The New Yorker
Annals of National Security
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008 (released June 29, 2008)
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”
The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”
Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”
“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.
The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.
The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.
Members of Congress have expressed skepticism in the past about the information provided by the White House. On March 15, 2005, David Obey, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, announced that he was putting aside an amendment that he had intended to offer that day, and that would have cut off all funding for national-intelligence programs unless the President agreed to keep Congress fully informed about clandestine military activities undertaken in the war on terror. He had changed his mind, he said, because the White House promised better coöperation. “The Executive Branch understands that we are not trying to dictate what they do,” he said in a floor speech at the time. “We are simply trying to see to it that what they do is consistent with American values and will not get the country in trouble.”
Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran, but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to consult more fully with Congress. He said, “I suspect there’s something going on, but I don’t know what to believe. Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it. We still don’t get enough information from the agencies, and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the edge.”
None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.” However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White House also declined to comment.)
A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”
One irony of Admiral Fallon’s departure is that he was, in many areas, in agreement with President Bush on the threat posed by Iran. They had a good working relationship, Fallon told me, and, when he ran CENTCOM, were in regular communication. On March 4th, a week before his resignation, Fallon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that he was “encouraged” about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the role played by Iran’s leaders, he said, “They’ve been absolutely unhelpful, very damaging, and I absolutely don’t condone any of their activities. And I have yet to see anything since I’ve been in this job in the way of a public action by Iran that’s been at all helpful in this region.”
Fallon made it clear in our conversations that he considered it inappropriate to comment publicly about the President, the Vice-President, or Special Operations. But he said he had heard that people in the White House had been “struggling” with his views on Iran. “When I arrived at CENTCOM, the Iranians were funding every entity inside Iraq. It was in their interest to get us out, and so they decided to kill as many Americans as they could. And why not? They didn’t know who’d come out ahead, but they wanted us out. I decided that I couldn’t resolve the situation in Iraq without the neighborhood. To get this problem in Iraq solved, we had to somehow involve Iran and Syria. I had to work the neighborhood.”
Fallon told me that his focus had been not on the Iranian nuclear issue, or on regime change there, but on “putting out the fires in Iraq.” There were constant discussions in Washington and in the field about how to engage Iran and, on the subject of the bombing option, Fallon said, he believed that “it would happen only if the Iranians did something stupid.”
Fallon’s early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. One of Fallon’s defenders is retired Marine General John J. (Jack) Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “One of the reasons the White House selected Fallon for CENTCOM was that he’s known to be a strategic thinker and had demonstrated those skills in the Pacific,” Sheehan told me. (Fallon served as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific from 2005 to 2007.) “He was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”
The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world, the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed military.
“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.”
Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for Cheney.”
The Pentagon consultant said, “Fallon went down because, in his own way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire him for that.”
In recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership. The Iranian press reports are being carefully monitored by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy at the National War College and now conducts war games centered on Iran for the federal government, think tanks, and universities. The Iranian press “is very open in describing the killings going on inside the country,” Gardiner said. It is, he said, “a controlled press, which makes it more important that it publishes these things. We begin to see inside the government.” He added, “Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere. There were three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.”
Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A.,” Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great Satan.’ ” In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.
Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.
A strategy of using ethnic minorities to undermine Iran is flawed, according to Vali Nasr, who teaches international politics at Tufts University and is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Just because Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan have ethnic problems, it does not mean that Iran is suffering from the same issue,” Nasr told me. “Iran is an old country—like France and Germany—and its citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating ethnic tension in Iran.” The minority groups that the U.S. is reaching out to are either well integrated or small and marginal, without much influence on the government or much ability to present a political challenge, Nasr said. “You can always find some activist groups that will go and kill a policeman, but working with the minorities will backfire, and alienate the majority of the population.”
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.
One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.
The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”
The Kurdish party, PJAK, which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States, has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. (Iran, like Iraq and Turkey, has a Kurdish minority, and PJAK and other groups have sought self-rule in territory that is now part of each of those countries.) In recent weeks, according to Sam Gardiner, the military strategist, there has been a marked increase in the number of PJAK armed engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. In early June, the news agency Fars reported that a dozen PJAK members and four Iranian border guards were killed in a clash near the Iraq border; a similar attack in May killed three Revolutionary Guards and nine PJAK fighters. PJAK has also subjected Turkey, a member of NATO, to repeated terrorist attacks, and reports of American support for the group have been a source of friction between the two governments.
Gardiner also mentioned a trip that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, made to Tehran in June. After his return, Maliki announced that his government would ban any contact between foreigners and the M.E.K.—a slap at the U.S.’s dealings with the group. Maliki declared that Iraq was not willing to be a staging ground for covert operations against other countries. This was a sign, Gardiner said, of “Maliki’s increasingly choosing the interests of Iraq over the interests of the United States.” In terms of U.S. allegations of Iranian involvement in the killing of American soldiers, he said, “Maliki was unwilling to play the blame-Iran game.” Gardiner added that Pakistan had just agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government. America’s covert operations, he said, “seem to be harming relations with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad.”
The White House’s reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence communities. JSOC’s operations in Iran are believed to be modelled on a program that has, with some success, used surrogates to target the Taliban leadership in the tribal territories of Waziristan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the situations in Waziristan and Iran are not comparable.
In Waziristan, “the program works because it’s small and smart guys are running it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “It’s being executed by professionals. The N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A.”—the Defense Intelligence Agency—“are right in there with the Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence, and they’re dealing with serious bad guys.” He added, “We have to be really careful in calling in the missiles. We have to hit certain houses at certain times. The people on the ground are watching through binoculars a few hundred yards away and calling specific locations, in latitude and longitude. We keep the Predator loitering until the targets go into a house, and we have to make sure our guys are far enough away so they don’t get hit.” One of the most prominent victims of the program, the former official said, was Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Taliban commander, who was killed on January 31st, reportedly in a missile strike that also killed eleven other people.
A dispatch published on March 26th by the Washington Post reported on the increasing number of successful strikes against Taliban and other insurgent units in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A follow-up article noted that, in response, the Taliban had killed “dozens of people” suspected of providing information to the United States and its allies on the whereabouts of Taliban leaders. Many of the victims were thought to be American spies, and their executions—a beheading, in one case—were videotaped and distributed by DVD as a warning to others.
It is not simple to replicate the program in Iran. “Everybody’s arguing about the high-value-target list,” the former senior intelligence official said. “The Special Ops guys are pissed off because Cheney’s office set up priorities for categories of targets, and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags—basic counterintelligence and counter-insurgency tactics. And we’re beginning to tie them in knots in Afghanistan. But the White House is going to kill the program if they use it to go after Iran. It’s one thing to engage in selective strikes and assassinations in Waziristan and another in Iran. The White House believes that one size fits all, but the legal issues surrounding extrajudicial killings in Waziristan are less of a problem because Al Qaeda and the Taliban cross the border into Afghanistan and back again, often with U.S. and NATO forces in hot pursuit. The situation is not nearly as clear in the Iranian case. All the considerations—judicial, strategic, and political—are different in Iran.”
He added, “There is huge opposition inside the intelligence community to the idea of waging a covert war inside Iran, and using Baluchis and Ahwazis as surrogates. The leaders of our Special Operations community all have remarkable physical courage, but they are less likely to voice their opposition to policy. Iran is not Waziristan.”
A Gallup poll taken last November, before the N.I.E. was made public, found that seventy-three per cent of those surveyed thought that the United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while only eighteen per cent favored direct military action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a military strike. Weariness with the war in Iraq has undoubtedly affected the public’s tolerance for an attack on Iran. This mood could change quickly, however. The potential for escalation became clear in early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. Initial reports of the incident made public by the Pentagon press office said that the Iranians had transmitted threats, over ship-to-ship radio, to “explode” the American ships. At a White House news conference, the President, on the day he left for an eight-day trip to the Middle East, called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,” and there was, very briefly, a sense of crisis and of outrage at Iran. “TWO MINUTES FROM WAR” was the headline in one British newspaper.
The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region. No warning shots were fired, the Admiral told the Pentagon press corps on January 7th, via teleconference from his headquarters, in Bahrain. “Yes, it’s more serious than we have seen, but, to put it in context, we do interact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Navy regularly,” Cosgriff said. “I didn’t get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.”
Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.
In June, President Bush went on a farewell tour of Europe. He had tea with Queen Elizabeth II and dinner with Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni, the President and First Lady of France. The serious business was conducted out of sight, and involved a series of meetings on a new diplomatic effort to persuade the Iranians to halt their uranium-enrichment program. (Iran argues that its enrichment program is for civilian purposes and is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) Secretary of State Rice had been involved with developing a new package of incentives. But the Administration’s essential negotiating position seemed unchanged: talks could not take place until Iran halted the program. The Iranians have repeatedly and categorically rejected that precondition, leaving the diplomatic situation in a stalemate; they have not yet formally responded to the new incentives.
The continuing impasse alarms many observers. Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister, recently wrote in a syndicated column that it may not “be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.” When I spoke to him last week, Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”
The big question, Fischer added, is in Washington. “I think the Americans are deeply divided on the issue of what to do about Iran,” he said. “Some officials are concerned about the fallout from a military attack and others think an attack is unavoidable. I know the Europeans, but I have no idea where the Americans will end up on this issue.”
There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously criticized by John McCain. The Washington Post recently quoted Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s national-security director, as stating that McCain supports the White House’s position, and that the program be suspended before talks begin. What Obama is proposing, Scheunemann said, “is unilateral cowboy summitry.”
Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain campaign’s most important channel of communication with the White House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann’s influence with McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn’t taken seriously while “telling Cheney and others what they want to hear,” as a senior McCain adviser put it.
It is not known whether McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been formally briefed on the operations in Iran. At the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in June, Obama repeated his plea for “tough and principled diplomacy.” But he also said, along with McCain, that he would keep the threat of military action against Iran on the table.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Farideh Farhi--Who is Making Tehran's Iraq Policy (commentary by William O. Beeman)
Commentary from William O. Beeman:
Farideh Farhi provides an exceptionally sensible and informative post below.
Just as a coda to her remarks, the United States is inured to the idea of single actors pulling the strings in governments outside of the Western sphere. I have written about this tendency as part of the United States' "culture of foreign policy" in several publications with regard to Lebanon, Lybia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as Iran. This habit of thought being so well established, when a candidate such as Qods force leader Qassem Soleimani appears, the natural tendency of decision makers in Washington is to anoint such a person as a potential "plumber" to fix things, or designate them as the sole Machiavelli pulling all the strings behind the scene. We have seen this continually in Iran. The trouble is, nothing is that simple, and so having one hypothetical person fail the test as the power broker-du-jour, the search is on for another, and the debate revolves around who is "really" in power. It is really quite a ridiculous exercise. There is no partisanship in this habit of thought. Both Democrats and Republicans engage in it.
Those old enough to remember Sadeq Qotbzadeh during the hostage crisis will see how stupidly far this mentality reached. Poor Qotbzadeh loved the limelight and merely on his assertion that he had the power to release the hostages he was featured on U.S. television nightly, and editorialized as the real power behind the hostage crisis. He was subsequently executed.
A famous report from the Council on Foreign Relations authored by Mark Palmer and George Schultz, those great Iran experts, identified Ayatollah Khamene'i as a Saddam-like dictator who controlled everything. The White House and the press has glommed on to President Ahmadinejad's every extreme pronouncement as if it was an incipient move toward pushing the red button that will obliterate Tel Aviv.
There is a deep racism in this attitude. Domestic political commentators in the United States argue endlessly about the fluctuating dynamics of power in the U.S. government. British, Italian and French politics generate numerous Ph.D. theses, but the idea that Iran might actually have a complex power structure with many actors vying for power and influence in an actual functioning government seems to be beyond the ability of U.S. analysts to comprehend (or more likely to acknowledge). It is far more convenient for those who wish to attack Iran to paint it as a monolithic structure, and to run around looking for individual actors and their motives as a single-source explanation for everything. This is a kind of stupidly simplistic thinking that I won't accept even from my freshmen students, but it apparently is the current standard of thought in Washington regarding Iran.
Best,
Bill Beeman
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
From: farideh farhi
>
http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/06/who-is-making-tehrans-iraq-policy.html
>
> Monday, June 9, 2008
>
> Who is Making Tehran's Iraq Policy?
>
> Farideh Farhi
>
> I have to admit that I am quite mystified by the never-ending search for finding the one person that "really" makes policy in Iran. The latest example of this search can be found in David Ignatius's Washington Post column in which we are informed that it is really not the "bombastic" Ahmadinejad but the "soft-spoken" commander of the Qods Force of Islamic Revolution's Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, "who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States." Soleimani's name has in fact been in the news for a while because of his reported role in brokering the cease-fire that restored calm in Basra in March.
>
> Perhaps it is the history of the United States' dealings with most Middle Eastern countries (Israel and Turkey excepted) and the tradition or habit of dealing with one man as the ultimate decision maker that creates the hope or aspiration to find the one person that holds the key to Iran's policy making process. Or perhaps it is the tendency, when in doubt or short evidence, to go with the fad of the moment.
>
> I understand that it is now in vogue to talk about the IRGC in general and the Qods Force as the THE power in Iran (with consequential impact throughout the Middle East). I have not found this argument to be very convincing. My take continues to be that the military in Iran has traditionally been and continues to be under civilian control, even if the Guards hierarchy as well as its individual members have and do play an important role in Iranian politics. The birth of the Islamic Republic was inextricably linked to the Iran-Iraq War and as such it should not be surprisingly to anyone that the body and individuals that played important roles in that war continue to be influential. Ironically, to my mind, the comparable country in this regard has always been Israel, another Middle Eastern political system born and bred in war.
>
> In any case, even if there has been a rise in the power of hard-line IRGC men, I find the focus on one individual quite unpersuasive, particularly since the sources that have talked about Soleimani's key role in Iran are all from outside of Iran (in the case of Ignatius' piece, the source is one "Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani").
>
> This is not to say that someone like Soleimani has no influence in Iran's decision making process. From what I understand, although I cannot be sure, Soleimani sits in the committee for regional affairs of Iran's Supreme National Security Council-- consisting of him as well as the chief of intelligence of IRGC, the deputy foreign minister for Arab and African affairs (who also heads the Foreign Ministry's Iraq Desk), Mohammd Reza Baqer, a team of experts on Iranian-Arab relations and Iran's ambassadors to Arab countries (Hassan Kazemi-Qomi in the case of Iraq). Focusing in particular on developments in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories, the task of this committee is to advise on the appropriate policies to be pursued. But the final decision makers are civilians (some well known because of their institutional positions and others like the head of supreme leader Khamenei's security office, the cleric Asghar Hejazi or his chief of staff Mohammad Golpayegani - also a cleric - wielding less publicized influence).
>
> Furthermore, regarding Iran's Iraq policy, I just can't believe that Soleimani wields more (or for that matter less) influence or has more input in the decision making process than let us say the current head of IRGC, Mohammad Ali (Aziz) Jaafari, who prior to his current position was in charge of setting up IRGC's Strategic Center, a center tasked with drawing up a new command structure and military strategy, preparing the country for the changing regional environment and the kind of foreign military confrontation it may have to face; or Iran's Iraq ambassador Kazemi Qomi, reportedly himself a former Qods force member.
>
> These key individuals and many others must be in constant interaction to set and reassess policies that are partially shaped by a long-term interest in a relatively calm Iraq that maintains close political, economic, and security relations with Iran and also developed in reaction to Iraq's complex domestic dynamics and US plans for that country.
>
> Within this context one does not need to search for a scheming and all powerful individual like Soleimani to figure out that the Iranian leadership as a whole, in all its contentious variety, would have to be engaged in constant conversation and planning (and at times improvisation) about how to stunt plans that would make the US military presence in Iraq permanent or make that country a launching pad for an attack on Iran (rejection of this possibility was by the way precisely the assurance Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was repeatedly giving Iranian leaders in his current visit to Tehran).
>
> One also doesn't have to be a genius to guess that, hunkered down in a security and paranoid mode due to the escalating economic and political pressures (not to mention military threats) faced in the past couple of years, the Iranian policy makers are trying very hard to convince the Bush Administration, from my point of view hopefully successfully, that an attack on Iran will be costly.
>
> Farideh Farhi
>
Farideh Farhi provides an exceptionally sensible and informative post below.
Just as a coda to her remarks, the United States is inured to the idea of single actors pulling the strings in governments outside of the Western sphere. I have written about this tendency as part of the United States' "culture of foreign policy" in several publications with regard to Lebanon, Lybia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as Iran. This habit of thought being so well established, when a candidate such as Qods force leader Qassem Soleimani appears, the natural tendency of decision makers in Washington is to anoint such a person as a potential "plumber" to fix things, or designate them as the sole Machiavelli pulling all the strings behind the scene. We have seen this continually in Iran. The trouble is, nothing is that simple, and so having one hypothetical person fail the test as the power broker-du-jour, the search is on for another, and the debate revolves around who is "really" in power. It is really quite a ridiculous exercise. There is no partisanship in this habit of thought. Both Democrats and Republicans engage in it.
Those old enough to remember Sadeq Qotbzadeh during the hostage crisis will see how stupidly far this mentality reached. Poor Qotbzadeh loved the limelight and merely on his assertion that he had the power to release the hostages he was featured on U.S. television nightly, and editorialized as the real power behind the hostage crisis. He was subsequently executed.
A famous report from the Council on Foreign Relations authored by Mark Palmer and George Schultz, those great Iran experts, identified Ayatollah Khamene'i as a Saddam-like dictator who controlled everything. The White House and the press has glommed on to President Ahmadinejad's every extreme pronouncement as if it was an incipient move toward pushing the red button that will obliterate Tel Aviv.
There is a deep racism in this attitude. Domestic political commentators in the United States argue endlessly about the fluctuating dynamics of power in the U.S. government. British, Italian and French politics generate numerous Ph.D. theses, but the idea that Iran might actually have a complex power structure with many actors vying for power and influence in an actual functioning government seems to be beyond the ability of U.S. analysts to comprehend (or more likely to acknowledge). It is far more convenient for those who wish to attack Iran to paint it as a monolithic structure, and to run around looking for individual actors and their motives as a single-source explanation for everything. This is a kind of stupidly simplistic thinking that I won't accept even from my freshmen students, but it apparently is the current standard of thought in Washington regarding Iran.
Best,
Bill Beeman
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
From: farideh farhi
>
http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/06/who-is-making-tehrans-iraq-policy.html
>
> Monday, June 9, 2008
>
> Who is Making Tehran's Iraq Policy?
>
> Farideh Farhi
>
> I have to admit that I am quite mystified by the never-ending search for finding the one person that "really" makes policy in Iran. The latest example of this search can be found in David Ignatius's Washington Post column
>
> Perhaps it is the history of the United States' dealings with most Middle Eastern countries (Israel and Turkey excepted) and the tradition or habit of dealing with one man as the ultimate decision maker that creates the hope or aspiration to find the one person that holds the key to Iran's policy making process. Or perhaps it is the tendency, when in doubt or short evidence, to go with the fad of the moment.
>
> I understand that it is now in vogue to talk about the IRGC in general and the Qods Force as the THE power in Iran (with consequential impact throughout the Middle East). I have not found this argument to be very convincing. My take continues to be that the military in Iran has traditionally been and continues to be under civilian control, even if the Guards hierarchy as well as its individual members have and do play an important role in Iranian politics. The birth of the Islamic Republic was inextricably linked to the Iran-Iraq War and as such it should not be surprisingly to anyone that the body and individuals that played important roles in that war continue to be influential. Ironically, to my mind, the comparable country in this regard has always been Israel, another Middle Eastern political system born and bred in war.
>
> In any case, even if there has been a rise in the power of hard-line IRGC men, I find the focus on one individual quite unpersuasive, particularly since the sources that have talked about Soleimani's key role in Iran are all from outside of Iran (in the case of Ignatius' piece, the source is one "Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani").
>
> This is not to say that someone like Soleimani has no influence in Iran's decision making process. From what I understand, although I cannot be sure, Soleimani sits in the committee for regional affairs of Iran's Supreme National Security Council-- consisting of him as well as the chief of intelligence of IRGC, the deputy foreign minister for Arab and African affairs (who also heads the Foreign Ministry's Iraq Desk), Mohammd Reza Baqer, a team of experts on Iranian-Arab relations and Iran's ambassadors to Arab countries (Hassan Kazemi-Qomi in the case of Iraq). Focusing in particular on developments in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the occupied Palestinian territories, the task of this committee is to advise on the appropriate policies to be pursued. But the final decision makers are civilians (some well known because of their institutional positions and others like the head of supreme leader Khamenei's security office, the cleric Asghar Hejazi or his chief of staff Mohammad Golpayegani - also a cleric - wielding less publicized influence).
>
> Furthermore, regarding Iran's Iraq policy, I just can't believe that Soleimani wields more (or for that matter less) influence or has more input in the decision making process than let us say the current head of IRGC, Mohammad
>
> These key individuals and many others must be in constant interaction to set and reassess policies that are partially shaped by a long-term interest in a relatively calm Iraq that maintains close political, economic, and security relations with Iran and also developed in reaction to Iraq's complex domestic dynamics and US plans for that country.
>
> Within this context one does not need to search for a scheming and all powerful individual like Soleimani to figure out that the Iranian leadership as a whole, in all its contentious variety, would have to be engaged in constant conversation and planning (and at times improvisation) about how to stunt plans that would make the US military presence in Iraq permanent or make that country a launching pad for an attack on Iran (rejection of this possibility was by the way precisely the assurance
>
> One also doesn't have to be a genius to guess that, hunkered down in a security and paranoid mode due to the escalating economic and political pressures (not to mention military threats) faced in the past couple of years, the Iranian policy makers are trying very hard to convince the Bush Administration, from my point of view hopefully successfully, that an attack on Iran will be costly.
>
> Farideh Farhi
>
Friday, June 06, 2008
Preventing the next war? Keith Ellision's Iran Forum and the June 10 Call -in to Congress
Engage Minnesota
Preventing the Next War?
Posted June 6, 2008
Keith Ellison’s Iran Forum and the June 10 Call-In to Congress
By Lydia Howell
On May 28, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., hosted Iran scholars for a community forum in a packed hall at the First Unitarian Society church in Minneapolis. The focus was on the U.S.-Iran relationship, estranged for over 30 years, which many fear may become the next chapter in the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism.”
“Nary a day goes by that someone isn’t saying something abut Iran in the media. Part of my responsibility as a U.S. congressman is to be a forum to discuss the critical issues we face and to promote dialog about the most pressing issues,” said Ellison. “To quote [African-American writer] James Baldwin: Anything that cannot be faced cannot be fixed.”
In the first half of 2008, newspaper front pages and television news have begun repeating a message about a Middle Eastern country that has not attacked the United States but which allegedly “poses a grave threat,” “may build nuclear weapons” and “must be prevented from making war on its neighbors.” In 2002-3, such stories were about Iraq; now, Iran is being described in similar ways. No actual evidence is given for the frightening allegations about Iran—which are too often made by unnamed “Pentagon officials” or the same members of right-wing think tanks that previously pushed the disastrous attack on Iraq.
Ellison said the forum was in preparation for a national call-in June 10, when Americans are urged to phone their representatives and senators, urging that the U.S. not attack Iran. (The toll-free phone number to Congress is 1-888-851-1879.)
University of Minnesota professor William O. Beeman is that rare American: fluent in Farsi and a longtime scholar of Iran’s history and culture. His observations on the mounting crisis with Iran were drawn from his newest book on Iran, The Great Satan vs. Mad Mullahs, in which Beeman debunks the main myths being perpetrated by neo-conservatives who are pushing for a U.S. military attack on Iran before George W. Bush leaves office.
“There are three important myths being pushed by the Bush administration in the press and in speeches,” Beeman told the audience.
“First, that Iran has developed an illegal nuclear program. But, the fact is, the United States started Iran’s nuclear power program in the 1970s, and Iran has simply continued the U.S.-sponsored program. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on May 26,” said Beeman, chair of the U. of M.’s Anthropology Department.
Last December, the U.S. government’s National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE, a collaboration among 15 U.S. intelligence agencies) concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and had no nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007. The December 2007 NIE disavowed the 2005 NIE as “inaccurately reported.”
“The newest argument is that Iran is responsible for American deaths in Iraq. No evidence has been provided to prove that,” Beeman continued.
In fact, in May, the Pentagon had to retract statements about insurgents’ weapons being from Iraq. As the Los Angeles Times reported May 8 on its web site: “neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged [Iranian-originated] arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will. … Iraqi officials lately have backed off the accusations against Iran. A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.” Yet most media continue to repeat the allegation that Iran is supplying weapons to insrugents. (Gary Leupp, professor of history at Tufts University, regularly reports on foreign policy and writes extensively about the disinformation campaign against Iran on the web site CounterPunch: See www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html and www.counterpunch.org/leupp06042008.html.)
Wasted opportunity
Overlooked in the current drumbeat is that the Bush administration willfully wasted a chance for harmonious relations with Iran, Dr. Trita Parsi told the forum.
“In May 2003, Iran made a proposal delivered by the Swiss Ambassador, who is the official “stand-in” for the United States, about all but one of the issues that separate the United States and Iran. There was no response from the U.S. to that proposal,” said Parsi, Iranian-American author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.
Parsi summed up Iran’s proposal: full openness of Iran’s nuclear program; pressure on Hamas to end violence; co-operation against Al-Qaida; help to the U.S. in stabilizing Iraq; and signing of the Beirut Declaration that recognizes Israel when a Palestinian state is established. Only human rights abuses in Iran were not included. But the U.S. ignored Iran’s proposal. The White House felt regime change was better than anything they could get through negotiation. “The 1939 Hitler analogy [that diplomacy equals appeasement] is intended to eliminate diplomacy and make war inevitable.”
Finally, Dr. Cyrus Bina, professor of economics and management at the University of Minnesota-Morris, author of Economics of the Oil Crisis and an Iranian exile for four decades, echoed Parsi’s concerns about human rights abuses in Iran, but, passionately stated his position” The United States has no right to bomb Iran, regardless of [Iran’s] human rights [record].”
Bina, along with the other two Iran scholars, emphasized that history plays a strong role in Iran-U.S. tensions. After World War II, when British colonization of Iran ended, the U.S. overthrew Iran’s nationalistic progressive President Mosaddeq and installed the infamous Shah, who brutalized Iranians until the Islamic revolution in 1979, which included the hostage crisis where U.S. diplomats were held for over a year.
“The U.S. started this game in 1952. The hostage crisis was the reaction that started this chain reaction. There’s so much misinformation about Iran.” Bina said. “The American people must do their duty to prevent another tragedy.”
From this winter’s Pentagon videos, determined to be faked, about alleged “threats” from Iranian speedboats against U.S. warships (see www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval and www.alternet.org/story/73618/) to Israel’s Prime Minister asking Bush last week to enact a naval blockade against Iran, the U.S. seems to pushing for an attack on Iran.
Iran’s statements against nuclear arms
What is not mentioned in the major media is that Iran is among the 189 countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only four nations have not: U.S. allies Israel, India and Pakistan, all of which already have nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which may have been secretly trying to build them. The United States possesses 10,000 nuclear weapons—more than any other country—and is also the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons on human beings. While raising fears about non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration is pushing Congress to authorize billions of dollars to build a new generation of smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapons.
On August 9, 2005, it was announced that the highest authority in Iran (above President Ahmadinejad) the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa (religious edict based on primary sources of Islam and scholarly thinking) which stated tnat The production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Republic of Iran shall never acquire such weapons. This position is echoed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to pursue only Iran’s legal right to nuclear power under IAEA protocols. Western media, especially in the U.S. and Iran’s historic colonial ruler Britain, have misreported this religious prohibition against nuclear weapons to say its complete opposite. Most media have not mentioned the Islamic condemnation of nuclear weapons.
Most Americans know as little about Iran as they did about Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Given the continual revelations that the arguments for the 2003 U.S. attack on Iraq were built on sand, will the American people be more skeptical about attacking another Muslim country who has done nothing to the United States?
Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis-based independent journalist, winner of the 2007 Premack Award for Public Interest Journalism. She also hosts Catalyst: Politics & Culture, Fridays at 11 a.m. on KFAI 90.3/106.7 FM, archived at http://www.kfai.org/node/57
Preventing the Next War?
Posted June 6, 2008
Keith Ellison’s Iran Forum and the June 10 Call-In to Congress
By Lydia Howell
On May 28, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., hosted Iran scholars for a community forum in a packed hall at the First Unitarian Society church in Minneapolis. The focus was on the U.S.-Iran relationship, estranged for over 30 years, which many fear may become the next chapter in the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism.”
“Nary a day goes by that someone isn’t saying something abut Iran in the media. Part of my responsibility as a U.S. congressman is to be a forum to discuss the critical issues we face and to promote dialog about the most pressing issues,” said Ellison. “To quote [African-American writer] James Baldwin: Anything that cannot be faced cannot be fixed.”
In the first half of 2008, newspaper front pages and television news have begun repeating a message about a Middle Eastern country that has not attacked the United States but which allegedly “poses a grave threat,” “may build nuclear weapons” and “must be prevented from making war on its neighbors.” In 2002-3, such stories were about Iraq; now, Iran is being described in similar ways. No actual evidence is given for the frightening allegations about Iran—which are too often made by unnamed “Pentagon officials” or the same members of right-wing think tanks that previously pushed the disastrous attack on Iraq.
Ellison said the forum was in preparation for a national call-in June 10, when Americans are urged to phone their representatives and senators, urging that the U.S. not attack Iran. (The toll-free phone number to Congress is 1-888-851-1879.)
University of Minnesota professor William O. Beeman is that rare American: fluent in Farsi and a longtime scholar of Iran’s history and culture. His observations on the mounting crisis with Iran were drawn from his newest book on Iran, The Great Satan vs. Mad Mullahs, in which Beeman debunks the main myths being perpetrated by neo-conservatives who are pushing for a U.S. military attack on Iran before George W. Bush leaves office.
“There are three important myths being pushed by the Bush administration in the press and in speeches,” Beeman told the audience.
“First, that Iran has developed an illegal nuclear program. But, the fact is, the United States started Iran’s nuclear power program in the 1970s, and Iran has simply continued the U.S.-sponsored program. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on May 26,” said Beeman, chair of the U. of M.’s Anthropology Department.
Last December, the U.S. government’s National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE, a collaboration among 15 U.S. intelligence agencies) concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and had no nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007. The December 2007 NIE disavowed the 2005 NIE as “inaccurately reported.”
“The newest argument is that Iran is responsible for American deaths in Iraq. No evidence has been provided to prove that,” Beeman continued.
In fact, in May, the Pentagon had to retract statements about insurgents’ weapons being from Iraq. As the Los Angeles Times reported May 8 on its web site: “neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged [Iranian-originated] arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will. … Iraqi officials lately have backed off the accusations against Iran. A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.” Yet most media continue to repeat the allegation that Iran is supplying weapons to insrugents. (Gary Leupp, professor of history at Tufts University, regularly reports on foreign policy and writes extensively about the disinformation campaign against Iran on the web site CounterPunch: See www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html and www.counterpunch.org/leupp06042008.html.)
Wasted opportunity
Overlooked in the current drumbeat is that the Bush administration willfully wasted a chance for harmonious relations with Iran, Dr. Trita Parsi told the forum.
“In May 2003, Iran made a proposal delivered by the Swiss Ambassador, who is the official “stand-in” for the United States, about all but one of the issues that separate the United States and Iran. There was no response from the U.S. to that proposal,” said Parsi, Iranian-American author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.
Parsi summed up Iran’s proposal: full openness of Iran’s nuclear program; pressure on Hamas to end violence; co-operation against Al-Qaida; help to the U.S. in stabilizing Iraq; and signing of the Beirut Declaration that recognizes Israel when a Palestinian state is established. Only human rights abuses in Iran were not included. But the U.S. ignored Iran’s proposal. The White House felt regime change was better than anything they could get through negotiation. “The 1939 Hitler analogy [that diplomacy equals appeasement] is intended to eliminate diplomacy and make war inevitable.”
Finally, Dr. Cyrus Bina, professor of economics and management at the University of Minnesota-Morris, author of Economics of the Oil Crisis and an Iranian exile for four decades, echoed Parsi’s concerns about human rights abuses in Iran, but, passionately stated his position” The United States has no right to bomb Iran, regardless of [Iran’s] human rights [record].”
Bina, along with the other two Iran scholars, emphasized that history plays a strong role in Iran-U.S. tensions. After World War II, when British colonization of Iran ended, the U.S. overthrew Iran’s nationalistic progressive President Mosaddeq and installed the infamous Shah, who brutalized Iranians until the Islamic revolution in 1979, which included the hostage crisis where U.S. diplomats were held for over a year.
“The U.S. started this game in 1952. The hostage crisis was the reaction that started this chain reaction. There’s so much misinformation about Iran.” Bina said. “The American people must do their duty to prevent another tragedy.”
From this winter’s Pentagon videos, determined to be faked, about alleged “threats” from Iranian speedboats against U.S. warships (see www.democracynow.org/2008/1/11/us_backs_off_claim_of_naval and www.alternet.org/story/73618/) to Israel’s Prime Minister asking Bush last week to enact a naval blockade against Iran, the U.S. seems to pushing for an attack on Iran.
Iran’s statements against nuclear arms
What is not mentioned in the major media is that Iran is among the 189 countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only four nations have not: U.S. allies Israel, India and Pakistan, all of which already have nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which may have been secretly trying to build them. The United States possesses 10,000 nuclear weapons—more than any other country—and is also the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons on human beings. While raising fears about non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration is pushing Congress to authorize billions of dollars to build a new generation of smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapons.
On August 9, 2005, it was announced that the highest authority in Iran (above President Ahmadinejad) the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa (religious edict based on primary sources of Islam and scholarly thinking) which stated tnat The production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Republic of Iran shall never acquire such weapons. This position is echoed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to pursue only Iran’s legal right to nuclear power under IAEA protocols. Western media, especially in the U.S. and Iran’s historic colonial ruler Britain, have misreported this religious prohibition against nuclear weapons to say its complete opposite. Most media have not mentioned the Islamic condemnation of nuclear weapons.
Most Americans know as little about Iran as they did about Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Given the continual revelations that the arguments for the 2003 U.S. attack on Iraq were built on sand, will the American people be more skeptical about attacking another Muslim country who has done nothing to the United States?
Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis-based independent journalist, winner of the 2007 Premack Award for Public Interest Journalism. She also hosts Catalyst: Politics & Culture, Fridays at 11 a.m. on KFAI 90.3/106.7 FM, archived at http://www.kfai.org/node/57
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Scientists dig Indy's exploits - to a point
Scientists dig Indy's exploits - to a point
Archaeology professors and students get inspiration and a few chuckles from the "Indiana Jones" movies.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Thursday, May 22, 2008, p. E-1 ff.
By BILL WARD, Star Tribune
The new "Indiana Jones" movie inspired Rob Lusteck, an anthropology student working on his doctorate at the University of Minnesota.
"Ahh, the Indiana Jones effect," anthropology Prof. William Beeman intoned solemnly. It was clear what was coming next: a scholarly dismantling, a pedantic pooh-poohing, of Hollywood's glamorization and fabrications of a serious science.
Except. ...
"We love it," exclaimed the chair of the University of Minnesota's Department of Anthropology, which includes archaeology. "There's no question our enrollment goes up when one of these movies comes out. And not just Indy. We have the 'Lara Croft' effect, the 'CSI' effect."
This might explain why the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) last week named Harrison Ford to the organization's board of directors. The group promotes archaeological excavation, research, education and preservation worldwide, and AIA President Brian Rose said Ford's Indiana Jones character has played a major part in stimulating interest in archaeological exploration.
Ford's fictional exploits certainly reeled in Rob Lusteck when the U of M doctoral candidate was a boy. "I thought 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was the greatest film ever, or at least since 'Star Wars,'" Lusteck said. And because there was little likelihood of his becoming a Jedi warrior or even an X-Wing pilot in this lifetime, the kid from Jackson, Miss., opted for anthropology.
Fellow grad student Steven Blondo also was in second grade when he decided he would be an archaeologist. But he said the Indy movies "solidified my decision" more than spawning it. "I mean, who wouldn't want to escape giant boulders and Nazis without losing your hat and always getting the girl?" said the Minneapolis resident.
Fortunately for Beeman and his fellow professors, most students arrive knowing that there's little Hollywood-style derring-do and glamour in this field of study. For the others. ...
"We quickly disabuse them -- get them out on the site with the little sable brushes," he said. "But the truth is that once students get some real field experience, they get excited."
Down and dirty
Like most vocations, Lusteck and Blondo agreed, theirs is a mixed bag, with some of the more mundane work requiring an Indiana Jones-like ardor for the topic.
Lusteck called archaeology "incredibly interesting" and "tedious at times, but it is from the tedium that true discoveries are made." Blondo said he loves his work, but allowed that "there is a lot more research and paper-pushing than anyone realizes. You don't always get to go dig wherever you want to, and you can't pick up anything without first photographing and writing down where you found it."
Archaeology, a subfield of anthropology, is a meticulous vocation, involving a slow uncovering of the cultures of those who came before us.
"It starts with just dirt," said Beeman, "but you can uncover pottery and buildings and all sorts of stuff you didn't know was there -- just not necessarily the gold. But a whole pattern of existence of people who are long gone suddenly emerges before your eyes; that's the real wonder we want to inspire them with."
What, no treasure trove, no Ark of the Covenant?
"Though it would be nice to find the Holy Grail," said Blondo, "there is satisfaction learning about local history and putting together the pieces."
Laughing at the gaffes
Archaeology folks have a not-so-secret guilty pleasure: watching movies that portray their field and howling at the gaffes, which a group of students does every Thursday night. Portrayals of archaeologists as treasure hunters, often funded by mysterious benefactors, is only the half of it. Indeed, a lot of movies get the facts about half right.
"There's a scene in 'Holy Grail' where Indiana Jones enters a temple," said Beeman. "They went to Petra, Jordan, and filmed him entering a façade called the Treasury. It's the real deal and a wonderful façade, but it's just that: a façade. It goes back about 2 feet. When he enters and all of a sudden he's in a giant cavern with weird bridges, that's total fantasy. But the archaeological site is a real one."
And don't even get Beeman started on the recent movie "10,000 B.C." ("Oh, my goodness, it went beyond the pale, the mixup of time periods -- it was just hilarious") or the "Clan of the Cave Bear" books. "It's like they wake up and say 'OK, it's Monday, we're going to invent agriculture,' and then 'OK, it's Tuesday, we're going to invent pottery.' We get a huge laugh out of all this stuff."
Ironically, he added, movies and books are just about the only avenue for getting young folks interested in anthropology, which is rarely taught in elementary or high schools.
"No one is getting exposure to anthropology except through popular culture," Beeman said, adding that in these movies, "there's enough reality there to sort of launch the fantasy. If that's what hooks people into wanting to explore some of these ideas in greater depth, it's wonderful."
Bill Ward • 612-673-7643
Archaeology professors and students get inspiration and a few chuckles from the "Indiana Jones" movies.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Thursday, May 22, 2008, p. E-1 ff.
By BILL WARD, Star Tribune
The new "Indiana Jones" movie inspired Rob Lusteck, an anthropology student working on his doctorate at the University of Minnesota.
"Ahh, the Indiana Jones effect," anthropology Prof. William Beeman intoned solemnly. It was clear what was coming next: a scholarly dismantling, a pedantic pooh-poohing, of Hollywood's glamorization and fabrications of a serious science.
Except. ...
"We love it," exclaimed the chair of the University of Minnesota's Department of Anthropology, which includes archaeology. "There's no question our enrollment goes up when one of these movies comes out. And not just Indy. We have the 'Lara Croft' effect, the 'CSI' effect."
This might explain why the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) last week named Harrison Ford to the organization's board of directors. The group promotes archaeological excavation, research, education and preservation worldwide, and AIA President Brian Rose said Ford's Indiana Jones character has played a major part in stimulating interest in archaeological exploration.
Ford's fictional exploits certainly reeled in Rob Lusteck when the U of M doctoral candidate was a boy. "I thought 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was the greatest film ever, or at least since 'Star Wars,'" Lusteck said. And because there was little likelihood of his becoming a Jedi warrior or even an X-Wing pilot in this lifetime, the kid from Jackson, Miss., opted for anthropology.
Fellow grad student Steven Blondo also was in second grade when he decided he would be an archaeologist. But he said the Indy movies "solidified my decision" more than spawning it. "I mean, who wouldn't want to escape giant boulders and Nazis without losing your hat and always getting the girl?" said the Minneapolis resident.
Fortunately for Beeman and his fellow professors, most students arrive knowing that there's little Hollywood-style derring-do and glamour in this field of study. For the others. ...
"We quickly disabuse them -- get them out on the site with the little sable brushes," he said. "But the truth is that once students get some real field experience, they get excited."
Down and dirty
Like most vocations, Lusteck and Blondo agreed, theirs is a mixed bag, with some of the more mundane work requiring an Indiana Jones-like ardor for the topic.
Lusteck called archaeology "incredibly interesting" and "tedious at times, but it is from the tedium that true discoveries are made." Blondo said he loves his work, but allowed that "there is a lot more research and paper-pushing than anyone realizes. You don't always get to go dig wherever you want to, and you can't pick up anything without first photographing and writing down where you found it."
Archaeology, a subfield of anthropology, is a meticulous vocation, involving a slow uncovering of the cultures of those who came before us.
"It starts with just dirt," said Beeman, "but you can uncover pottery and buildings and all sorts of stuff you didn't know was there -- just not necessarily the gold. But a whole pattern of existence of people who are long gone suddenly emerges before your eyes; that's the real wonder we want to inspire them with."
What, no treasure trove, no Ark of the Covenant?
"Though it would be nice to find the Holy Grail," said Blondo, "there is satisfaction learning about local history and putting together the pieces."
Laughing at the gaffes
Archaeology folks have a not-so-secret guilty pleasure: watching movies that portray their field and howling at the gaffes, which a group of students does every Thursday night. Portrayals of archaeologists as treasure hunters, often funded by mysterious benefactors, is only the half of it. Indeed, a lot of movies get the facts about half right.
"There's a scene in 'Holy Grail' where Indiana Jones enters a temple," said Beeman. "They went to Petra, Jordan, and filmed him entering a façade called the Treasury. It's the real deal and a wonderful façade, but it's just that: a façade. It goes back about 2 feet. When he enters and all of a sudden he's in a giant cavern with weird bridges, that's total fantasy. But the archaeological site is a real one."
And don't even get Beeman started on the recent movie "10,000 B.C." ("Oh, my goodness, it went beyond the pale, the mixup of time periods -- it was just hilarious") or the "Clan of the Cave Bear" books. "It's like they wake up and say 'OK, it's Monday, we're going to invent agriculture,' and then 'OK, it's Tuesday, we're going to invent pottery.' We get a huge laugh out of all this stuff."
Ironically, he added, movies and books are just about the only avenue for getting young folks interested in anthropology, which is rarely taught in elementary or high schools.
"No one is getting exposure to anthropology except through popular culture," Beeman said, adding that in these movies, "there's enough reality there to sort of launch the fantasy. If that's what hooks people into wanting to explore some of these ideas in greater depth, it's wonderful."
Bill Ward • 612-673-7643
Friday, May 16, 2008
A Ruling Californians Can Love
A ruling Californians can love
Amid the intellectual arguments over gay marriage, real couples have waited decades to finally be treated with dignity.
By Gavin Newsom
May 16, 2008
CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS been a place where traditional class, race and gender barriers have been pushed aside by a spirit of equality and opportunity that says to all -- no matter who you are, no matter where you come from -- "It can be done."
In that spirit, yet one more barrier gave way when
the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to marry.
The court's ruling affirms the very best of what California represents: our long-standing commitment to equality and justice.
It was 60 years ago that the state Supreme Court ruled in Perez vs. Sharp that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional -- 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court would come to the same conclusion in Loving vs. Virginia. So in February 2004, when I ordered San Francisco's county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it was with full recognition that as goes California, so goes the nation.
This is a historic moment for California and our country. We have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation.
But the road ahead will be difficult. The same groups that sponsored Proposition 22, the ballot measure the court just overturned, are close to placing a measure on the November ballot that would write discrimination against gays and lesbians into our state Constitution. This effort would not only nullify Thursday's ruling, it could overturn existing laws granting the most basic rights to same-sex couples.
It is one thing to have an intellectual discussion about marriage equality. It is quite another to sit down with a loving couple of nearly 50 years and try to explain to them why they are being discriminated against by a government they help fund with their tax dollars.
When you sit down and learn a little about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin -- two women now in their 80s who have been together as a committed couple since the early 1950s -- you realize there are no intellectual arguments against marriage equality that survive one second in the real world. And there are no more rationales for delaying the fight for equality.
Phyllis and Del were the first to take wedding vows in San Francisco City Hall in 2004 -- vows that were invalidated by the state Supreme Court months later. Which is why it is so important that the court reject any request to delay implementation of Thursday's ruling until after the November election. This loving couple has been waiting decades for the same rights that straight couples enjoy. They have waited long enough.
In its correct and courageous move, the California Supreme Court affirmed an important principle. But it did so much more than that. It affirmed that the bond between these two people is as strong and loving and secure as any other marriage in this city, state or nation.
If they agree, I would like to officiate at another marriage for Phyllis and Del as soon as possible. And when I do, it will be much more than a legal principle we celebrate. It will be the life-affirming love between two fellow Californians.
We are no longer debating the principle of marriage equality in California. We are ready to put that principle into practice. I hope to see many more same-sex couples throughout the state married in the weeks and months ahead.
Come November we will, in all likelihood, have to defend these new marriages at the ballot box. I hope that before anyone makes up their mind on the issue of same-sex marriage, they will take a few minutes to meet some of the many, many people who are finally enjoying the rights the rest of us enjoy.
Like Phyllis and Del, who will finally be able to say "I do."
Anyone who meets these two wonderful women, or the thousands of couples soon to follow in their footsteps, surely can only reach the conclusion that we can't allow a wrongheaded ballot measure to take these marriages away.
Gavin Newsom is the mayor of San Francisco.
Monday, May 12, 2008
IRAQ: The Elusive Weapons--LA Times Babylon & Beyond Blog
(Note: Experts have been saying for more than two years that U.S. claims of Iranian supplied weapons in Iraq lack any credible proof. Michael O'Halloran of the American Enterprise Institute claimed that "over half" of the U.S. fatalities in Iraq have been killed by Iranian munitions. The article below demonstrates clearly that the U.S. Military has no proof whatever of Iranians supplying munitions in Iraq. --W. Beeman).
latimes.com Babylon & Beyond blog
IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons
There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner's introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word "Iran," or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
Weapons1_2Among other things, Bergner cited 20,000 "items of ammunition, explosives and weapons" reported by Iraqi forces in the central city of Karbala; an additional Karbala cache containing 570 explosive devices, nine mortars, four anti-aircraft missiles, and 45 RPGs; and in the southern city of Basra alone, 39 mortar tubes, 1,800 mortars and artillery rounds, 600 rockets, and 387 roadside bombs. Read his remarks here.
Not once did Bergner point the finger at Iran for any of these weapons and munitions, which is a striking change from just a couple of weeks ago when U.S. military officials here and at the Pentagon were saying that caches found in Basra in particular had revealed Iranian-made arms manufactured as recently as this year. They say the majority of rockets being fired at U.S. bases, including Baghdad's Green Zone, are launched by militiamen receiving training, arms and other aid from Iran.
Today brought fresh attacks, including an unusual barrage fired at a military base used by British and U.S. forces in Basra, in southern Iraq. A statement said "several" rockets hit the base during the afternoon, and that initial reports indicated two civilian contractors were killed, and four soldiers and four civilians injured.
It was the first reported attack of its kind since March 27 in Basra.
Iraqi officials also have accused Iran of meddling in violence and had echoed the U.S. accusations of new Iranian-made arms being found in Basra. But neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will. U.S. military officials said it was up to the Iraqis to show the items; Iraqi officials lately have backed off the accusations against Iran.
A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.
Iran, meanwhile, continues to seethe after an Iraqi delegation went to Tehran last week to confront it with the accusations. It has denied the accusations, and it says as long as U.S. forces continue to take part in military action in Iraq's Shiite strongholds, it won't consider holding further talks with Washington on how to stabilize Iraq.
—Tina Susman in Baghdad
Photo: Made in Iran? Not necessarily. Iraqi forces prepare to detonate weapons found earlier this month in Karbala. (Army Sgt. 1st Class Tami Hillis)
Del.icio.us!
latimes.com Babylon & Beyond blog
IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons
There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner's introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word "Iran," or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
Weapons1_2Among other things, Bergner cited 20,000 "items of ammunition, explosives and weapons" reported by Iraqi forces in the central city of Karbala; an additional Karbala cache containing 570 explosive devices, nine mortars, four anti-aircraft missiles, and 45 RPGs; and in the southern city of Basra alone, 39 mortar tubes, 1,800 mortars and artillery rounds, 600 rockets, and 387 roadside bombs. Read his remarks here.
Not once did Bergner point the finger at Iran for any of these weapons and munitions, which is a striking change from just a couple of weeks ago when U.S. military officials here and at the Pentagon were saying that caches found in Basra in particular had revealed Iranian-made arms manufactured as recently as this year. They say the majority of rockets being fired at U.S. bases, including Baghdad's Green Zone, are launched by militiamen receiving training, arms and other aid from Iran.
Today brought fresh attacks, including an unusual barrage fired at a military base used by British and U.S. forces in Basra, in southern Iraq. A statement said "several" rockets hit the base during the afternoon, and that initial reports indicated two civilian contractors were killed, and four soldiers and four civilians injured.
It was the first reported attack of its kind since March 27 in Basra.
Iraqi officials also have accused Iran of meddling in violence and had echoed the U.S. accusations of new Iranian-made arms being found in Basra. But neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will. U.S. military officials said it was up to the Iraqis to show the items; Iraqi officials lately have backed off the accusations against Iran.
A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.
Iran, meanwhile, continues to seethe after an Iraqi delegation went to Tehran last week to confront it with the accusations. It has denied the accusations, and it says as long as U.S. forces continue to take part in military action in Iraq's Shiite strongholds, it won't consider holding further talks with Washington on how to stabilize Iraq.
—Tina Susman in Baghdad
Photo: Made in Iran? Not necessarily. Iraqi forces prepare to detonate weapons found earlier this month in Karbala. (Army Sgt. 1st Class Tami Hillis)
Del.icio.us!
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Are these Syrian nuclear pictures faked? (The Guardian--UK)
Are these Syrian nuclear pictures faked?
* Ewen MacAskill
* The Guardian,
* Thursday May 1 2008
* Article history
About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday May 01 2008 on p3 of the Comment & features section. It was last updated at 00:10 on May 01 2008.
The CIA published three aerial photographs last week purporting to show a Syrian nuclear reactor, bombed by Israel last September. But are the pictures all that they seem? Doubts about their authenticity have been raised by Professor William Beeman, head of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, who has had a long involvement with the Middle East.
He posted on a Los Angeles Times website a note received from a "colleague with US security clearance" pointing out "irregularities". The unnamed colleague said a picture taken before the bombing looked as if it had been digitally enhanced, noting that the lower part of the building, the annexe and the windows pointing south appeared much sharper than the rest.
He also questioned why the alleged reactor had no air defences, no military checkpoints and no powerlines. Turning to two shots of the bombed building, he noted that the first showed a rectangular building and the second a square one. Were they the same building?
His note has produced lively and detailed exchanges, involving photo technicians, graphic artists and military analysts past and present, including a specialist in aerial reconnaissance. The basic divide is between those who think it is unpatriotic to question the Bush administration and those suspicious that it is a rerun of 2003, when the administration put out misleading intelligence before the Iraq invasion.
Bloggers supportive of the CIA acknowledge that the first picture was digitally enhanced but say that the CIA never claimed last week that it was untouched. As for the discrepancies between pictures two and three, they suggest that the differences between the rectangular shape and the square can be explained by having been taken at different angles.
Beeman told the Guardian he did not know one way or another whether there had been a nuclear reactor in the desert, but he had been concerned last week when the administration put out the pictures. "It was so sloppy and obviously doctored," he said.
"My friend who watches this material carefully in his capacity as an analyst said, 'This does not add up.'"
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
* Ewen MacAskill
* The Guardian,
* Thursday May 1 2008
* Article history
About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday May 01 2008 on p3 of the Comment & features section. It was last updated at 00:10 on May 01 2008.
The CIA published three aerial photographs last week purporting to show a Syrian nuclear reactor, bombed by Israel last September. But are the pictures all that they seem? Doubts about their authenticity have been raised by Professor William Beeman, head of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, who has had a long involvement with the Middle East.
He posted on a Los Angeles Times website a note received from a "colleague with US security clearance" pointing out "irregularities". The unnamed colleague said a picture taken before the bombing looked as if it had been digitally enhanced, noting that the lower part of the building, the annexe and the windows pointing south appeared much sharper than the rest.
He also questioned why the alleged reactor had no air defences, no military checkpoints and no powerlines. Turning to two shots of the bombed building, he noted that the first showed a rectangular building and the second a square one. Were they the same building?
His note has produced lively and detailed exchanges, involving photo technicians, graphic artists and military analysts past and present, including a specialist in aerial reconnaissance. The basic divide is between those who think it is unpatriotic to question the Bush administration and those suspicious that it is a rerun of 2003, when the administration put out misleading intelligence before the Iraq invasion.
Bloggers supportive of the CIA acknowledge that the first picture was digitally enhanced but say that the CIA never claimed last week that it was untouched. As for the discrepancies between pictures two and three, they suggest that the differences between the rectangular shape and the square can be explained by having been taken at different angles.
Beeman told the Guardian he did not know one way or another whether there had been a nuclear reactor in the desert, but he had been concerned last week when the administration put out the pictures. "It was so sloppy and obviously doctored," he said.
"My friend who watches this material carefully in his capacity as an analyst said, 'This does not add up.'"
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Syria: More questions about the alleged nuclear Site (LA Times)
latimes.com Babylon & Beyond blog
« ISRAEL: Death of the innocent | Main | IRAN: A Muslim actor as Jesus Christ »
SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site
Professor William Beeman at the University of Minnesota passed along a note today from "a colleague with a U.S. security clearance" about the mysterious Syrian site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike.
The note raises more questions about the evidence shown last week by U.S. intelligence officials to lawmakers in the House and Senate.
The author of the note pinpoints irregularities about the photographs. Beeman's source alleges that the CIA "enhanced" some of the images. For example he cites this image:
The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.
The author points to more questions about the photographs of the Syrian site.
1. Satellite photos of the alleged reactor building show no air defenses or anti-aircraft batteries such as the ones found around the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran.
2. The satellite images do not show any military checkpoints on roads near the building.
3. Where are the power lines? The photos show neither electricity lines or substations.
4. Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.
Now compare this photograph of the site:
Syria2_2
To this one:
Syria3_2
The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?
Thanks to Beeman, a professor of anthropology and Middle East studies as well as a member of the blogosphere, for allowing us to share his colleague's comments.
— Borzou Daragahi in Amman, Jordan
P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, the war in Iraq and the frictions between the West and Islam. You can subscribe by registering at the website here, logging in here and clicking on the World: Mideast newsletter box here.
03:25 PM PT, Apr 28 2008 in Israel , Nuclear Technology , Syria | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/816965/28584998
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site:
Comments
Scott Ritter pointed out yesterday that there would be no violation of the NPT unless they had introduced nuclear material to the site, then they would be obligated to declare it as a nuclear reactor. If they blew it up with nuclear material, there would be a measureable amount of radiation. So far there is none. He also stressed that this looked more like a test reactor, and not one that could produce enough plutonium to make a bomb. In addition there was the absence of fences around the perimeter, or guards. So Syria committed no "violations". Also, since no nuclear material was present, there is nothing for the IAEA to do, since without nuclear material, it's out of their jurisdiction.
Israel, on the other hand, bombed a sovereign nation without a declaration of war, which is a war crime.
In short, looks like another "yellow cake" affair. They blew up a hunk of concrete, nothing more. They broke international law to do it. And now they're trying to whip up international sediment against the Syrians for it. The whole thing smells like old fish on a hot day.
One note about the timing of the "coming out" of the recent information. It occurred the day after the biggest Israeli spy scandal since Jonathan Pollard. Turns out the Israeli spy network was much larger than previously thought. Seems like every time there's a story that hurts the Israelis or the US administration, the next day we see a big "fear monger" story. Tell me I'm wrong.
Posted by: Zardoz | April 29, 2008 at 06:53 AM
The destoyed building in top photo has as aspect ratio of .74/1.00.
The destroyed building in bottom photo has an aspect ratio of .95/1.00.
The difference in angle for aerial photos is not going to account for that great a difference. They are not the same building.
Posted by: bobdevo | April 29, 2008 at 06:45 AM
Hahaha, this is a 3-d representation of the building. I'm surprised nobody at the Times saw the actual video presentation. (for the video and some more intelligent commentary, go to armscontrolwonk.com )
the discrepancy in the shadows is because the two pictures were taken from a slightly different angle. Jeez. There's enough to criticize in this story without this.
Posted by: Nate | April 29, 2008 at 06:44 AM
Sounds like the LA Times and it's far left minions are using their 9-11 conspiracy caps again barking up this tree here. Ugh...
Posted by: Effivin Cod | April 29, 2008 at 06:40 AM
LA Times,
Thanks for the Syria version of events. It's good to know America's enemies have a friend and voice in this country to spin for them plotting to kill thousands of people.
Are you guys aware of how dangerous it is what you are doing or are you leftists that willing to be useful idiots for our enemies?
Posted by: Effivin Cod | April 29, 2008 at 06:38 AM
As a Professional Retoucher, I would have to say that the professor is right on the money. The Photos have been retouched. To really tell, see if there is any way to seethe original released pictures. If there was retouching there will be tell-tale differences in the pixelation when viewing the photo's various channels.
Posted by: Ed | April 29, 2008 at 06:21 AM
Israel, who's sitting on 'X' amount of unlawfully obtained and maintained nukes and who is allied with the U.S. who sits on 'XXXX' nukes illegally attacks Seria who has '0' nukes. What's wrong with this picture is not the picture at all; it's the international laws that are being blatently ignored by the US and Israel in persuit of their Imperialist aims.
You can't be attacked by the knee-jerk authoritarians in this thread-- who believe that anyone but the U.S. and Israel who even THINKS about defending themselves with nukes-- should be "obliterated" if you just stick to the facts--rules of international law--and skip speculating about faked photos.
Posted by: Antiup | April 29, 2008 at 05:57 AM
Be sure to see Scott Ritter's take on the affair here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/un_nuclear_watchdog_chief_blasts_us
Posted by: Eli Stephens | April 29, 2008 at 05:56 AM
I have been photoshopping since 1992 or 3 -- or since version 2. - Without a speck of reservation -- THOSE PHOTOS ARE PHOTOSHOPPED - digitally enhanced. America - you've been dupped -- AGAIN! It's time to take this Government DOWN -- IMPEACH IMPEACH the lying thieving bastards....!!
Posted by: Marc W | April 29, 2008 at 05:42 AM
So I hadn't seen the "VOAvideo" on YouTube before writing my earlier comment about the necessary cooling tower or other cooling facilities. It is the claim of US authorities that cooling water was pumped from the nearby Euphrates river to cool a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled, plutonium-production reactor. The coolant is a major point of the video, and the ancillary facilities (a pump house, buried storage pond, gas-to-coolant heat exchangers, etc.) are all indicated as well.
The problem is almost all of these data are suggested by computer-generated graphics. It is unclear what actual photographic evidence exists to support these various claims.
Surely, the IAEA must have some sort of independent analysis to support, or not support, the US interpretation. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Syria is a signatory nation and a declared "non-nuclear-weapon State" -- the IAEA has certain inspection rights under Article III and other provisions.
What does the IAEA have to say about these claims about a plutonium-production reactor? Surely. the IAEA would have conducted on-site inspections of the ruins by now. If Syria has been such a flagrant violator of its treaty obligations as a non-nuclear-weapons State, wouldn't the IAEA have something to say?
See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
Posted by: Theophilus | April 29, 2008 at 05:27 AM
"Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?"
Did any of you "CIA IS BAD!" conspiracy theorists see the videos on youtube? The first photo is from A COMPUTER GENERATED VIDEO!!!!!!!!!
1. Syria built a second building AROUND (and over) the reactor was built to change the outline in order to be covert (may they just wanted a more asthetically pleasing useless building in the middle of nowhere)
2. There were pipes from the Euphrates river bringing up cooling water to a underground holding tank and another returning heated water from the "reactor" back to the river. Probably just a useless building on the middle of nowhere... that needed a lot of water.
Good, Gosh! Another MSM hatchet job w/ no proof or clue. Methinks your heads are buried deeper than the remains of this reactor.
Posted by: Brad | April 29, 2008 at 04:10 AM
But it has to be real because Diane Feinstein said that she was briefed about this and well it just has to be true don't you know. Why would those experts say it was true if it wasn't. Yada, yada, yada. She needs to go!
FEINSTEIN: Well, Wolf, the Senate Intelligence Committee did have a classified briefing. And I can say this, based on the analysis of the people that were there, namely Admiral McConnell, General Hayden and national security adviser -- the national security adviser, the facility was not configured for civilian use. They had a number of I think documenting points to make the case that this was, in fact, a nuclear weapons facility.
Now, having said that, I was surprised that they hadn't given the information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I was also surprised by the timing of it, because there have been some reports that Israel and Syria were looking at a settlement, quite possibly, and this could very well disrupt that settlement. So I...
BLITZER: But you believe -- based on what you know, Senator Feinstein, you believe that this was a nuclear reactor that North Korea was constructing in Syria?
FEINSTEIN: Look, none of us on the committee are nuclear experts. We take the views of nuclear experts. According to those experts, the answer is yes, this was a nuclear facility. I would be very surprised if it turned out to be anything other than that.
Posted by: pmorlan | April 29, 2008 at 03:49 AM
Has anyone asked whether they pulled the appropriate building permits? No cooler tower, no power lines, etc. Obviously shoddy workmanship.
OK. So hopefully you had a quick laugh from this scary stuff.
Posted by: Luca Ponti | April 29, 2008 at 01:49 AM
I say, digitally plonk a few granite columns at the front and drop the bloody thing in Washington, DC. It'd fit right in with the neo-classical mythology of the damn place.
Posted by: Novista | April 29, 2008 at 12:38 AM
The obviously doctored photo looks like the building has been created in a 3D rendering package like Strata 3D.
Extremely poorly done. I could do a much better job in 30 minutes.
For some time now the government has obviously felt so powerful that it doesn't need to try too hard with its bogus evidence. Plausible deniability is the term, I believe.
Posted by: bern Dell | April 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM
The article is specific to the subject of whether these photographs (or representation in the case of the first image) are genuine. It's a valid, healthy question.
But that's a bit of a red herring in terms of what's happening right now. What we should be asking:
1) The Israeli strike took place on 6 September, 2007, at which time it was mentioned discreetly in various media. Why is the White House publicizing the attack in April 2008? What other current events may be related to or impacted by this news?
2) Why is the United States publicizing this information instead of Israel?
3) Does anybody benefit from the publicizing of this information? If so, who benefits and in what way?
If you pay attention, there is a great deal of tension between the US and Israel right now -- perhaps so much as to be unprecedented. This is an interesting article, even if it is highly inaccurate, but if you narrow the focus of your questioning to something so granular, you're going to miss the big picture. No bad pun intended. ;]
Posted by: Phillip | April 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Um, if that's a reactor, where's the cooling tower? There is clearly one at the N. korean site, and it would be pretty insade to not have a way of drawing heat from the reactor core.
Posted by: Squeegee | April 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM
My question is -- if this is a nuclear-reactor facility, where's the cooling tower?
All nuclear reactors, even very small research ones, require a fairly large cooling towers. I live two blocks from MIT's research reactor in Cambridge, which operates with less than a few kW; nonetheless, it has an adjacent slat-type cooling tower about the size of a small house. If this were a plutonium-production reactor, it would work with hundreds to thousands of times the thermal output, and it would require either a comparably larger cooling tower, or would need a large cooling pond or an adjacent river into which to reject its waste heat. But I see no obvious evidence of such a tower or alternative cooling apparatus.
Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?
Posted by: Theophilus | April 28, 2008 at 11:38 PM
The first picture is obviously CGI...because it is from a CGI video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah6RmcewUM
Posted by: random bystander | April 28, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I'm a professional graphic designer and work with Photoshop every day in my work. I concur with Illustrator's comments about the first image. It has been heavily and inexpertly modified using digital means, and as such should not be regarded as a useful piece of information unless further explanations were forthcoming regarding the manipulation of the image.
Regarding the two images of the bombed structure, I also agree with others here in that there is no obvious graphic manipulation. There are none of the telltale digital artifacts that usually accompany modification, and the apparent differences in the site are due to the different times of day and viewing angle.
Posted by: bluestatedon | April 28, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I am a professional illustrator, using Photoshop everyday. The top photo is obviously Photoshopped. The giveaways are the shadows- the 'hook" in the shadow of the front gable is rounded- this is a classic trace left by an inexpert use of the eraser tool set to a soft feather. Additionally, the shadow is the wrong shape, and is too simple. Further, the shadow on the shaded side of the structure is all the same value and hue. This is incorrect and is characteristic of invented structures with bad painting.
This image is heavily modified, and may be entirely fake. At the very least, someone tried to change it, and botched the job.
Posted by: illustrator | April 28, 2008 at 09:40 PM
I have some serious issues with the weight of this " colleague with a U.S. security clearance".
First, yes - the top photo was enhanced, but it's a still from a 3D enhanced video (linked just above it). It wasn't enhanced to fool anyone, it was enhanced with advanced methods - not some Photoshop hack job.
Also, the bottom two photos are the same building - taken at different times of the day from slightly different angles.
As well, the photo comparison to the N. Korean facility would be easier to see if you flipped one of the images, they are currently oriented opposite of each other - as is the top image in comparison to the bottom two images.
I'm a former AF imagery analyst and I'm actually more convinced now that this was a real facility than I was before seeing the evidence.
The facilities are very similar, considering they were built 35 years apart - the subtle differences can be accounted for by looking at the building post destruction.
Posted by: Shawn | April 28, 2008 at 09:31 PM
The photo at the top looks a lot like the kind of image you'd find in a common videogame. It looks like 3d geometry textured with low res images and rendered in a 3d game application.
Thats why you see the sharp details on the front of the building and the unrealistic reflections of the windows.
Posted by: jeff | April 28, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Rebuttal reasons
1) put SAM sites around and you might as well flag the area for containing something of value
2) ditto
3) Graphite core reactors only require only a little power to operate..obviously something was powering up the pumping station down at the river. There is a building just to the north west that could be a generator building and a diesel plant could be built nearby in short order to supply enough power for full operation
4) one photo is directly overhead the other from a side angle ...distortion will occur from that alone.
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 28, 2008 at 08:58 PM
It's obviously a 3D representation of the building. The CIA is displaying some of its more sophisticated satellite based radar mapping or equivalent tech. This is how modern militaries map out the battlefield. This is not photoshop.
Posted by: Jesse | April 28, 2008 at 08:48 PM
The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?
The pictures were taken from different satellites at a different time of day which accounts for some of the oddities. But the resolution we see is not even worth attempting to identify. It could be anything. Both satellites have the ability to read a phone number on a desk in those buildings, if they are even the same building. One looks like a mock-up.
This is not evidence of anything. It's more blarney. Bush will use the same kind of 'evidence' to bomb Iran, and it will be a huge mistake. Like Iraq, except with even more unimaginable consequences.
Posted by: tc399 | April 28, 2008 at 08:39 PM
It seems that we are being lied to again--lied into another probable war. Who is running our country, demons from hell?
Posted by: Aride | April 28, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Given the Bush Administration's pattern of near-absolute deceit, all evidence they produce on any subject should be considered suspect.
Posted by: DanR | April 28, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Make no mistake - the Bush crazies are going to attack Iran. They are looking everywhere for pretext.
Unfortunately the world is not buying it. The only way they will get their justification will be a false flag attack against an American warship in the Gulf or "terrorist" attack in the U.S. Homeland. I expect this within 60 days as they have to go into Iran before August.
Just Google Earth Iran - it's all friken mountains - a horrible place for an infantry offense and an air attack is just going to poke a stick in the bee's nest.
It will be the final death knell for the American economy as if these crooks and war criminals haven't done their best to destroy us in the last 8 years.
Posted by: Bill S | April 28, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Hey, those final two photos are taken from two different angles.
The first is nearly straight above birds-eye-view and the second, "square" shape is taken from a lower angle that faces the front wall of the building. You can see the walls in it and not in the "rectangle" straight above view.
When you tilt your angle like that, shapes shorten vertically.
Come to think of it, the first photo looks like a google-earth 3D building overlay - sharp corners and shapes with very low resolution photographic textures on.
I won't claim any knowledge of nuclear plants but just answering the questions posed in this post.
Posted by: Observant Person | April 28, 2008 at 07:28 PM
I have analyzed sat images professionally for 4 years
I can't explain the first shot. Maybe there is a quality to windows that cause their light band signature to be sharper?
The second comparison shots that the author though were different shapes is really typical in sat images from different times and angles. I am sure that is nothing more than phones fooling the eye.
Just look at the underground entrance on the top photo, due to the difference in shadow and angle you almost can't see it in the second
Posted by: guest | April 28, 2008 at 07:27 PM
The last two photos likely look different because they were taken at different angles. The first one is obviously right overhead, while the second one is at an angle. Besides, that wouldn't gain anyone anything. As far as the first one, it looks to me like it was 3D rendered using the image as textures... which is weird, but could account for the sharpness of the lower roof. Disclaimer: This is the opinion of a novice.
Posted by: Nick B | April 28, 2008 at 07:18 PM
I too was puzzled about the lack of utility power.
I scoured Google Earth, and there are no power
lines for miles. And I would guess that most of
the processes inside a nuke facility would require
an awful large supply. I have to imagine the need
for cooling water, etc. and these would require
hundreds of amps of AC. And to anyone that thinks that it's
an issue of visibility vs. resolution limits of GE,
I've found many cases of just residential power that's easily
visible, let alone 3 phase megawatt towers needed for
a facility like this.
ld
Posted by: D Dulmage | April 28, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Sounds like LA Times is engaged in another hatchet job like
P .Diddy knocked off Tupac.
Those of us who are in intelligence clearly understand what the problem with the picture is.
Posted by: Navin | April 28, 2008 at 06:40 PM
The first image is a composite and is taken from the fly-through at the beginning of the presentation. It's make with similar technology that google earth and google sketchup use so no, it's not an "actual" photograph.
As for the questions, here are answers:
1. Air Defenses clue in intelligence agencies that something is important. The entire point of this facility was that it was covert. For an extended explanation, see this: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/04/syria-and-north-korea-nuclear-partners.html
2. See answer to #1
3. Powerlines are not needed unless the reactor intends to produce electricity. And anyway, at one corner of the building there is a single powerline coming in to provide power to the facility.
4. Yongbyon (the DPRK facility) has so many buildings because there is so much going on there. There are two reactors (one uncompleted), a fuel fabrication plant and rreprocessing plant, among other things.
Finally, the square vs rectangle is the result of the angle the to two images were taken. In the first, the shot it almost directly overhead - in the second, it's at an oblique angle. Unlike the movies, not all satellite imagery is straight down.
Posted by: Andy | April 28, 2008 at 06:35 PM
The question of after touching on the Photos is an important one, but before we jump to any conclusion maybe we should think about the fact that the NRO and CIA are known to digitally downgrade Sat imagery to protect the classified specs of the collection assets
Posted by: Sam | April 28, 2008 at 06:13 PM
As someone who has worked with satellite imagery before, I can safely say the top image was touched up to bring faint elements into focus. The difference between the bottom two photos is created by (A) the angle of the photo (B) damage to the building, whether by attack or collapse of a section post-attack. Imagery is never "straight-up" and requires a trained eye; this has been true ever since the first photographic reconnaissance flights by balloon in the US Civil War. There are WWII recon photos that still stump trainees in service schools throughout DOD. I'll never forget a photo at which I stared for what seemed an hour, increasingly sure that I was seeing ICBM silos. But not: they were tethered cows in a field, and they had eaten circles of grass around their pinions.
Posted by: Matt Osborne | April 28, 2008 at 06:10 PM
« ISRAEL: Death of the innocent | Main | IRAN: A Muslim actor as Jesus Christ »
SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site
Professor William Beeman at the University of Minnesota passed along a note today from "a colleague with a U.S. security clearance" about the mysterious Syrian site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike.
The note raises more questions about the evidence shown last week by U.S. intelligence officials to lawmakers in the House and Senate.
The author of the note pinpoints irregularities about the photographs. Beeman's source alleges that the CIA "enhanced" some of the images. For example he cites this image:
The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.
The author points to more questions about the photographs of the Syrian site.
1. Satellite photos of the alleged reactor building show no air defenses or anti-aircraft batteries such as the ones found around the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran.
2. The satellite images do not show any military checkpoints on roads near the building.
3. Where are the power lines? The photos show neither electricity lines or substations.
4. Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.
Now compare this photograph of the site:
Syria2_2
To this one:
Syria3_2
The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?
Thanks to Beeman, a professor of anthropology and Middle East studies as well as a member of the blogosphere, for allowing us to share his colleague's comments.
— Borzou Daragahi in Amman, Jordan
P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East, the war in Iraq and the frictions between the West and Islam. You can subscribe by registering at the website here, logging in here and clicking on the World: Mideast newsletter box here.
03:25 PM PT, Apr 28 2008 in Israel , Nuclear Technology , Syria | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/816965/28584998
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site:
Comments
Scott Ritter pointed out yesterday that there would be no violation of the NPT unless they had introduced nuclear material to the site, then they would be obligated to declare it as a nuclear reactor. If they blew it up with nuclear material, there would be a measureable amount of radiation. So far there is none. He also stressed that this looked more like a test reactor, and not one that could produce enough plutonium to make a bomb. In addition there was the absence of fences around the perimeter, or guards. So Syria committed no "violations". Also, since no nuclear material was present, there is nothing for the IAEA to do, since without nuclear material, it's out of their jurisdiction.
Israel, on the other hand, bombed a sovereign nation without a declaration of war, which is a war crime.
In short, looks like another "yellow cake" affair. They blew up a hunk of concrete, nothing more. They broke international law to do it. And now they're trying to whip up international sediment against the Syrians for it. The whole thing smells like old fish on a hot day.
One note about the timing of the "coming out" of the recent information. It occurred the day after the biggest Israeli spy scandal since Jonathan Pollard. Turns out the Israeli spy network was much larger than previously thought. Seems like every time there's a story that hurts the Israelis or the US administration, the next day we see a big "fear monger" story. Tell me I'm wrong.
Posted by: Zardoz | April 29, 2008 at 06:53 AM
The destoyed building in top photo has as aspect ratio of .74/1.00.
The destroyed building in bottom photo has an aspect ratio of .95/1.00.
The difference in angle for aerial photos is not going to account for that great a difference. They are not the same building.
Posted by: bobdevo | April 29, 2008 at 06:45 AM
Hahaha, this is a 3-d representation of the building. I'm surprised nobody at the Times saw the actual video presentation. (for the video and some more intelligent commentary, go to armscontrolwonk.com )
the discrepancy in the shadows is because the two pictures were taken from a slightly different angle. Jeez. There's enough to criticize in this story without this.
Posted by: Nate | April 29, 2008 at 06:44 AM
Sounds like the LA Times and it's far left minions are using their 9-11 conspiracy caps again barking up this tree here. Ugh...
Posted by: Effivin Cod | April 29, 2008 at 06:40 AM
LA Times,
Thanks for the Syria version of events. It's good to know America's enemies have a friend and voice in this country to spin for them plotting to kill thousands of people.
Are you guys aware of how dangerous it is what you are doing or are you leftists that willing to be useful idiots for our enemies?
Posted by: Effivin Cod | April 29, 2008 at 06:38 AM
As a Professional Retoucher, I would have to say that the professor is right on the money. The Photos have been retouched. To really tell, see if there is any way to seethe original released pictures. If there was retouching there will be tell-tale differences in the pixelation when viewing the photo's various channels.
Posted by: Ed | April 29, 2008 at 06:21 AM
Israel, who's sitting on 'X' amount of unlawfully obtained and maintained nukes and who is allied with the U.S. who sits on 'XXXX' nukes illegally attacks Seria who has '0' nukes. What's wrong with this picture is not the picture at all; it's the international laws that are being blatently ignored by the US and Israel in persuit of their Imperialist aims.
You can't be attacked by the knee-jerk authoritarians in this thread-- who believe that anyone but the U.S. and Israel who even THINKS about defending themselves with nukes-- should be "obliterated" if you just stick to the facts--rules of international law--and skip speculating about faked photos.
Posted by: Antiup | April 29, 2008 at 05:57 AM
Be sure to see Scott Ritter's take on the affair here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/un_nuclear_watchdog_chief_blasts_us
Posted by: Eli Stephens | April 29, 2008 at 05:56 AM
I have been photoshopping since 1992 or 3 -- or since version 2. - Without a speck of reservation -- THOSE PHOTOS ARE PHOTOSHOPPED - digitally enhanced. America - you've been dupped -- AGAIN! It's time to take this Government DOWN -- IMPEACH IMPEACH the lying thieving bastards....!!
Posted by: Marc W | April 29, 2008 at 05:42 AM
So I hadn't seen the "VOAvideo" on YouTube before writing my earlier comment about the necessary cooling tower or other cooling facilities. It is the claim of US authorities that cooling water was pumped from the nearby Euphrates river to cool a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled, plutonium-production reactor. The coolant is a major point of the video, and the ancillary facilities (a pump house, buried storage pond, gas-to-coolant heat exchangers, etc.) are all indicated as well.
The problem is almost all of these data are suggested by computer-generated graphics. It is unclear what actual photographic evidence exists to support these various claims.
Surely, the IAEA must have some sort of independent analysis to support, or not support, the US interpretation. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Syria is a signatory nation and a declared "non-nuclear-weapon State" -- the IAEA has certain inspection rights under Article III and other provisions.
What does the IAEA have to say about these claims about a plutonium-production reactor? Surely. the IAEA would have conducted on-site inspections of the ruins by now. If Syria has been such a flagrant violator of its treaty obligations as a non-nuclear-weapons State, wouldn't the IAEA have something to say?
See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
Posted by: Theophilus | April 29, 2008 at 05:27 AM
"Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?"
Did any of you "CIA IS BAD!" conspiracy theorists see the videos on youtube? The first photo is from A COMPUTER GENERATED VIDEO!!!!!!!!!
1. Syria built a second building AROUND (and over) the reactor was built to change the outline in order to be covert (may they just wanted a more asthetically pleasing useless building in the middle of nowhere)
2. There were pipes from the Euphrates river bringing up cooling water to a underground holding tank and another returning heated water from the "reactor" back to the river. Probably just a useless building on the middle of nowhere... that needed a lot of water.
Good, Gosh! Another MSM hatchet job w/ no proof or clue. Methinks your heads are buried deeper than the remains of this reactor.
Posted by: Brad | April 29, 2008 at 04:10 AM
But it has to be real because Diane Feinstein said that she was briefed about this and well it just has to be true don't you know. Why would those experts say it was true if it wasn't. Yada, yada, yada. She needs to go!
FEINSTEIN: Well, Wolf, the Senate Intelligence Committee did have a classified briefing. And I can say this, based on the analysis of the people that were there, namely Admiral McConnell, General Hayden and national security adviser -- the national security adviser, the facility was not configured for civilian use. They had a number of I think documenting points to make the case that this was, in fact, a nuclear weapons facility.
Now, having said that, I was surprised that they hadn't given the information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I was also surprised by the timing of it, because there have been some reports that Israel and Syria were looking at a settlement, quite possibly, and this could very well disrupt that settlement. So I...
BLITZER: But you believe -- based on what you know, Senator Feinstein, you believe that this was a nuclear reactor that North Korea was constructing in Syria?
FEINSTEIN: Look, none of us on the committee are nuclear experts. We take the views of nuclear experts. According to those experts, the answer is yes, this was a nuclear facility. I would be very surprised if it turned out to be anything other than that.
Posted by: pmorlan | April 29, 2008 at 03:49 AM
Has anyone asked whether they pulled the appropriate building permits? No cooler tower, no power lines, etc. Obviously shoddy workmanship.
OK. So hopefully you had a quick laugh from this scary stuff.
Posted by: Luca Ponti | April 29, 2008 at 01:49 AM
I say, digitally plonk a few granite columns at the front and drop the bloody thing in Washington, DC. It'd fit right in with the neo-classical mythology of the damn place.
Posted by: Novista | April 29, 2008 at 12:38 AM
The obviously doctored photo looks like the building has been created in a 3D rendering package like Strata 3D.
Extremely poorly done. I could do a much better job in 30 minutes.
For some time now the government has obviously felt so powerful that it doesn't need to try too hard with its bogus evidence. Plausible deniability is the term, I believe.
Posted by: bern Dell | April 29, 2008 at 12:15 AM
The article is specific to the subject of whether these photographs (or representation in the case of the first image) are genuine. It's a valid, healthy question.
But that's a bit of a red herring in terms of what's happening right now. What we should be asking:
1) The Israeli strike took place on 6 September, 2007, at which time it was mentioned discreetly in various media. Why is the White House publicizing the attack in April 2008? What other current events may be related to or impacted by this news?
2) Why is the United States publicizing this information instead of Israel?
3) Does anybody benefit from the publicizing of this information? If so, who benefits and in what way?
If you pay attention, there is a great deal of tension between the US and Israel right now -- perhaps so much as to be unprecedented. This is an interesting article, even if it is highly inaccurate, but if you narrow the focus of your questioning to something so granular, you're going to miss the big picture. No bad pun intended. ;]
Posted by: Phillip | April 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Um, if that's a reactor, where's the cooling tower? There is clearly one at the N. korean site, and it would be pretty insade to not have a way of drawing heat from the reactor core.
Posted by: Squeegee | April 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM
My question is -- if this is a nuclear-reactor facility, where's the cooling tower?
All nuclear reactors, even very small research ones, require a fairly large cooling towers. I live two blocks from MIT's research reactor in Cambridge, which operates with less than a few kW; nonetheless, it has an adjacent slat-type cooling tower about the size of a small house. If this were a plutonium-production reactor, it would work with hundreds to thousands of times the thermal output, and it would require either a comparably larger cooling tower, or would need a large cooling pond or an adjacent river into which to reject its waste heat. But I see no obvious evidence of such a tower or alternative cooling apparatus.
Note the North Korean facility has a very large hyperbolic cooling tower nearby. I suppose if there were a substantial water supply, you might use some sort of drilled well to reject waste heat -- but this would require a lot of water and a lot of work. Is there any evidence for how they got rid of waste heat, if this were a reactor facility?
Posted by: Theophilus | April 28, 2008 at 11:38 PM
The first picture is obviously CGI...because it is from a CGI video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ah6RmcewUM
Posted by: random bystander | April 28, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I'm a professional graphic designer and work with Photoshop every day in my work. I concur with Illustrator's comments about the first image. It has been heavily and inexpertly modified using digital means, and as such should not be regarded as a useful piece of information unless further explanations were forthcoming regarding the manipulation of the image.
Regarding the two images of the bombed structure, I also agree with others here in that there is no obvious graphic manipulation. There are none of the telltale digital artifacts that usually accompany modification, and the apparent differences in the site are due to the different times of day and viewing angle.
Posted by: bluestatedon | April 28, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I am a professional illustrator, using Photoshop everyday. The top photo is obviously Photoshopped. The giveaways are the shadows- the 'hook" in the shadow of the front gable is rounded- this is a classic trace left by an inexpert use of the eraser tool set to a soft feather. Additionally, the shadow is the wrong shape, and is too simple. Further, the shadow on the shaded side of the structure is all the same value and hue. This is incorrect and is characteristic of invented structures with bad painting.
This image is heavily modified, and may be entirely fake. At the very least, someone tried to change it, and botched the job.
Posted by: illustrator | April 28, 2008 at 09:40 PM
I have some serious issues with the weight of this " colleague with a U.S. security clearance".
First, yes - the top photo was enhanced, but it's a still from a 3D enhanced video (linked just above it). It wasn't enhanced to fool anyone, it was enhanced with advanced methods - not some Photoshop hack job.
Also, the bottom two photos are the same building - taken at different times of the day from slightly different angles.
As well, the photo comparison to the N. Korean facility would be easier to see if you flipped one of the images, they are currently oriented opposite of each other - as is the top image in comparison to the bottom two images.
I'm a former AF imagery analyst and I'm actually more convinced now that this was a real facility than I was before seeing the evidence.
The facilities are very similar, considering they were built 35 years apart - the subtle differences can be accounted for by looking at the building post destruction.
Posted by: Shawn | April 28, 2008 at 09:31 PM
The photo at the top looks a lot like the kind of image you'd find in a common videogame. It looks like 3d geometry textured with low res images and rendered in a 3d game application.
Thats why you see the sharp details on the front of the building and the unrealistic reflections of the windows.
Posted by: jeff | April 28, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Rebuttal reasons
1) put SAM sites around and you might as well flag the area for containing something of value
2) ditto
3) Graphite core reactors only require only a little power to operate..obviously something was powering up the pumping station down at the river. There is a building just to the north west that could be a generator building and a diesel plant could be built nearby in short order to supply enough power for full operation
4) one photo is directly overhead the other from a side angle ...distortion will occur from that alone.
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 28, 2008 at 08:58 PM
It's obviously a 3D representation of the building. The CIA is displaying some of its more sophisticated satellite based radar mapping or equivalent tech. This is how modern militaries map out the battlefield. This is not photoshop.
Posted by: Jesse | April 28, 2008 at 08:48 PM
The site looks like a rectangle in the first shot, but more like a square in the second shot. Huh?
The pictures were taken from different satellites at a different time of day which accounts for some of the oddities. But the resolution we see is not even worth attempting to identify. It could be anything. Both satellites have the ability to read a phone number on a desk in those buildings, if they are even the same building. One looks like a mock-up.
This is not evidence of anything. It's more blarney. Bush will use the same kind of 'evidence' to bomb Iran, and it will be a huge mistake. Like Iraq, except with even more unimaginable consequences.
Posted by: tc399 | April 28, 2008 at 08:39 PM
It seems that we are being lied to again--lied into another probable war. Who is running our country, demons from hell?
Posted by: Aride | April 28, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Given the Bush Administration's pattern of near-absolute deceit, all evidence they produce on any subject should be considered suspect.
Posted by: DanR | April 28, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Make no mistake - the Bush crazies are going to attack Iran. They are looking everywhere for pretext.
Unfortunately the world is not buying it. The only way they will get their justification will be a false flag attack against an American warship in the Gulf or "terrorist" attack in the U.S. Homeland. I expect this within 60 days as they have to go into Iran before August.
Just Google Earth Iran - it's all friken mountains - a horrible place for an infantry offense and an air attack is just going to poke a stick in the bee's nest.
It will be the final death knell for the American economy as if these crooks and war criminals haven't done their best to destroy us in the last 8 years.
Posted by: Bill S | April 28, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Hey, those final two photos are taken from two different angles.
The first is nearly straight above birds-eye-view and the second, "square" shape is taken from a lower angle that faces the front wall of the building. You can see the walls in it and not in the "rectangle" straight above view.
When you tilt your angle like that, shapes shorten vertically.
Come to think of it, the first photo looks like a google-earth 3D building overlay - sharp corners and shapes with very low resolution photographic textures on.
I won't claim any knowledge of nuclear plants but just answering the questions posed in this post.
Posted by: Observant Person | April 28, 2008 at 07:28 PM
I have analyzed sat images professionally for 4 years
I can't explain the first shot. Maybe there is a quality to windows that cause their light band signature to be sharper?
The second comparison shots that the author though were different shapes is really typical in sat images from different times and angles. I am sure that is nothing more than phones fooling the eye.
Just look at the underground entrance on the top photo, due to the difference in shadow and angle you almost can't see it in the second
Posted by: guest | April 28, 2008 at 07:27 PM
The last two photos likely look different because they were taken at different angles. The first one is obviously right overhead, while the second one is at an angle. Besides, that wouldn't gain anyone anything. As far as the first one, it looks to me like it was 3D rendered using the image as textures... which is weird, but could account for the sharpness of the lower roof. Disclaimer: This is the opinion of a novice.
Posted by: Nick B | April 28, 2008 at 07:18 PM
I too was puzzled about the lack of utility power.
I scoured Google Earth, and there are no power
lines for miles. And I would guess that most of
the processes inside a nuke facility would require
an awful large supply. I have to imagine the need
for cooling water, etc. and these would require
hundreds of amps of AC. And to anyone that thinks that it's
an issue of visibility vs. resolution limits of GE,
I've found many cases of just residential power that's easily
visible, let alone 3 phase megawatt towers needed for
a facility like this.
ld
Posted by: D Dulmage | April 28, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Sounds like LA Times is engaged in another hatchet job like
P .Diddy knocked off Tupac.
Those of us who are in intelligence clearly understand what the problem with the picture is.
Posted by: Navin | April 28, 2008 at 06:40 PM
The first image is a composite and is taken from the fly-through at the beginning of the presentation. It's make with similar technology that google earth and google sketchup use so no, it's not an "actual" photograph.
As for the questions, here are answers:
1. Air Defenses clue in intelligence agencies that something is important. The entire point of this facility was that it was covert. For an extended explanation, see this: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/04/syria-and-north-korea-nuclear-partners.html
2. See answer to #1
3. Powerlines are not needed unless the reactor intends to produce electricity. And anyway, at one corner of the building there is a single powerline coming in to provide power to the facility.
4. Yongbyon (the DPRK facility) has so many buildings because there is so much going on there. There are two reactors (one uncompleted), a fuel fabrication plant and rreprocessing plant, among other things.
Finally, the square vs rectangle is the result of the angle the to two images were taken. In the first, the shot it almost directly overhead - in the second, it's at an oblique angle. Unlike the movies, not all satellite imagery is straight down.
Posted by: Andy | April 28, 2008 at 06:35 PM
The question of after touching on the Photos is an important one, but before we jump to any conclusion maybe we should think about the fact that the NRO and CIA are known to digitally downgrade Sat imagery to protect the classified specs of the collection assets
Posted by: Sam | April 28, 2008 at 06:13 PM
As someone who has worked with satellite imagery before, I can safely say the top image was touched up to bring faint elements into focus. The difference between the bottom two photos is created by (A) the angle of the photo (B) damage to the building, whether by attack or collapse of a section post-attack. Imagery is never "straight-up" and requires a trained eye; this has been true ever since the first photographic reconnaissance flights by balloon in the US Civil War. There are WWII recon photos that still stump trainees in service schools throughout DOD. I'll never forget a photo at which I stared for what seemed an hour, increasingly sure that I was seeing ICBM silos. But not: they were tethered cows in a field, and they had eaten circles of grass around their pinions.
Posted by: Matt Osborne | April 28, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Friday, April 25, 2008
U.S. plays Good Cop/Bad Cop with Iran
U.S. Plays Good Cop/Bad Cop with Iran
William O. Beeman
University of Minnesota
Once again we see a predictable pattern in the dance between the United States and Iran. We get news through Ambassador Thomas Pickering on NPR last Saturday Morning (April 19, 2008) that informal talks have been going on for five years between Iranian officials and retired U.S. officials, with Pickering speculating on the possibility that the U.S. might talk to Iran directly, and disagreeing with the idea that talking to Iran might constitute "rewarding" them. Then today we see in the Washington Post that Admiral Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are rattling the sabers threating military action against Iran for vague and nebulous Iranian deeds ( "U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran" April 25). Voilá! The United States once again issues a baseless threat. Reporter Ann Scott Tyson quotes Mullen as saying clearly that there is "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest [Iranian] leadership is involved" with the nebulous support for unidentified "special groups" that might possibly be targeting U.S. forces.
We have heard this story ad nauseum. What should now be clear is that every time there is the slightest hint of improving U.S.-Iranian relations, or anything that would resemble successful diplomacy, some U.S. official or other--lately military--trots out unspecified and unproven accusations against Iran and threatens military action against Tehran. Surely the Iranians have become inured to this good cop/bad cop game. It is ridiculous to believe that this kind of tactic would have any effect on Iranian actions or policy any longer. However, it might well still have some currency with isolated pockets of Americans in an overheated election year where Iran is everyone's favorite bogey man.
William O. Beeman
University of Minnesota
Once again we see a predictable pattern in the dance between the United States and Iran. We get news through Ambassador Thomas Pickering on NPR last Saturday Morning (April 19, 2008) that informal talks have been going on for five years between Iranian officials and retired U.S. officials, with Pickering speculating on the possibility that the U.S. might talk to Iran directly, and disagreeing with the idea that talking to Iran might constitute "rewarding" them. Then today we see in the Washington Post that Admiral Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are rattling the sabers threating military action against Iran for vague and nebulous Iranian deeds ( "U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran" April 25
We have heard this story ad nauseum. What should now be clear is that every time there is the slightest hint of improving U.S.-Iranian relations, or anything that would resemble successful diplomacy, some U.S. official or other--lately military--trots out unspecified and unproven accusations against Iran and threatens military action against Tehran. Surely the Iranians have become inured to this good cop/bad cop game. It is ridiculous to believe that this kind of tactic would have any effect on Iranian actions or policy any longer. However, it might well still have some currency with isolated pockets of Americans in an overheated election year where Iran is everyone's favorite bogey man.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Direct Talks with Iran--Ambassador Thomas Pickering Comments
We now hear a new tack from the Bush administration. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs appeared on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday today (Saturday, April 19), to comment on an announcement that plans were afoot for the United States to engage in direct face-to-face talks with Iran.
Ambassador Pickering stated that there were folks in Washington who felt that talking to Iranian officials would be "rewarding" them for bad behavior. His unusually sensible statement was that merely talking directly to a nation is not a reward, it is normal diplomacy. This is certainly going to anger Michael Ledeen, who in an attack on Barack Obama on April 10 asserted that "Talking [with Iran] has failed for 30 years," offering this quote from James Bond:
“Do you expect me talk, Goldfinger?” he asks.
“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”
[Ledeen's commentary]: That’s Iran. The mullahs want us to die.
Ambassador Pickering's commentary is certainly interesting. It was slipped into the program and does not appear on the Weekend Edition Saturday web site. It may be the latest volley in the ongoing battle between pragmatists and neoconservatives on how to deal with Iran.
William O. Beeman
University of Minnesota
Ambassador Pickering stated that there were folks in Washington who felt that talking to Iranian officials would be "rewarding" them for bad behavior. His unusually sensible statement was that merely talking directly to a nation is not a reward, it is normal diplomacy. This is certainly going to anger Michael Ledeen, who in an attack on Barack Obama on April 10 asserted that "Talking [with Iran] has failed for 30 years," offering this quote from James Bond:
“Do you expect me talk, Goldfinger?” he asks.
“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”
[Ledeen's commentary]: That’s Iran. The mullahs want us to die.
Ambassador Pickering's commentary is certainly interesting. It was slipped into the program and does not appear on the Weekend Edition Saturday web site. It may be the latest volley in the ongoing battle between pragmatists and neoconservatives on how to deal with Iran.
William O. Beeman
University of Minnesota
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Iran's Dubious Role in Iraq--David Ignatius and Ray Takeyh on PBS News Hour April 16
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:20:25 -0400
From: William O. Beeman
David Ignatius of the Washington Post and Ray Takeyh of the Council on
Foreign Relations appeared on the PBS News Hour this evening Wednesday,
April 16) to discuss the allegations that Iran was playing a role in
fomenting violence in Iraq.
Ignatius has been a conduit in recent weeks for U.S. Government thinking
on the Iranian role, and was careful to couch his statements about Iran's
role in terms of U.S. Government pronouncements rather than his own
independent assessment. Ray Takeyh offered some theories as to what Iran
might be doing in Iraq.
What emerged very clearly from this discussion is
1. Everyone believes that Iran is arming some small groups of Shi'ites and
harassing the U.S. military and other groups. I emphasize "believes"
because there is no smoking gun, but a great deal of innuendo and
circumstantial evidence.
2. For lack of any better way to identify the Iranian action, the U.S.
government has started to refer to "special groups" supported by Iran as a
means of creating the impression that there is a Unified Iranian Effort
dedicated to violence in Iraq. Here again, there is no proof that such
organized groups exist, or if they do, what ties they might have to Iran.
When pressed, the government posits that these groups have "some kind of
connection" to Muqtada al-Sadr. Moreover they believe that these groups
are being trained by the Qods force of the Revolutionary Guard. All of
this is utterly theoretical.
3. No one can articulate any plausible motive for the Iranian action
beyond the projections of U.S. fantasies: wanting to create confusion,
oppose the U.S. presence and somehow solidify a Shi'ite majority. It is
unclear how Iran could achieve these goals through the use of such limited
"special groups." A new theory was put forward, namely that Iran may be
trying to repeat the situation in Southern Lebanon that gave rise to
Hezbollah. This is creative thinking, but the situation in Iraq is
completely different, with two well-organized Shi'a factions already vying
for power. Hezbollah essentially arose to fill a vacuum in Lebanon.
4. Both guests were quite clear that the United States is unable to do
anything about the perceived frustrating state of affairs. Some people
like Michael Ledeen hint that the only solution is to attack Iran--a kind
of "Iran delenda est" sort of policy, but even if Iran is doing what it is
accused of, the "Iranian backed actions" as characterized by the
administration can only be seen as are low-level and scattered. It is very
unclear whether attacking Iran in any way would bring a halt to the things
that annoy General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
What seems evident is that things are not going well in Iraq. There is
internecine conflict in the Shi'a community that threatens the Maliki
government, upon which the U.S. Government is relying. It seems that the
United States does not want to admit its own failures, and so has decided
to blame the disarray on Iran. The White House makes this accusation even
though there is no clear articulation of what Iran could possibly want or
could possibly achieve if it were engaged in the kind of systematic
actions attributed by General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and Senator
Joe Lieberman, who, in the Senate hearings spoon-fed White House talking
points to Petraeus and Crocker.
Best,
Bill Beeman
University of Minnesota
From: William O. Beeman
David Ignatius of the Washington Post and Ray Takeyh of the Council on
Foreign Relations appeared on the PBS News Hour this evening Wednesday,
April 16) to discuss the allegations that Iran was playing a role in
fomenting violence in Iraq.
Ignatius has been a conduit in recent weeks for U.S. Government thinking
on the Iranian role, and was careful to couch his statements about Iran's
role in terms of U.S. Government pronouncements rather than his own
independent assessment. Ray Takeyh offered some theories as to what Iran
might be doing in Iraq.
What emerged very clearly from this discussion is
1. Everyone believes that Iran is arming some small groups of Shi'ites and
harassing the U.S. military and other groups. I emphasize "believes"
because there is no smoking gun, but a great deal of innuendo and
circumstantial evidence.
2. For lack of any better way to identify the Iranian action, the U.S.
government has started to refer to "special groups" supported by Iran as a
means of creating the impression that there is a Unified Iranian Effort
dedicated to violence in Iraq. Here again, there is no proof that such
organized groups exist, or if they do, what ties they might have to Iran.
When pressed, the government posits that these groups have "some kind of
connection" to Muqtada al-Sadr. Moreover they believe that these groups
are being trained by the Qods force of the Revolutionary Guard. All of
this is utterly theoretical.
3. No one can articulate any plausible motive for the Iranian action
beyond the projections of U.S. fantasies: wanting to create confusion,
oppose the U.S. presence and somehow solidify a Shi'ite majority. It is
unclear how Iran could achieve these goals through the use of such limited
"special groups." A new theory was put forward, namely that Iran may be
trying to repeat the situation in Southern Lebanon that gave rise to
Hezbollah. This is creative thinking, but the situation in Iraq is
completely different, with two well-organized Shi'a factions already vying
for power. Hezbollah essentially arose to fill a vacuum in Lebanon.
4. Both guests were quite clear that the United States is unable to do
anything about the perceived frustrating state of affairs. Some people
like Michael Ledeen hint that the only solution is to attack Iran--a kind
of "Iran delenda est" sort of policy, but even if Iran is doing what it is
accused of, the "Iranian backed actions" as characterized by the
administration can only be seen as are low-level and scattered. It is very
unclear whether attacking Iran in any way would bring a halt to the things
that annoy General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
What seems evident is that things are not going well in Iraq. There is
internecine conflict in the Shi'a community that threatens the Maliki
government, upon which the U.S. Government is relying. It seems that the
United States does not want to admit its own failures, and so has decided
to blame the disarray on Iran. The White House makes this accusation even
though there is no clear articulation of what Iran could possibly want or
could possibly achieve if it were engaged in the kind of systematic
actions attributed by General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and Senator
Joe Lieberman, who, in the Senate hearings spoon-fed White House talking
points to Petraeus and Crocker.
Best,
Bill Beeman
University of Minnesota
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
