EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Memo to Obama: Avoid Another Long War
Obama's re-election campaign may be focusing almost exclusively on domestic economic issues but there are strong forces pushing him and the U.S to war again, this time with Iran. The dangerous brinkmanship with Iran could be alleviated if facts were not being misrepresented and distorted. Inasmuch as American politicians have failed miserably in the last decade on the issue of war, it would behoove concerned citizens to bring the facts in our memo to the attention of their respective congresspersons, as well as the president.
January 4, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Avoiding Another Long War
As professionals with collectively hundreds of years of experience in intelligence, foreign policy, and counterterrorism, we are concerned about the gross misrepresentation of facts being bruited about to persuade you to start another war.
We have watched the militarists represent one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. In the past, they supported attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan, as well as Israel's attacks on Syria and Lebanon -- nine Muslim countries -- and Gaza.
This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says.
As you know, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran's nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring those facilities around the clock. While there is reason to question some of Iran's actions, the situation is not as clear-cut as some allege.
Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, "I don't believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran."
He is not alone: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded "with high confidence" in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program as of 2003.
We are seeing a replay of the "Iraq WMD threat." As Philip Zelikow, Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission said, "The 'real threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel."
Your military and intelligence experts can also provide information on unpublicized efforts to derail Iran's nuclear program and on the futility of attempting to eliminate that program - which is dispersed and mostly underground -- through aerial bombing. Defense Secretary Panetta and other experts have stated that an air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most. Former Mossad head Meir Dagan said that an air force strike against Iran's nuclear installations would be "a stupid thing," a view endorsed in principle by two other past Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added that "Any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law."
Dagan pointed out another reality: bombing Iran would lead it to retaliate against Israel through Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of Grad-type rockets and hundreds of Scuds and other long-range missiles, and through Hamas.
We are already spending as much as the rest of the world combined on National Security and $100 billion per year on a Long War in Afghanistan. The Israel lobby has been beating the drums for us to attack Iran for years, led by people with confused loyalties like Joe Lieberman, who once made the claim that it is unpatriotic for Americans not to support Israel.
Another Long War is not in America's or Israel's interests, whatever Israel's apologists claim. Those are the same people who claim that Ahmadinejad said he would "wipe Israel off the map."
Persian specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Persian actually said that Israel would collapse: "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time."
What we have is a situation where Israel's actions, for example in sending 300,000 settlers into the West Bank and 200,000 settlers into East Jerusalem, are compromising U.S. security by putting us at risk for terrorist retaliation. We have provided Israel with $100 billion in direct aid since 1975. Since this is fungible, how has funding settlements contributed to our security? You agreed to provide $3 billion in F-35s to Israel in exchange for a 90-day freeze on settlements. What you got was 90 days of stonewalling on the peace process and then more settlers. What more do we owe Israel?
Certainly not a rush to war. We have time to make diplomacy and sanctions work, to persuade Russia and China to make joint cause with us.
James Madison once wrote that "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded... War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. ...No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
We are currently winding down what you labeled a "dumb war;" we should not undertake another dumb war against a country almost three times larger than Iraq, that would set off a major regional war and create generations of jihadis. Such a war, contrary to what some argue, would not make Israel or the U.S. safer.
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA
Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA
Coleen Rowley, Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI
Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), Foreign Service Officer, Department of State
Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer and NSC Director for Non-Proliferation under two presidents
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


23 Comments so far
Show All"America's wars have been like the rungs of a latter by which it rose to greatness No other country has trumphed so long, so consistently or on such a vast scale." ( A COUNTRY MADE BY WAR-Geoffrey Perret )
I'd say war with Iran in inevitable. Whatever "The People" want, he does exactly the opposite.
POTUS is primarily a ceremonial position to give an impression of leadership. As JFK so bluntly put it, things are run by an invisible collective. Research that.
I thinks this article doesn't address that there is a possibility.........................generations of Jihadis is exactly the powers that be want.
A lifetime supply of enemies.
Come on now Coleen - face the facts - they're going to listen to you as much as they did in the summer of '01.
" Create a generation of jihadis ". What could be better for the MIC and the American, war business racket ?
I guess I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people like this author continue to debate THE COVER STORY as if it was the real thing. It doesn't matter whether Iran (or Iraq, or Timbuktu) has nukes, or if the UN inspectors are doing this or that. It doesn't matter what a bunch of intelligence pros think about the cover story...it's just a ruse.
YES!
Whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not that does not give us the right to pre-emptively go to war with them.
If it did we should invade Israel.
But we can't even criticize Israel because we as a nation have decided Israel is our guy in the Middle East and deserves our support. But we have decided Iran is our main antagonist in the Middle East and deserves our antipathy.
So Israel having nuclear weapons is a good thing, we think, giving them defense capabilities. But Iran having nuclear weapons is the worst thing possible, we think, because they are not only evil but stupid. But the facts bely that. Iran has never started a war with another country in modern times. We have no credible reason to assume they'd not use nuclear capability the same way Israel, Pakistan and India do, as a bulwark for defense.
Leave Iran alone.
(Note: I am not for nuclear weapons and would support any peaceful way for nuclear powers, starting with the U.S., to disarm.)
See, you too. You're discussing the merits/demerits of the cover story. If they wanted the gov could cook up a cover story about Iran shipping tainted food, or lead filled toys or whatever. The point that no one seems to discuss is what it is that's being covered up!
I disagree with your criticism of LibWing. LibWing's criticism of the cover story needs to be done to educate people of the real facts. Without that understanidng, they will not understand it is a cover story. The millions of Americans that actually believe Iran is a threat (like Iraq supposedly was) are never going to understand the cover story concept until they realize the truth isn't being told. On the other hand, I understand the criticism towards the author who believes that those in power, who know the cover story is a ruse, need to be educated to make the right decision. On the other hand, there would nothing be wrong with a letter to those in power (even though they wouldn't listen) to tell them that we know the cover story is a ruse, along with the reasons.
We don't need to discuss it. It's obvious. It's OIL. It's always been oil. It was oil in 1952 and it was oil in 1979 and it's oil now.
But we do need to punch holes in the lie that whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not is important.
My critique of that argument is pointing out that it is a lie. As you said, it doesn't matter if Iran has nuclear weapons or not. An Iran with nuclear weapons is no more a threat to us than one that doesn't. It's an irrelevant canard.
It's all about oil.
Great article Colleen and colleagues. Iran is now the enemy of the year, one in a long line of bete noires. Leave them alone. The best way to build support for right wing fundamentalists in any country is to continue to lie about their capabilities and intentions, to threaten, to impose painful sanctions on the people there, and to carry out covert sabotage. That helps to unify a country around anyone who appears to stand up to imperialism. Without that, the Iranians are likely to elect another Mossadegh, which might be bad for oil companies, but not for the world. So our activities are counter to democratic, peaceful and sane policies in Iran.
Hot Mic At Pentagon Presser Catches Reporter: "See This Room? Two-Thirds Of Us Laid-Off When Ron Paul Is President"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/05/hot_mic_at_pentagon_presser_catches_reporter_see_this_room_two-thirds_of_us_laid-off_when_ron_paul_is_president.html
Wall Street thinks a big fat war would destroy the Occupy movement, and Obutcher is their paid assassin. Anybody who opposes the war will be labled as a traitor and a terrorist.
Bibi is counting down from ten, when he gets to zero his U.S. lackeys will go to War in Iran. The Zionist neocons controlled wanker Bush and now Obama. Our whores in congress are completely cowed by AIPAC. Sit back and watch the slaughter. We should be disarming Israel if we truly wanted Peace. However, peace won't engorge the MIC with the profits they need. Expose the fraud of 911 and this house of cards empire will tumble.
I have to agree with Kane Jeeves. To address Obama or any other modern day administration and Congress with a sane argument against war is proof that you're missing the point. VIPS represent the 99% and are therefore irrelevant to the events that will unfold. Whether the U.S. attacks or not (and I am not convinced that war is inevitable) will have nothing to do with the feeble pleas of some ex-bureaucrats, academics or 'think tank'. Instead this is played out behind closed doors as different economic factors are weighed in and damn all other considerations. Wake up people. This is not a functioning democracy!
Meir Dagan sez: "Any strike against [the Iranian civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law."
***
Richard Milhous W. Obama sez: "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal."
A letter to the POTUS is an exercise in futility. The people in power are about as likely to listen to anybody as they are to listen to a bump on a log.
Letters like this always have a secondary, or perhaps even primary, purpose. That is to explain the issues to the public. It carries a lot of strength when it comes from a former insider.
Obama has begun to talk about Venezuela as a threat, too. Millions are being spent on promoting a fake "democracy" movement, and there will probably be a destabilization attempt after the election this fall when Chavez will almost certainly be reelected. (Even opposition polls show him to be way out in front.) That would be a good time for Obama to make a move.
Coleen, you would be better off sending your memo to Wall Street, because that is where the real power is, Obama is just their sychophant and he will put your memo in his round file. Obama may be called the Commander in Chief but he takes his orders from Wall Street, International banksters, and the MIC. And when they tell him to jump, he always asks..... how high?
Obama and the neocons in his administration are quite capable of starting a war with Iran because Israel demands the exclusive right to have nuclear weapons. There is almost no difference between the two parties in reality as opposed to the fantasy of some democrats who believe otherwise. America is still on the warpath and Obama has wrapped himself in the American and Israeli flags.
"What more do we owe Israel?"
If Mossad has some serious dirt on lawmakers on Captiol Hill, they will undoubtedly decide there is NO END to what they (not we) owe Israel.