Wednesday, August 4, 2010

3 points of peace or war ! سه نکته مهم صلح یا جنگ


 TO ALL PEOPLE AND GOVERMENTS OF THE WORLDS AND TO YOU MY GOOD READERS, IN GENRAL,  TO ALL PEOPLE OF  THE WORLD WHICH THEY LOOKING FOR THE PEACE AND FREEDOM AND ALSO FOR SECURITY AND WELFARE AND ALSO FOR A MORE JUSTICIOUS AND MODERN LIFE,AT THIS ARTICLE   I SHOW YOU  A POSSIBLE WAR MAY BEING BEGUN IN NEAR FUTURE AGINST I.R. OF IRAN BY ISRAEL OR BOTH ISRAEL AND USA . THIS POSSIBLE WAR CAN EASILY CHANGE TO THE "3RD WORLD WAR" WITH HUNDERED MILLIONS KILLS AND INJURDS AND A" WORLD DESTORYED  ENVIROMENT" INDEED, THE REAL  EVIL, AT THIS ARTICLE I  RATIONALLY  SHOW THE IRAN I NOT A EVIL AND BAD STATE BECAUSE IRAN HAS SEVEN THOUSANDS YEAR  CIVALIZATION AND 








CULTURE, A COUNTRY THAT NEVER ATTCKED ANY OTHER STATES JUST WHEN OTHER ATTACK HIM. IN MY OPINION,  ALL MAY FORGET THE PASTS, AND ALSO  MUST CHANGE THEIR VIEWS ABOUT IRAN AND HIS GOVERMENT,INDEED, YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY MORE FRIENDSHIP RELATION WITH ANY COUNTRY THAN IRAN  WHEN YOU HONESTLY LAY YOUR HANDS TO HIM WITHOUT TRICK,IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME YOU CAN JUST TRY IT FOR VERIFYING.BY THE WAY, AS A SIMPLE CITIZEN AND A MEMBER  OF IRAN PEPOLE, I EXPRESS MY READINESS TO ATTEND AT ANY PRESS CONFERENCE  OR ACADOMIC AND GOVERMENT  MEETINGS AT ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD TO SAY AND SHOW THE ABOVE REALITIES. SAID SHOGAIEE SAADI ,IRAN,SHIRAZ,AUG,4,2010,  




نکته مهم اول :




 انطور که رسما اعلام گردید  امروز چهارشنبه مورخ 13/5/89 برابر با 4 اگوست 2010 بهنگام عبور رییس جمهور محترم اسلامی ایران از فرودگاه همدان بسمت محل سخنرانی  و استقبال با شکوه مردم از ایشان یک ترقه میترکد و ناگهان و همزمان اکثرا رادیو تلوزیونهای منطقه و جهان و نیز سایتهای خبری دقایقی پس از این حادثه ان را به عنوان یک خبر بسیار مهم به جهان مخابره می کنند و از ان داستانهای ترور و حمله امثال ان می سازند! سئوال من از خانمها و  اقایان  مسئول در   دول امریکا و اسراییل و غرب و روسیه و چین و غیره این است وقتی ترکیدن یک ترقه معمولی مربوط به بازی کودکان در اطراف رییس جمهور ایران میتواند بعنوان یک خبر جهانی تکان دهنده تبدیل شود ! حالا شما تصور کنید خدای ناکرده اگر به ایران اسلامی حمله شود  و ایران قدرتمند نیز بشدت پاسخ تجاوز متجاوز  را بدهد  چه انفجار خبری و رسانه ای جهان را فرا  خواهد گرفت  و سبب طغیان ملل و بسیج  اکثر دول بر علیه متجاوزان خواهد شد چرا که در کنار سایر دلایل انسانی و حس علاقه و احترامی که برای تاریخ و تمدن و فرهنگ و مردم  کشور ایران دارند  همچنین انها ترس ان پیدا خواهند  که کشور و دولت بعدی که توسط متجاوزین به ایران  مورد حمله قرار خواهند گرفت انها خواهند بود.


 نکته مهم دوم :






تقریبا بیشتر روزها و یا شبها  در اخبار می بینیم و می شنویم که یک یا چند  انفجار بزرگ و یا کوچک یک یا چند کشور جهان را لرزاند.اما می بینیم که کمتر مقامات و یا نها های مهم  سازمان ملل  مثل شورای امنیت و یا دول جهان ان را  موردی و مشخصا(و نه کلی در قالب محکوم کردن اعمال تروریستی ) رسما محکوم نمایند اما با کمترین انفجار و یا اعمال تروریستی  در ایران تقریبا همه نهادهاو دول جهان انرا محکوم می نمایند.




 ایا بجز اهمیت  و نقش و موقعیت  جغرافیایی و سیاسی ایران است که انها را وادار به چنین  موضعگیری رسمی  می نماید.  چرا که  انها بخوبی  می دانند عملا ثبات ایران یعنی ثبات منطقه و بی ثباتی ایران یعنی بی ثباتی منطقه و نهایتا جهان!. ایا در جنگ جهانی دوم خود شما ایران را پل پیروزی نخواندید؟!.




 پس از  فکر شیطانی حمله غافلگیرانه احتمالی (انچنان که این روزها همه رسانه های جهان از ان حرف می زنند و سه ماه اینده را ! برای اجرای این عمل شیطانی پیش بینی می نمایند ) بیرون بیایید .من امیدوارم این گزارشات ادامه جنگ روانی چند سال اخیر بر علیه ایران اسلامی  باشد و فکر نکنید که ایران مثل کشورهای مورد حمله واقع شده قبلی شما غافلگیر می شود ! واقعا خوب به عواقب کار بدور از غرور و تکبر و خود بزرگ بینی فکر کنید و اگر قسمت  پر لیوان  را ببینید انوقت خواهید دید که ایران نه یک دشمن که یک شریک برابر و یک همکار موثر و کار امد  در حل و فصل مسایل منطقه و جهان است.  همان مسایلی که شما دهها سال است از حل و فصل انها عاجز بوده اید پس نکنید کاری را که سبب نابودی خود و منطقه ما دیگران گردید!.






من بعنوان یک شهروند ساده ایرانی که نه ادعایی دارد و نه قدرت و ثروتی  و همه سرمایه اش (سه مهارت تخصصی و یک عمر تجربه در زمینه های مختلف و)دل و فکر پاک برای حفظ صلح و امنیت و منافع ملی کشورو منطقه و جهانش است و در در جه دوم کمک به صلح  و دوستی و امنیت و همکاری بین المللی  بین دول و ملل منطقه و جهان می باشد  حاضرم تا در هر رسانه و هر دانشگاه و مراکز علمی و یا در جلسه هر هیئت دولتی  که دعوتم نمایند مستندا و منطقا ثابت نمایم که منافع همه (از ما گرفته تا روسیه و چین و غرب و حتی اسراییل و کشورهای عربی و غیر عربی منطقه ) در صلح و دوستی با ایران و یاری گرفتن از ایران  است  ! در نکته سوم موردی تر مطلب را شرح داده و  اثبات خواهم نمود.




نکته مهم سوم :






نگرانی از بروز یک جنگ ویرانگر منطقه ای که بسرعت می تواند به یک جنگ جهانی تبدیل شود نه تنها مردم و دولتهای  منطقه خاورمیانه بلکه  دنیا را در بر گرفته است! .در این بین بنده سعید شجاعی سعدی که از حدود 5 سال پیش با دایر کردن وبلاگهای 14 گانه خود در محیطهای مختلف اینترنتی و قرار دادن صدها مقاله  و تحلیل و مطلب هشدار گونه  شاید یکی از اولین کسانی  (اگر نگویم اولین نفر در منطقه و جهان )بوده ام که این نگرانی و هشدار را به جهانیان  دادم که ایران عراق و افغانستان نیست که امریکا و اسراییل راسا و یا با کمک و همراهی متحدان غربی و منطقه ای خود به ان حمله نمایند و مانند انجا  کشتار و اشغال و تجاوز نمایند و اب هم از اب تکان نخورد !. بدون تردید همانگونه که در مطلب قبل از این مقاله نشان دادم( شما می توانید این مطلب را در همین وبلاگ و پایین همین مطلب بخوانید) اگر خدای ناکرده به رغم همه هشدارها و شواهد و قرائن مستند مسئولین کنونی دول غربی و اسراییل دست به کاری جنون امیز بزنند و به بهانه مسئله هسته ای ایران و یا هر بهانه ای دیگر به ایران اسلامی حمله کنند بدون تردید منطقه و جهان نهایتا  وارد یک جنگ جهانی خواهند شد که حداقل ان کشته و مجروح شدن صدها میلیون نفر و ویرانی بخش عمده ای از توان و تمدن کشورهای درگیر خواهد بود و حداکثر ان هم نابودی کره زمین و حیات روی ان خواهد بود.بنا براین استدلال است که در این 5 سال با همه توان علمی و تحلیلی خود سعی کردم نشان دهم و به قدرتهای غربی بفهمانم که  برای منطقه و جهان بهتر است تا همه  دول غربی و اسراییل و بخصوص امریکا واقعیت ایران هسته ای را بپذیرند و از تمدن و نفوذ و قدرت ایران برای بهبودی صلح و امنیت جهانی و حل و فصل بحرانهای لاینحل منطقه ای و جهانی نظیر مسئله فلسطین و عراق و افغانستان و غیره استفاده نمایند.ما ایرانیان مردم جنگ طلب و خشونت طلبی نیستیم و خدمات و نقش سازنده تمدن ساز  و فرهنگ انسانی هفت هزار ساله  ما گواه متقن این ادعا است . تاریخ  چند هزار ساله ایران گواهی می دهد مگر برای دفع حمله و تجاوز بیگانه به هیچ کجا حمله نکردیم و اولین منشور ازادی و حقوق بشر  و لغو برده داری  را ما نوشتیم و بفرمان کورش کبیر (که همان ذالقرنیین قران مجید است) ما در سرزمینهای ایران که از شرق از حدود مرز چین امروزی شروع و تا کرواسی امروزی در قلب اروپا ادامه می یافت این ما ایرانیان بودیم که درحدود دوهزار و پانصد سال قبل زن را مدیر و فرمانروا قرار دادیم و به اسرای جنگی که در ساخت و ساز مجموعه های عظیم تخت جمشید و پاسارگارد و شوش همدان و بیشاپور و فیروز اباد و... کارمی کردند درست مانند کارگران ایرانی حقوق می دادیم و این ما بودیم که اولین جراحی بسیار حیرت انگیز کاشت چشم مصنوعی را در کاسه سر انسان در شهرسوخته سیستان انجام دادیم و اولین انیمشین جهان را نیز هم. ادبیات جهان غنی از اشعار سخنوران و شاعران ما است و امروز فقط ما می خواهیم  به پشتوانه همین تمدن و فرهنگ بزرگ انسانی و اسمانی برده و اسیر و بازیچه قدرتهای مسلط بر جهان نباشیم و مثل هفت هزار سال گذشته به نقش مثبت و سازنده خود در صلح و امنیت و پیشرفت جهان شرکت فعال داشته باشیم و بدیهی و طبیعی است که برای جلوگیری از طمع قدرتهای و بمنظور جلوگیری از دست اندازی به سرزمین و استقلال خود تا انجا که توان داداشته ایم در کسب مهارتهای مشروح و قانونی دفاعی نیز همت کرده ایم .بهر حال در زیر  شما دو مطلب یکی از 










گروه "کهنه سربازان حرفه ای برای عقلانیت" و دیگری از سوی  گروه "دمکراتهای محافظه کار سیاتل امریکا" می خوانید که در اولی خطاب به رییس جمهور امریکا هشدار داده اند که چون اسراییل در اینده نزدیک قصد حمله به ایران را دارد! اوباما باید ضمن جلوگیری از این عمل احتمالی  هرگز  امریکا به خود و اسراییل اجازه حمله به ایران را  بدلیل تبعات فاجعه بار ان برای منطقه و جهان را ندهد و در  مطلب دوم  اورده اند که چون هر دو جنگ جهانی اول و دوم در تابستان و در ماه کنونی اگوست و سپتامبر شروع شده است هر گونه حمله توسط اسراییل و امریکا به ایران  نهایتا می تواند  به شروع جنگ جهانی با تبعات و پیامدهای ویرانگر روبرو شود و در مطلب سوم پاسخ سخنگوی وزارت خارجه را به اظهارات اخیر فرمانده نیروهای امریکا در منطقه خاورمیانه را می خوانید که در ان ایشان به اظهارات تهدیدگرانه ان فرمانده پاسخ داده است. در اینجا بیایید همه با هم دعا کنیم و امید وار باشیم تا عقل و منطق و حقیقت و واقعیت بر ذهن و فکر تصمیم سازان اسراییلی و غربی حاکم گردد تا برادری و صلح و امنیت و انساندوستی جای کینه و دشمنی و جنگ و ویرانی را بگیرد و تا حیات و زندگی نوع بشر ادامه و استمرار یابد . امین یا رب العالمین- سعید شجاعی سعدی - شیراز چهار شنبه 89/5/13    


Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran


By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
August 3, 2010


MEMORANDUM FOR: The President


FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)


SUBJECT: War With Iran




We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war.


Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. 


This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to pre-empt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.


We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu.


Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort.


On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”


Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. 


“Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.


Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories.


We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat” — well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:


“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”


Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.


Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran.


Netanyahu’s Calculations


Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. 


During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.


This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon.


Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. 


The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward — and wonderment at — an America so easily influenced by Israel.  Netanyahu says:


“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”


Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.” 


As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models.


None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him “wrapped around his little finger.”


(Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.)


If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July.


Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including “through military actions if we must.” Graham was equally explicit: “The Congress has Israel’s back,” he said. 


More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.”


The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu’s attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about “regime change” in Tehran.


And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.


If Israel’s professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran’s arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped abroad.


Instead, they dismissed as a “trick” the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran’s low enriched uranium outside Tehran’s control.


The National Intelligence Estimate


The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a “Memorandum to Holders,” the NIE of November 2007 on Iran’s nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate’s key judgments:


“We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons …”


Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 & 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments. 


Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community’s agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon.”


The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal — with you telling Israeli TV “… all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon;” and Panetta telling ABC, “I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization].” 


Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, “There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”


Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate’s key judgments. 


Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being “fixed” around the policy — as was the case before the attack on Iraq.


One War Prevented


The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Vice President Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have similar effect.


Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to pre-empt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later.


Last week’s announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low enriched uranium for Tehran’s medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders. 


In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor), and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks.


Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran’s LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel’s scariest rationale for an attack on Iran. 


Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel’s leaders earlier labeled a “trick” now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached. 


We’ll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to “justify” bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no?


Another War in Need of Prevention


A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don’t Even Think of It.


In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran.


This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed. 


In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel’s leaders did not take his warnings seriously.


While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences.”


After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being “on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization” and its “desire to dominate its neighbors,” he included the following in his prepared remarks:


“For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”


Unlike younger generals — David Petraeus, for example — Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: “I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It’s messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful …” 


Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic and economic equities at stake know he is right.


Other Steps


In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their pre-emptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities. 


Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it.


It was a good idea — still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack.


In our view, that should be done immediately — particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened “a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters.


Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension.


With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August — recording any dissents, as necessary. 


Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney…and that the problem is acute even at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis.


Pundits, Think Tanks: Missing the Point


As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, “A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It? — Imagining Obama’s Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis.” 


Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title “Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?”


A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens.


Typically, the authors address the Iranian “threat” as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is “the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.” O Tempora, O Mores! 


In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths.


What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel.


Guns of August?


The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions.  Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them.


Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing — unintentionally — Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel.


Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well.


Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States.


There could even be an upsurge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes.


We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors.


You are in position to prevent this unfortunate, but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even.


Footnote: VIPS Experience


We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of February 5, 2003 after Colin Powell’s speech at the UN. 


We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent” — adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee.


As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the President before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was “irrefutable and undeniable.” We did conclude with this warning:


“After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” 
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/vipstwelve.pdf


We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney. 


Sadly, your own Vice President, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation’s history.


We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope — Iran — on which another President, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers.


They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the President what they believe he wants to hear. 


Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you — only you — can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran.


Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)


Ray Close, Directorate of Operations, Near East Division, CIA (26 years)


Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA (20 years)


Larry Johnson, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years)


W. Patrick Lang, Col., USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East/South Asia, Director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years)


Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA (30 years)


Coleen Rowley, Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI (24 years)




Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service Officer, Department of State (16 years)   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
politics democrat sconservatism debatere form Seattle


« Been Away | Main  
The Guns of August 2010


August is a slow news month. Between the heat and the vacations, not much happens. Still, world wars have a habit of starting in August. WWI kicked off in this month back in 1914, and ever since Barbara Tuchman's book of that title, The Guns of August has stood for miscalculation leading to disaster.


World War II began in Europe on 1 September 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. But the actual trigger came on 23 August, with the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact that divided Poland, gave Hitler a free hand against France and England, and ultimately proved something of a miscalculation for both parties.


Might World War III – a set of cascading conflicts with truly global consequences – begin even before Lindsay Lohan finishes rehab? And what might be the results? Catastrophe is one possibility. But only one.


The obvious first act would be an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program. The mission would not be to destroy that program, but to set it back a few years. Think of it as a kind of "surge." Militarily, it's quite doable, especially if other delay measures, from economic sanctions to clandestine special operations, remain active. The world would react, as it did after Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981, with "universal condemnation and relief" (Bill Cohen's apt phrase). But think on it. What might the world be like today if Saddam had gotten the Bomb?


The Israeli action would have the active support and tacit consent of the United States, the Saudis, the other Gulf states, except perhaps Iran's newest client, Iraq. Pakistan and Afghanistan will be unhappy, but Pakistan and Afghanistan are always unhappy. Russia, Russia's near abroad, Europe and most everybody else, would experience a heightened sense of well-being.


You object? And what are your top five reasons for believing that the world will be a better place if Iran gets nuclear warheads, or even a device to be loaded on a small boat and sailed into the Straits of Hormuz?


Be honest. The Iranian nuclear threat isn't against Israel, despite Iranian President Heeby-Jeeby's motor-mouth tirades. Israel hits back. Iran's threat is more local. The Arab oil states, whose military forces serve mostly to oppress the citizenry and provide jobs for the well-born and well-connected, expect to be protected by others. America and Israel especially. And let us try to remember. Arabs and Persians don't always play well together.


So if Israel ends up once again a shabbos goy for its former Arab enemies, worse things can happen.


Former enemies?


Again, be honest. Israel poses no threat, existential or otherwise, to the established governments of the Arab world. Islamism does.


Which brings us to the Palestinians, about whom, at least if you believe a recent Gallup Poll (New York Times op-ed, 3 August), the Arab world no longer cares.


In truth, they never really have, save when it suited their purposes. But in the strange way of intimate enemies whose fates are inextricably intertwined, Israel nowadays does.


In the Middle East, the things that matter are done quietly, usually behind smoke screens – and sound and fury screens – of obfuscation and denial. Despite all the everybody-knows-their-lines high-decibel posturing over relief ships, settlements, Jerusalem and Mr. Obama's proclivities, a joint Israeli-American effort, funded by both, continues. The goal is to create a Palestinian Authority capable, not just of governing an independent Palestine, but of defending itself against those sub and transnational groups that don't much like the idea: the folks for whom Saudi Arabia is no more legitimate than Israel, and for whom Jerusalem is just one stop on the way to Madrid and beyond.


A Palestine capable of defending itself against other Palestinians.


If Israel attacks Iran, it is very likely that Hamas and Hezbollah would have no choice but to crank off some rockets in the direction of Israel. Even if they don't, this "teachable moment" would provide Israel with a splendid opportunity to do some serious teaching in tacit alliance with Syria . . .which, by the by, is getting ready to make peace with Israel in exchange for the Golan and considers Lebanon its own protectorate, not to be shared with Iran's local surrogates or uppity Palestinians. As for Hamas: After events of the last few years, the Palestinian Authority would probably not rush to its defense. Certainly, not in Gaza, should Israel act.


Neither would Egypt.


With Iran chastened, Egypt and Syria on board, Jordan benign, Hezbollah shattered for a while, and Hamas meeting whatever fate it meets, an independent Palestine could well emerge. Not just as an Israeli/American military and economic dependency, but as a genuine state in genuine alliance, on its way to genuine independence.


And a Palestinian people on their way to the justice and the lives they have so long been denied by everyone.


Of course, all this tummel would have global implications. It might even make Despicable Leader over there in North Korea a bit more nervous than usual. Especially since Despicable Leader and the rest of the power structure of that monstrous place know that China would love nothing better than to be rid of them. It is more than likely that, given his personal health and the state of his country, Despicable Leader might succumb to the urge to do something really, really dumb. Like threaten to use whatever nukes he might or might not possess on somebody or other. The North Korean Army's in no condition to invade anybody. Still, Despicable Leader might couple his nuclear threats with conventional mobilization.


Which would present a lovely opportunity for an American, call it a community-service pre-emption.


Much of North Korea's military equipment is stored underground or in mountainsides. If you want to get it out, the doors have to work. These doors can be sealed very easily by American precision-guided weapons, especially small bombs with special penetrating capabilities. What gets out of those bunkers and caves can also be dealt with. And one can easily imagine a situation in which, with much of that army's equipment suddenly unavailable, and much of the rest useless due to lack of fuel and parts, and the troops somewhat sullen, somebody in North Korea decides that the moment has come for regime change and quietly requests the assistance of the South Korean Army. And a few days later, American and Chinese "advisers" are shaking hands on the banks of the River Yalu.


In short:


In a few weeks, less time than it takes for Lindsay Lohan to finish rehab, Iran doesn't get its Bomb. Syria makes peace. An independent Palestine begins to emerge. And the people of North Korea, who have suffered far, far more than the Palestinians, begin their long march to the civilized world.


Possible? Perhaps. A genuine plan? Probably not. We're neither that bright nor that ruthless, and even if we were, things never go as planned. As the poet Robert Burns once put it, "There's many a slip/twixt the zipper and the zip." Still, such an outcome, whether by design or opportunism or both, would be a splendid climacteric for the World's Sole Remaining Superpower as we shrug off the last few decades, rebuild our own economy and democracy, and take up tasks more worthy of us than pretending to run the world.


Prophecy? Perhaps. In any event, if it does come to pass, remember:


You heard it here first.


Share
Do you like this story?
Posted by Philip Gold at August 3, 2010 11:12 p.m.
ADVERTISING
Comments
#560648


Posted by unregistered user at 8/4/2010 12:17 a.m.


This is the dumbest, most ignorant blog post I've seen on the Seattle PI.


Israel attacking Iran would not cause peace, it would start WWIII. China, Russia would not stand by idly. Iran would attack the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
Report violation

No comments: