unnecessary, but there it is. I dont think Dumbya is heading in a military direction at this time. Not only that but Iran has also said it is ready for unconditional talks on its nuclear program http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0810258072145509.htm . For now, the danger of another idiotic war seems to be minimal. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:56:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: i tend
to agree with you about bush right now. however, if you read The Last Resort you will see they are very clear how important it is for the present administration to be viewed as actively seeking diplomacy because public support here and abroad is critical for a successful military campaign. it's all about perception. think about it, bush didn't sell 1000 bunker busting bombs to israel for the hell of it last month. but do check out ray mcgovern's recent article Attack on Iran Off the Table? He offers a very good perspective on reasons the bush admin. may be backing off for now on a strike on iran as it relates to russia. and, of course, analyzing these relationships is what he did for so many years in the cia. not sure if you read the entire article - i realize it was quite lengthy - but WINEP is actively seeking support for a preventive strike option by the next president. they were able to get four obama advisors to sign onto their statement on u.s.-israel relations on iran including preventive action as a favored policy option. obama, himself, has said no option is off the table and he's not talking about self-defense. bottom line, we have to stay on top of this. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:31:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Re: DC Think-Tank Cultivating 'Last Resort' Against Iran
Regarding Kenneth R. Timmerman who is mentioned in your article. In the build up to this illegal and horrid war in Iraq, Timmerman's roll was none other than a cheerleader for this truculent Bush administration and the utter destruction they have wrought upon the World. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Do you see the pattern here? Sadly, as long as there are cheerleaders like Timmerman helping to foment yet more illegal wars of aggression, and as long as the credulous American people sit idly by without questioning these inaccuracies, then what's left of this so called United States is doomed ta fail. by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:27:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: pattern?
what pattern? just kidding. yea, of course it's the same cast of characters revising their old roles - actually they never stopped. thing is there are a lot of layers here, i wasn't crazy about posting a six-page article but i could have added about two-dozen more pages. you know the game six-degrees of separation? you could easily knock off about four degrees and it would still be a breeze when it comes to these individuals and their relationships to each other and to the bush doctrine type thinking. anyway, the point here is awareness, cast some sunlight on it - the best disinfectant. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:39:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Re: six-degrees of separation
Billiant analogy Cheryl. We gotta keep em separated Silly me! Exhibiting my English humor again. But hey, it's Saturday. by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:21:00 PM (0+)
|
|
PR Campaign for action against Iran
An odd thing happened last month. I looked at my yahoo banner, and there was an ad describing some kind of group against a nuclear Iran. It struck me as strange that this would be an ad. The ad said to click here for more information. I was taken to the following site:http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/ Also of interest is this UPI article, which they had posted on their site: http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/5556.html I had planned to alert the community. It seems that they are revving up for something. by Peter Duveen (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 197 comments [30 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:26:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: UANI
Thanks for mentioning UANI. Actually started to mention them since I included Woolsey in this article - he is on their board. Here's the tip-off. Whenever a new group tells you ad nauseum that they are "bipartisan" watch the hell out. They are up to no good. Besides, it's not like there aren't Democratic warmongers too. I have a lot to say about UANI, typed out right now. Fortunately, they did not receive such great reviews with their organized protest at the UN. Within days of going public, I started checking out their membership. They are working frantically to get regular citizens to organize local chapters. Some of the members I came across were confused thinking it was against all nukes and they were blog-attacked by more militant members for questioning Israel's nukes. A lot of propaganda in their videos and info they provide. We definitely need to keep an eye on them. Thanks for reading and commenting. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:48:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This is the news
This effort has a healthy budget behind it, because they put an ad on Google. They are very sophisticated and determined. It's the regular cast of characters. As far as so-called "nonpartisan," one reason they empahsize this is to protect themselves from charges they are violating election laws. They could be construed as backing the Republicans in this election cycle. Follow the money on this one. Who their funders are will tell us a lot. And my guess as to their funders? Those who believe they would most benefit by the goals of this organization being achieved. Could be US government, such as National Endowment for Democracy, CIA and perhaps the Israeli lobby. This PR effort is like the Darfur efforts. You can smell their techniques miles away. Chris Chin exposed the Darfur thing. These people are rolling in dough, and they can roll out any pr program to support what they want to do. It's our taxpayer dollars, probably, being recycled to put America into more mischief. These are determined people who are prepping the US population for things to come. by Peter Duveen (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 197 comments [30 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:58:27 AM (0+)
|
|
How Ironic
They want to use "scholarship" to foment their plans, and all the while bash anyone with the least bit of scholarship as the E-vil Elite. by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:23:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: great observation
hadn't even occurred to me, but now that you point it out... by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:34:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Bolton's Stunning statement.
Thanks so much for this Cheryl. I have already read the "The Last Resort" paper myself, and it is appropiate that you post this during Halloween season, because it is damn scary stuff. I am also responsible for getting the word out on John Bolton's statement, placed on the StopAIPAC.org website, now almost 2 years old, regarding his hope that Iran would do something to trigger "a response". Note that he did not hope that sanctions would make the Iranian regime reject nuclear power, but that he hoped they would kick out the weapons inspectors. The original tape was from a post by an over-enthusiastic aipac groupie, she posted the whole tape of the conversation she participated in on the web, before aipac "suggested" she take it down.Why this statement does not get more coverage i don't know. I don't think Israel/US is really that concerned about Iran and nukes, as much as it is concerned about any countervailing influence in the Middle East, anything that will weaken Israel in its desire to impose its "solution" on the Palestinians. That is uppermost on the minds of many who support military action against Iran. Today and Monday, AIPAC is having its "National Summit" in Chicago. Attending will be the usual gang of warmongers, and the politicians who attend to pander to a pro-war lobby, including Hillary Clinton, who could not think of a better way to spend her birthday, evidently. The good news is that outside groups like Progressive Democrats and Code Pink and Jewish Voice for Peace will be calling AIPAC out for its extremist agenda. My hope is that come Nov 4th, the millions of people who voted for Change, will stay active and actually demand it, and will not permit the Obama administration to continue to wage war. by Jim Harris (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:59:42 PM (0+)
|
|
The "Triggering Event" Could Be The Initial Attack Itself
As I and many others have outliined in other comments on other articles here, the triggering event to a full scale Iran attack could come from a US Naval strike from inside the Gulf. As the Navy's own war games confirmed, with a significant number of Oniks and Moskit anti-ship missles, Iran has the capability to annhillate any US Naval Force inside the Gulf. If the US stages such an attack and we lose two or three carrier battle groups, how do you think the Bush or McCain admin will respond other than to escalate to nuclear strikes? Indeed, we have seen other Israeli writers attempting to justify an all-out nuclear attack on Iran as the only sure method to stop Iran's nuclear program. Do we seriously believe that Russia or China will stand idly by while this happens? Do we seriously believe the average Muslim will see this as anything but another Infidel attack on Muslims? What saddens me most is that Bush totally ignored Iran's offer of a comprehensive deal carried by the Leverette's in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. Or that Iran could be a valuable ally against Sunni extermism and source of foreign exchange earnings for us if we would only engage them. But then, what do I know? I only specialized in weapons systems and have actually visited Iran in 1974. by Ishmael1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:15:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Fooled again
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Democrats and Republicans have ruled this country for 190 years. Voting in a Democrat or Republican which is now inevitable is insanity. To think for a moment that Obama, supported by the Trilateral Commission and the banking elite, will not wage war with Iraq is delusional. And he'll do it with the Obama groupies full support and that's a good portion of America. I'm not saying McCain is a viable alternative. I'm saying they are both poor choices. This is a one-party system with two overlapping factions whose goals are the same. Dynasty and hegemony. by jeff prager (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 188 comments) on Monday, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:58:59 PM (0+)
|
|
tinker tanks
Think tank faculties look like a way of paying-off cronies, something like corporate boards of directors with great paying part time jobs. Are they "nonprofit" (untaxed) gimmicks? Can we do our own research in the civil service? Is this one of the Reaganomic stunts? What the hell is with think tanks? by vthom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:02:25 PM (0+)
|
|
from SourceWatch:
Looks so good I'd like to try it myself. What sounds more sophisticated in a twinkthank moniker; commission, committee, council, lord, or...? Start one and appoint myself a Fellow, Director, does president ring okay? Source Watch says; "A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue~propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders. "We've got think tanks the way other towns have firehouses," Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach says. "This is a thoughtful town. A friend of mine worked at a think tank temporarily and the director told him when he entered, 'We are white men between the ages of 50 and 55, and we have no place else to go." by vthom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:18:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: think tanks
think tanks, the good, the bad and the ugly would make for an interesting article. "think" about it. one of my favorite titles they often use are "blue-ribbon" commissions. sometimes their "blue-ribbon" commissions will testify before Congress on often ridiculous ideas (more on that later) and then they get to say from that point forward, "based on a blue-ribbon commission that testified before congress" blah blah blah somehow legitimizing whatever propaganda they tried to sell to the half-comatose congress members who just assume they know what they're talking about cuz well they're a "blue-ribbon" commission. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:08:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: don't forget...
foundations and institutes are highbrow too! Wikipedia said that COFR membership takes a resume plus referrals from three members. Any volunteers? by vthom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:37:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and by the way, Cheryl
While you're at the thank tink project maybe you can learn if that's where "political analysts", "consultants", and "strategists" come from. Seems like they're rich activist folks' paid proteges, doesn't it? And of course are their salaries tax-free on both ends or just to the "super-patriot" sponsor? by vthom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:15:51 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (1) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
