Woolsey on Iran

Saw hardliner Woolsey testify with Thomas Pickering on Iran-as-threat to Lantos' House committee.

He is hard, but very intelligent and very persuasive. We shared a panel once at the Arlington Institute and I liked him personally despite all the differences.

My favorite bit on him shows the huge gap in our interpretations on Iran.

He compared Khatami to Kosygin (nice, but useless), and then compared Rafsanjani to... Andropov!

I loved the comparison, seeing the completed unfolding of my recent column (Andropov was the man most responsible for Gorbachev's rise).

Woolsey, of course, meant the comparison as a complete downer (the beginning of the apocalypse), while I saw it as pure opportunity.

Woolsey surprised me, because after he testified that Iran would basically get the bomb no matter what we'd do and that it would very likely use it immediately to attack Israel, America, and much of the world, he quickly followed up that stunningly dire assessment by arguing for a soft kill with support to dissident groups and an RFL/RL effort on the regime. His rationale? The military option wasn't particularly feasible/effective, so that's our best mid-term option.

I was a bit stunned: even after arguing a diametrically opposed view of Iran from my own, he came to a conclusion I've got no problem with, except he rules out any formal talks with Tehran (although he had no problem with informal ones--when pressed by Ackerman, whom I like).

When I heard Woolsey say that, I realized that I've never really argued for or against formal talks. To me, even my original proposal to send Baker implied that quasi-official-with-no-official-obligations-made approach.

And when I realized that, it dawned upon me that Woolsey and I are not very far apart on dealing with Iran near term.

And that felt weird...

Comments

[J Canepa]

Second the motion.

Pure scare hokum

Iran, even if had the bomb, does not have the means to deliver it nor the desire to bare the inevitable massive retalation for of its use: annilation of its entire country.

The only way this changes is alignment with a true nuclear power. Thus the need now is build a US China bond and even a US Russia bond.

This is done by talk and not threats.

[Alex]

Well, the obvious difference is that Woolsey can see the advantages of talks intellectually, and the reasons why a military assault is impossible, but his various perceptual fixes block him from accepting this emotionally.

Hence, he argues for a "soft kill", despite simultaneously arguing that Iran is the sort of regime that would launch an unprovoked nuclear attack, which is also the sort of regime that would deal with the "soft kill" by torturing RFE/RL listeners to death. Egad! Cogdis-orooni!

Outcome: Barnett accepts that beliefs must adjust to objective reality. Woolsey, not so much. I remember his attempt to prove Iraq was behind 9/11 by prowling around a community college in Wales and getting arrested by the South Wales Constabulary.

[William R. Cumming]

Perhaps the time has come for the US to grow up in the middle-east. Let's face it do we really understand the dynamics of the politics of Egypt, Iran, and Turkey (the most important real countries in the middle-east). We keep trying to have it both ways or many ways. Perhaps a full-border guarantee announced publically for Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey (The Kurdish claims) and Israel. Perhaps a threat of nuclear retaliation against attacks with WMD on Israel. Stated rationale should be number of Israelis with dual citizenship in US. Also strategic position. Perhaps the same for Saudi Arabia. Another alternative is to find out now how the EU intends to deal with a ballistic missle/nuclear middle-east. My guess is the cafe society is following the foreign policy of the ostrich. Time will tell. Interesting that even small dynamics are important. After all who in the intelligence community oil-watcher staff predicted a warmer than normal winter in the east. Again clamping down on Israel is always the US carrot for the Arab world, but just keep it dangling don't let it be eaten.

[emjayinc]

Maybe mini-MAD works for Iran vs. whomever...but is it reasonable to include a planning assumption that this deterrent effect is equally valid at the level of the terrorist? Are we really sure that nuclear Iran could not cover its tracks, or misjudge that it could, if it decided to give a nuclear suitcase to a terror cell? And are we certain enough of our forensic capacities to be able to find sufficient evidence of the origin of the material, and our political capacities to then convince ourselves to retaliate? While I feel OK with the Woolsey/Barnett position at the level of system and state analysis, I'm not at all certain that the necessary and sufficient case for acquiescence has been made at the individual (the terrorist/state nexus) level. Of course, acquiescence may not be an option, judging from the "foregone conclusion" tone of many analysts -- so maybe we need to focus on how we prevent, deter, or intervene on the establishment of a nuclear terrorist/state connection.

[J Canepa]

Let’s not forget history. For decades genuine hostile nuclear powers had the means to deliver nuclear bombs on the West. They did not do so as it was not in their interest to do so. The appearance of a minor State, which may develop nuclear weapons, is cause for concern but hardly cause for alarm. More alarming, perhaps, with Russia trying to profit from the situation. We thus need to talk to Russia before the situation does indeed get of control

Yet the most immediate result of ringing the alarm bell now is the cash cow system goes forward. The more shrill the cry the more likely the no-bid contracts, the cost plus a percentage of cost contracts, and the unauditable expenditures roll on and enrich the Ferengis here.

PS

1. Mentioning Woolsey, brings up his apparent fall from grace. He and Laurie Myroie went to elaborate lenghts to show that 9 11 was State sponsored. They went wrong in naming Iraq as that State. Iraq never had the smarts or the ability to pull off a 911 attack. If their initial analysis was correct, the question then in which State or States were behind 911? Before anyone jumps up and says the non-State, al-Qaidaa, did it, one has little proof of that al-Qaida had the kind capability and the extensive organization that has to have been behind a 911 operation.

2. Mentioning Thomas Pickering, opens up another near ignored area of analysis: false flag deceptions. There was an assassination attempt on Pickering when Pickering was US Ambassador to El Salvador http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r101:E10JY9-140:It seems that the attempt failed as the bomb went off prematurely. The bomber was airlifted out of El Salvador to Brooke Army Hospital in San Antonio. The incident caught the attention of Congressman Henry Gonzales. Gonzales proceeded to detail it in a Special Order Speech. In recording the speech, however, the record was altered have Gonzales mentioning the attempted assassination of Ambassador “Pinkerton”