The nation’s top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government’s "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force. "It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran’s intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor… They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."
Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we’re going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said. Mullen’s statements and others by Defense Secretary recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.
In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat." Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It’s plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously…
Iran has been on off of our A List for some time. After the Revolution that deposed the Shah, the one where they held our Embassy Staff hostage until the day Ronald Reagan was inagurated, they haven’t played ball with us at all. Well not in public, anyway. But then there was the Iran Contra Affair. Oh yeah, during the Iran/Iraq War [1980-1988], there was something called Iraq Gate:
The Iraq-gate scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy’s largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq — some of which, according to his indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology.The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and ABC’s Ted Koppel, covered the Iraq-gate story, and the investigation by the U.S. Congress. This scandal is covered in Alan Friedman’s book The Spider’s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq.
Beginning in September 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the Financial Times provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch. In all, Iraq received $35 billion in loans from the West and between $30 and $40 billion from the Gulf States during the 1980s.
Apparently, we were clandestinely supplying Saddam Hussein a lot of stuff to fight Iran, but, being good sports, we also sold arms to Iran on the sly to get money to send the Contras in Nicaragua. But maybe General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen don’t even remember that. It was so long ago, during the Ronald Reagan Administration. Funny how things change, even when the characters stay the same.It’s not surprising to me that Iran is helping people who fight Americans in Iraq. I expect if there were an invasion of Canada by Lybia, we’d be helping the Canadian resistance. Neighbors are like that. But our resident Neocoservative government lives by, "if you’re not with us, you’re against us." Since no one is with us any more, I reckon everyone is against us. According to the subtext of the sermons of General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen, Iran’s helping the insurgency means we ought to go to war with Iran. I don’t think that logic is any better than it was when they levied a version of the same dangers about Iraq. They want to go to war with Iran because they want to. They’ve talked about nothing else for years. Now they’re trying to repeat history and trump up a reason to justify their unreasonable plan, and they are using the Pentagon to foment for war this time.
|
September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT Conclusion In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President’s constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make. JOHN C. YOO
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel |
Every time one of the neocons talks about how Saddam was so bad that he used weapons against his own people, I want to go thru the tv set and say I know because you and your cohorts gave them to him. Of course they would know because they made sure to provide him with the latest weapons to kill the Iranians. I’m really losing hope that the whole lot of them will get what they deserve. Outrageous doesn’t even describe their activities for the last 7 years.