Letters to the Editor
bostonMA
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 22
-
GOP's Iran option is still on the table
[Read the article: The GOP's Iran option is off the table]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the drumbeats to war were loud and clear some months ago, three basic ways for the United States to enter a war with Iran were being actively discussed. Although one is now off the table, the other two are not undermined by the new NIE.
The first and newly discredited approach was to make the case that Iran was a menacing nation intent on obtaining nuclear weapons with the intention of deploying them against US or Israeli interests. The rationale has been effectively silenced within the US, despite the efforts of the likes of John Bolton to mitigate the impact of the report.
The second approach was to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and attack Iran's military for arming and assisting their Shia counterparts fighting against Sunnis in Iraq, destabilizing and complicating the US military mission. This declaration was initiated through the Kyl-Lieberman bill, and marked the first time the US government declared the army of a nation to be a terrorist organization, a novel position indeed. A significant event in Iraq that killed dozens of US troops that was later "traced" back to Iran could easily be translated into military strikes by the US at the time of the administrations choosing.
In my view, a third approach remains the most plausible method of US entry into war with Iran, and some signs point to this approach as the one that may be favored by the administration's neoconservative actors. In this scenario, Israel attacks specific targets within Iran due to stated intelligence findings or some other provocation seen a threat to their national security. Iran then retaliates against Israel in kind, and the United States enters and escalates the conflict under the guise of its enduring security commitment to Israel. This would require no further congressional authorization in the eyes of Bush, and would almost certainly find substantial political backing by numerous interests in the US were it to happen. Such a scenario could literally occur overnight at the moment Israel and US governments decide.
There are signs that with the release of the NIE that Israel immediately began to promote this third option. From early criticism of the NIE as flawed and politically motivated to the release and reiteration of alarming Israeli intelligence concerns on Iran's nuclear armament intentions, Israel has begun to make a case for independent action. Olmert recently directed that scenarios be prepared for "the day after" Iran has nuclear weapons, the prospect of which may contrast unfavorably with a pre-emptive first strike on Iran. Just today the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen was in Israel for high level talks, the first visit by a Chairman in years.
If a war is to be avoided between now and January 2009, it will be because of pressure by Russia and China on the issue, both of whom have been a useful check on this administration in regards to Iran. All other factors, from Israel's political influence in the US, neoconservative doctrine and their power within the executive, and the interests and alignment of the President with the evangelical Christian end times prophecy types drive to the conclusion that little within the US would stop such a conflict should Israel be willing to initiate it.
-
...coming soon to a theater near you...
[Read the article: Blackwater in Baghdad: "It was a horror movie"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although we see the deplorable images on the web and television about this carnage in Iraq, there is a case to be made that Blackwater's security contractors will also be deployed on significant domestic missions within the United States in 2008.
Blackwater's contractors, many of whom are not US citizens but recruited from South Africa, Mexico, and other nations, get advanced training in many disciplines within a state of the art North Carolina training facility that includes extensive simulation capabilities. It should be noted that this is the largest such training center among all private and military organizations worldwide, and plans are now underway for a second facility in California. This privately held firm is clearly expecting the need to extend beyond the 40,000 contractors now trained annually.
The scope and scale of involvement by Blackwater as an extension of executive branch activities is significant. Blackwater was recently awarded part of a $15B contract by the Pentagon to assist in global anti-narcotics enforcement which some have speculated will include a role in DEA and DOD activities within the United States. The new San Diego area Blackwater West facility is expected to support a large border enforcement contract, although this has been denied by US Customs and Border Protection as noted here on Salon in late October. Blackwater's growth in urban simulation training and related capability could conceivably be prerequisites for an active role in supplemental or outsourced management of domestic protests, rallies, or federal elections security. They would almost certainly be called upon by this administration to extend the reach and presence of executive authority and control in any future domestic terrorism incident.
As most readers here are well aware, Blackwater made their first major appearance during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina while the National Guard was otherwise occupied in Iraq. A prominent domestic law enforcement role for this private security firm is not unprecedented. In 2006, Blackwater hired representation from Kenneth Starr to argue for Blackwater's immunity from prosecution in a 2004 wrongful death case within Iraq. Starr argued that the firm was part of the "Total Force", effectively an extension of the military. I expect this organization to take a broad view of their legal ability to participate in a wide range of domestic activities should they ever be challenged on the legitimacy of such an arrangement.
There are real jurisdictional, control and accountability concerns with the creation of a private paramilitary organization used extensively by the government in either foreign or domestic activities. The likelihood that US civilians will have to interact with this organization used as a surrogate for government law enforcement magnifies the importance and urgency of the question. Although many will no doubt see border or drug enforcement as a worthy effort, I see a chilling and fundamental danger in these precedents.