Saturday, January 13, 2007
Regarding Iran: Preemptive war, or lawful retaliation?
Item:
I say, bring it on. If a pre-emptive war in Iraq doesn't work, why not try a pre-emptive war on Iran in Iraq? -- Maureen Dowd, in today's New York Times, sarcastically.
Item:
US military intelligence sources tell ABC News that large shipments of weapons have been smuggled to Iraqi militia [especially Sadr's] over the past five weeks, including dozens of Iranian supplied EFP's, or Explosive Form Projectiles, highly effective against armored vehicles.
As Wretchard observes, the Sunni militias -- the only target other than the United States available to the Shiite militia -- do not have armored vehicles. These particular weapons are to wage war on the United States.
Item:
In 1982, Iran's Revolutionary Guards established Hezbollah in Lebanon, and in the years that followed supplied it with arms, training, and billions of dollars in aid. Hezbollah's "manifesto" makes it quite clear who is in charge:
We are often asked: Who are we, the Hizballah, and what is our identity? We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community) - the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!
Item:
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber destroyed the United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people and wounding more than 100. Twenty years later, a United States District Judge determined that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security had orchestrated, funded, and directed the bombing through its agents and co-conspirators who were affiliated with the terrorist organization now known as Hizbollah.
Item:
On October 23, 1983, Hezbollah attacked the United States Marines barracks, killing 241 American military personnel stationed in Beirut as part of a peace-keeping force. A separate attack against the French military compound in Beirut killed 58. France retaliated with an air strike against Hezbollah positions in the Beqaa Valley, but the United States under Ronald Reagan did not.
Items:
Sept. 20, 1984: The group attacks the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 2 Americans and 22 others.
March 16, 1984: William F. Buckley, a CIA operative working at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, is kidnapped and later murdered.
April 12, 1984: Hezbollah attacks a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, Spain. The bombing kills eighteen U.S. servicemen and injures 83 people.
Dec. 4, 1984: Hezbollah terrorists hijack a Kuwait Airlines plane. Four passengers are murdered, including two Americans [one of whom was shot specifically because he was a Navy diver].
Buckley was taken to Damascus, and then on to Tehran, "where he became one of the hostages that led to the Iran/Contra affair."
Item:
In hindsight, disclosure of an Iran/Hezbollah/Qaeda partnership should have come as no surprise. In the aforementioned spring 1998 indictment, the Justice Department alleged that bin Laden had “stated privately … that Al Qaeda should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the Government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezballah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies.” Thus, the indictment explained: “Al Qaeda also forged alliances … with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.”
This concord, according to the 9/11 Commission’s review of U.S. intelligence files, traces back to the early 1990s. The invaluable terrorism researcher Thomas Joscelyn relates that the alliance was corroborated by testimony from a former al Qaeda member, Jamal al-Fadl (at the East African embassy-bombings trial in 2000). Bin Laden, according to al-Fadl, met at a guesthouse in Riyadh City with an emissary named Nomani, representing Iran’s mullahs. It would be mutually beneficial, they concurred, to put aside their Sunni/Shiite divide and work together against the common enemy: America and the West. Other Iranian contingents, the 9/11 Commission notes, visited al Qaeda’s headquarters in Sudan — bin Laden and his top aides having been transported there under Mohamed’s protection.
Subsequently, the Commission states (p. 61), “senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as intelligence and security.” That instruction, held at Hezbollah camps, included al Qaeda’s top military committee members and several operatives who were involved with its Kenya cells long before the 1998 embassy bombings.
Item (911 Commission Report, at 60):
In June 1996, an enormous truck bomb detonated in the Khobar Towers presidential complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that housed U.S.Air Force personnel. Nineteen Americans were killed, and 372 were wounded. The operation was carried out principally, perhaps exclusively, by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received support from the government of Iran.While the evidence of Iranian involvement is strong, there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown.
Item (911 Commission Report, at 239-240):
Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.
In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November.A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved.
Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling—perhaps by coincidence—on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative.Also in November, Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut.
In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence — that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers....
After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda.A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11.
We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.
Item:
The sheer barbarity 9/11 prompted a vigorous American military response, routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and causing the terror network’s top ranks — i.e., those not killed or captured — to return or flee. In the aftermath, al Qaeda, as usual, found shelter from the storm in Iran. Among the many operatives still harbored in Iran — under what the mullahs laughably call “house arrest” — are Saif al-Adel and bin Laden’s own son, Saad.
Meanwhile, Adel and Saad bin Laden have thrived in the safety of their Iranian redoubt. Using the Saudi cells Adel had been instrumental in building, they orchestrated the May 12, 2003 suicide bombings of three Riyadh housing complexes, a direct challenge to the House of Saud so reviled by bin Laden. Perhaps more significantly, Adel had a house guest in 2002: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Zarqawi was also placed under “house arrest” by Iranian authorities. The Jordanians had long sought Zarqawi in connection with a plot to bomb an Amman hotel on the eve of the Millennium, as well as the October 2002 murder of an American diplomat, Laurence M. Foley. Jordan thus sought Zarqawi’s extradition. Iran did not merely reject Jordan’s demand; it gave Zarqawi safe-passage into Iraq.
Item:
BERLIN, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Iran has freed a son of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from house arrest, a German newspaper reported on Wednesday. Die Welt said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard released Saad bin Laden on July 28 with the aim of sending him to the Syria-Lebanon border.
Item:
[A]n Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening," controlled by a Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer, Hassan Abbasi. The newspaper has a tape recording of Abbasi when he spoke of Iran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
To bring this about, Abbasi said, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." This Revolutionary Guard officer continued by saying, "Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."
Commentary
It is hard to believe that a columnist for The New York Times wouldn't know about these events or be able to twitch them up with a few keystrokes. It is also hard to believe that she does not know the meaning of the word "preemptive." It is not hard to believe that she would oppose even retaliation against Iran, or even actions taken to prevent more attacks on our soldiers, but does not want to say so clearly. Why? Her faith in the Bush administration's incompetence overwhelms all other considerations, such as undeniable casus belli. Rather than recite the history of Iran's war on the United States and declare that still she would not respond, Dowd chooses to stretch the meaning of a word beyond the limits of even journalistic license. She does this because in Maureen Dowd's world it is not enough to denounce a Bush administration policy as unwise. It must also be illegal, immoral, and unjustified. Otherwise, she will not have lived up to the demands of her readers.
18 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Sun Jan 14, 01:14:00 AM:
One note: The US is not the only player in the Middle East with tanks and armored vehicles. If we pull out, that doesn't mean that Saudia Arabia, another state or perhaps group of states might go in and try to prevent a Shi'ite takeover. I do find that unlikely though.
Given the supposed order for the Sadr goons not to engage us, at least right away, I speculate the the reason for those armaments is to enable the Sadr militia to act as a guerrial force should the US attack Iran. Arming them with anti-armor weapons would greatly benefit any attempts to stall or impede a US offensive.
By DEC, at
Sun Jan 14, 01:37:00 AM:
"There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."
Despite the possibility of additional terrorist attacks inside the United States, Pantex makes no effort to hide the location of America's only nuclear weapons assembly plant. The Pantex Web site has the info:
"Located in the Texas Panhandle in Carson County, Pantex Plant is approximately 27 km (17 mi) northeast of Amarillo. The Plant site is bounded on the north by Texas Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 293, on the east by FM 2373, and on the west by FM 683. To the south, DOE-owned property on the site extends to within 1.6 km (1 mi) of U.S. Highway 60."
More at:
http://www.pantex.com/
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Jan 14, 06:06:00 AM:
enable the Sadr militia to act as a guerrial force should the US attack Iran.
The border between Iran and Iraq is not well suited to armor. You have to go way north or way south to get favorable terrain.
North is out of Sadr's area of influence, and south is into the marshes.
There's a good reason the Iran/Iraq war was a stalemate for so long. Its a sucky border to have a war across.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jan 14, 12:52:00 PM:
Didn't Saddam drain those marshes since the war?
By 
, at
Sun Jan 14, 12:57:00 PM:
DEC,
It's hard to imagine terrorists attacking a facility that is as well-guarded as I would hope the pantex plant is. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least hundreds of soldiers stationed there, with air support and reinforcements just a radio call away.
If you're a terrorist, you'd want to steal/buy your nuclear material some other way.
By Shochu John, at
Sun Jan 14, 02:11:00 PM:
Dowd clearly does not view any potential action against Iran as pre-emptive, nor does she seem to think that Iraq was pre-emptive. That would make her use of the word "pre-emptive" like the rest of her statement, sarcastic. I don't think Dowd misunderstood the meaning of "pre-emptive", I think you misunderstood the meaning of "sarcastically".
"In 1982..."
And if you go back to the 1950's, the Iranians have many good claims about unprovoked U.S. attacks on their nation and people. Would that make all the examples you cite here, even if credibly sourced (which all certainly are not), simply retaliatory? I would think not. If nations to take every incident within the last x number of years with every other nation as a pretext for all out war, war would be constant. This may not be the most advantageous policy for us to adopt.
"Her faith in the Bush administration's incompetence overwhelms all other considerations, such as undeniable casus belli."
This statement, which is far broader, then you have evidence to back up insofar as you ascribe it to Dowd, is not without merit. Choosing to take military action should be a decision that is based in no small part on the likelihood of success. If success is generally less likely due to poor leadership, this is a factor that must be considered. There are no doubt situations that would arise in which I would support military action if Bush I were in charge where I would not if Bush II were in charge, simply because Bush II is so incompetent as to make success far less likely, and engaging in the conflict in the first place therefore not worth it.
By , at
Sun Jan 14, 02:22:00 PM:
John's statements are indicative of the fantasy world that Libs/Media/Dems all live in. Iran has been waging constant war against us since 1979. Cowardly Clinton (so charges his ex FBI Director Louis J Freeh) first obstructed then concealed Iran's bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996.
Now Iran has killed 198 Americans in Iraq. Threatened us with nuclear destruction. Threatened us with terrorist actions in the US.
John fundamentally does not side with the US, rather the enemy. He wants to see the US attacked with impunity by profoundly illiberal forces. So too Dowd. Who will side with our enemies in their hatred of Bush.
Iran has ALREADY taken military action against us. We either respond or surrender. John proposes (as does Dowd) surrender.
By DEC, at
Sun Jan 14, 02:52:00 PM:
Phrizz11: "It's hard to imagine terrorists attacking a facility that is as well-guarded..."
A friend of mine owns a ranch near the facility. I have seen security guards, not U.S. soldiers.
But who knows. The place may be as well-guarded as the Pentagon or the New York World Trade Center.
By Shochu John, at
Sun Jan 14, 02:54:00 PM:
Anon, above, no doubt all charged up after listening to Limbaugh, brings us back to about 2003. This is the same sort of blustery "You are all traitors" rhetoric that took the place of all civilized discussion before going into Iraq. However, it's 2006. Don't you see how you've been discredited? We've tried it your way. It's a disaster. If I wanted America to lose, I'd be on your side.
That's well enough of that.
By allen, at
Sun Jan 14, 04:09:00 PM:
TigerHawk took the trouble to list 15 “items” to make his case. In response, he received this:
“And if you go back to the 1950's, the Iranians have many good claims about unprovoked U.S. attacks on their nation and people.”
Not a single example is given in support of this accusation. That is hard to understand, given the “many” good claims available to the author and the Iranians. It is impossible to rationally debate a person who values his personal feelings more than verifiable fact.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jan 14, 04:19:00 PM:
If I were to represent Shochu John in this case, I would suggest that there are a couple of cases of U.S. aggression against Iran since the 1950s. Kermit Roosevelt's subversion of Mohammad Mossadegh's government in 1953, and the relatively minimal U.S. support for Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in the 1980s (which we viewed as small payback for the hostage crisis). To this the Iranians would add the shooting down of Flight 655 during the "tanker war." We regard that catastrophe as a tragic accident, but we now know that the Iranians thought we did it on purpose.
None of that diminishes my basic point that Iran already regards itself as at war with the United States. Indeed, these examples reinforce the point, I think.
By Shochu John, at
Sun Jan 14, 04:51:00 PM:
Thank you, TH, and let us not forget the constant buttressing of Pahlavi power from the 1950's through 1970's. I will be sure to spell everything out in more explicit terms in the future to reduce the chances of Allen again dismissing me as emotion driven because of his own lack of historical knowledge.
As to your point, TH, I would say that you are using "at war" rather loosely. My point is that we and the Iranians have been kicking each other in the shins for a good half century. If either party wanted to use any collection of these incidents as pretext for an all out war, they certainly could do so. We both have sufficient material to gin up a retaliatory veneer for starting the shooting in earnest. This does not mean that (1) we should or (2) the war has already begun.
In any case, I don't think Dowd's comments were speaking to the in-fact nature of any current state of affairs between the United States and Iran. Iraq was sold as an essentially pre-emptive war because the point was chiefly not that we couldn't find past pretext for starting a war. We could (i.e. Saddam shooting at U.S. planes), and that was certainly stated by war boosters. However, the main issue was one of a potential future threat posed by a WMD-armed Iraq. This is why the war was essentially sold as pre-emptive. Iran is virtually the same. We would not be even thinking of a war with Iran if the chief reasoning were retaliatory based on these examples you cite. The military action again is once again liable to be sold as pre-emptive, to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms and presumably using them against us and our allies. Ergo, when Dowd sarcastically refers to these wars as pre-emptive actions, it is not because she believes them to be so, but because that is their prime motivation, or at least way they are sold. The other bit of sarcasm, of course, is that the Iraq war has been a disaster that those advocating war with Iran have seemed keen to repeat.
By Pudentilla, at
Sun Jan 14, 07:44:00 PM:
item. When Barbara and Jenna enlist, I'll consider the possibility national security is threatened by Iran. Until then, it's just war porn for the pajamas media crowd.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 14, 11:48:00 PM:
I would take issue with John's "we've tried it your way, it's a disaster" comment. Among the many bad choices we have had since 2001, I don't see that our current actions were among the worst. The few best options, of quick and brutal war which would have killed fewer of everyone, we no longer allow ourselves in this country. And perhaps that is right, really, if we hope for the world to learn better.
John himself may not be guilty of this handwringing overreaction, but the opponents of the war would have had more credibility if the word quagmire had not started escaping their lips six weeks after we went into Afghanistan. The boy who cried wolf, and all that. It's hard to listen closely anymore.
By Julius Martov, at
Sun Jan 14, 11:57:00 PM:
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a
US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.
According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”
Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”
He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah - Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
By Shochu John, at
Mon Jan 15, 08:12:00 PM:
AVI says, "I would take issue with John's "we've tried it your way, it's a disaster" comment. Among the many bad choices we have had since 2001, I don't see that our current actions were among the worst. The few best options, of quick and brutal war which would have killed fewer of everyone, we no longer allow ourselves in this country. And perhaps that is right, really, if we hope for the world to learn better."
You'll note that I'm not complaining about how Afghanistan went. There were hitches, ups and downs, and mistakes, like in every war, especially, as in this one, when you lean heavily on proxies like the Northern Alliance. These things happen and there is hardly any use fretting about them.
My main complaint is, as should come as no surprise to you, the Iraq war, a strategic disaster from the day it was conceived. In fact, my main complaint about how we handled Afghanistan is the insufficient follow through to rebuild so that that nation would have had more to fall back on besides heroin and the Taleban, a lack of follow through which can be in no small part blamed on the distraction of Iraq. I recall precisely when the clear eyed analysts were called unpatriotic and Saddam coddlers back in those heady days four years ago. This is what I was throwing back in the insulting Anon's face, as he/she/it is trying to do the very same thing even after the terrible result has become clear.
I don't recall anybody screaming quagmire three weeks into Afghanistan, which is not to say it didn't happen. There are enough opinionated people in the world that I'm sure somebody said it. Where I would caution you is to not deliberately avoid taking a certain position merely because some choice idiots also take it. Even idiots often arrive at the right conclusion, occasionally even with the right reasoning.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jan 15, 08:58:00 PM:
Fair enough, John. Avoiding the opinions of fools is a start, but not a good map.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jan 16, 07:46:00 PM:
"I recall precisely when the clear eyed analysts were called unpatriotic and Saddam coddlers back in those heady days four years ago."
'Our troops will be slaughtered by the Republican Guard! Those are *elite* units!' Is what I remember hearing. That wasn't clear eyed, and some of them were indeed 'Saddam coddlers.'
I actually don't remember *anyone*, including in Intelligence, predicting that Saddam's security services actually planned to lose the war and then go guerilla on purpose, and made preparations to that effect...
"I don't recall anybody screaming quagmire three weeks into Afghanistan, which is not to say it didn't happen. There are enough opinionated people in the world that I'm sure somebody said it."
I don't recall hearing 'quagmire' either, but I did hear the term, "Afghanistan, Graveyard of Nations," accompanied with stories about British and Russian troubles there throughout history, and similar predictions for us. And I think it was actually before we went in, but my memory is fuzzy there.
