DANBURY, Conn. (AP) — For more than a decade they toiled in the strange, boxy-looking building on the hill above the municipal airport, the building with no windows (except in the cafeteria), the building filled with secrets.
They wore protective white jumpsuits, and had to walk through air-shower chambers before entering the sanitized "cleanroom" where the equipment was stored.
They spoke in code.
Few knew the true identity of "the customer" they met in a smoke-filled, wood-paneled conference room where the phone lines were scrambled. When they traveled, they sometimes used false names.
At one point in the 1970s there were more than 1,000 people in the Danbury area working on The Secret. And though they worked long hours under intense deadlines, sometimes missing family holidays and anniversaries, they could tell no one — not even their wives and children — what they did.
They were engineers, scientists, draftsmen and inventors — "real cloak-and-dagger guys," says Fred Marra, 78, with a hearty laugh.
He is sitting in the food court at the Danbury Fair mall, where a group of retired co-workers from the former Perkin-Elmer Corp. gather for a weekly coffee. Gray-haired now and hard of hearing, they have been meeting here for 18 years. They while away a few hours nattering about golf and politics, ailments and grandchildren. But until recently, they were forbidden to speak about the greatest achievement of their professional lives.
"Ah, Hexagon," Ed Newton says, gleefully exhaling the word that stills feels almost treasonous to utter in public.
It was dubbed "Big Bird" and it was considered the most successful space spy satellite program of the Cold War era. From 1971 to 1986 a total of 20 satellites were launched, each containing 60 miles of film and sophisticated cameras that orbited the earth snapping vast, panoramic photographs of the Soviet Union, China and other potential foes. The film was shot back through the earth's atmosphere in buckets that parachuted over the Pacific Ocean, where C-130 Air Force planes snagged them with grappling hooks.
The scale, ambition and sheer ingenuity of Hexagon KH-9 was breathtaking. The fact that 19 out of 20 launches were successful (the final mission blew up because the booster rockets failed) is astonishing.
So too is the human tale of the 45-year-old secret that many took to their graves.
Hexagon was declassified in September. Finally Marra, Newton and others can tell the world what they worked on all those years at "the office."
"My name is Al Gayhart and I built spy satellites for a living," announced the 64-year-old retired engineer to the stunned bartender in his local tavern as soon as he learned of the declassification. He proudly repeats the line any chance he gets.
"It was intensely demanding, thrilling and the greatest experience of my life," says Gayhart, who was hired straight from college and was one of the youngest members of the Hexagon "brotherhood".
He describes the white-hot excitement as teams pored over hand-drawings and worked on endless technical problems, using "slide-rules and advanced degrees" (there were no computers), knowing they were part of such a complicated space project. The intensity would increase as launch deadlines loomed and on the days when "the customer" — the CIA and later the Air Force — came for briefings. On at least one occasion, former President George H.W. Bush, who was then CIA director, flew into Danbury for a tour of the plant.
Though other companies were part of the project — Eastman Kodak made the film and Lockheed Corp. built the satellite — the cameras and optics systems were all made at Perkin-Elmer, then the biggest employer in Danbury.
"There were many days we arrived in the dark and left in the dark," says retired engineer Paul Brickmeier, 70.
He recalls the very first briefing on Hexagon after Perkin-Elmer was awarded the top secret contract in 1966. Looking around the room at his 30 or so colleagues, Brickmeier thought, "How on Earth is this going to be possible?"
One thing that made it possible was a hiring frenzy that attracted the attention of top engineers from around the Northeast. Perkin-Elmer also commissioned a new 270,000-square-foot building for Hexagon — the boxy one on the hill.
Waiting for clearance was a surreal experience as family members, neighbors and former employers were grilled by the FBI, and potential hires were questioned about everything from their gambling habits to their sexuality.
"They wanted to make sure we couldn't be bribed," Marra says.
Clearance could take up to a year. During that time, employees worked on relatively minor tasks in a building dubbed "the mushroom tank" — so named because everyone was in the dark about what they had actually been hired for.
Joseph Prusak, 76, spent six months in the tank. When he was finally briefed on Hexagon, Prusak, who had worked as an engineer on earlier civil space projects, wondered if he had made the biggest mistake of his life.
"I thought they were crazy," he says. "They envisaged a satellite that was 60-foot long and 30,000 pounds and supplying film at speeds of 200 inches per second. The precision and complexity blew my mind."
Several years later, after numerous successful launches, he was shown what Hexagon was capable of — an image of his own house in suburban Fairfield.
"This was light years before Google Earth," Prusak said. "And we could clearly see the pool in my backyard."
There had been earlier space spy satellites — Corona and Gambit. But neither had the resolution or sophistication of Hexagon, which took close-range pictures of Soviet missiles, submarine pens and air bases, even entire battalions on war exercises.
According to the National Reconnaissance Office, a single Hexagon frame covered a ground distance of 370 nautical miles, about the distance from Washington to Cincinnati. Early Hexagons averaged 124 days in space, but as the satellites became more sophisticated, later missions lasted twice as long.
"At the height of the Cold War, our ability to receive this kind of technical intelligence was incredible," says space historian Dwayne Day. "We needed to know what they were doing and where they were doing it, and in particular if they were preparing to invade Western Europe. Hexagon created a tremendous amount of stability because it meant American decision makers were not operating in the dark."
Among other successes, Hexagon is credited with providing crucial information for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1970s.
From the outset, secrecy was a huge concern, especially in Danbury, where the intense activity of a relatively small company that had just been awarded a massive contract (the amount was not declassified) made it obvious that something big was going on. Inside the plant, it was impossible to disguise the gigantic vacuum thermal chamber where cameras were tested in extreme conditions that simulated space. There was also a "shake, rattle and roll room" to simulate conditions during launch.
"The question became, how do you hide an elephant?" a National Reconnaissance Office report stated at the time. It decided on a simple response: "What elephant?" Employees were told to ignore any questions from the media, and never confirm the slightest detail about what they worked on.
But it was impossible to conceal the launches at Vandenberg Air Force base in California, and aviation magazines made several references to "Big Bird." In 1975, a "60 Minutes" television piece on space reconnaissance described an "Alice in Wonderland" world, where American and Soviet intelligence officials knew of each other's "eyes in the sky" — and other nations did, too — but no one confirmed the programs or spoke about them publicly.
For employees at Perkin-Elmer, the vow of secrecy was considered a mark of honor.
"We were like the guys who worked on the first atom bomb," said Oscar Berendsohn, 87, who helped design the optics system. "It was more than a sworn oath. We had been entrusted with the security of the country. What greater trust is there?"
Even wives — who couldn't contact their husbands or know of their whereabouts when they were traveling — for the most part accepted the secrecy. They knew the jobs were highly classified. They knew not to ask questions.
"We were born into the World War II generation," says Linda Bronico, whose husband, Al, told her only that he was building test consoles and cables. "We all knew the slogan 'loose lips sink ships.'"
And Perkin-Elmer was considered a prized place to work, with good salaries and benefits, golf and softball leagues, lavish summer picnics (the company would hire an entire amusement park for employees and their families) and dazzling children's Christmas parties.
"We loved it," Marra says. "It was our life."
For Marra and his former co-workers, sharing that life and their long-held secret has unleashed a jumble of emotions, from pride to nostalgia to relief — and in some cases, grief.
The city's mayor, Mark Boughton, only discovered that his father had worked on Hexagon when he was invited to speak at an October reunion ceremony on the grounds of the former plant. His father, Donald Boughton, also a former mayor, was too ill to attend and died a few days later.
Boughton said for years he and his siblings would pester his father — a draftsman — about what he did. Eventually they realized that the topic was off limits.
"Learning about Hexagon makes me view him completely differently," Boughton says. "He was more than just my Dad with the hair-trigger temper and passionate opinions about everything. He was a Cold War warrior doing something incredibly important for our nation."
For Betty Osterweis the ceremony was bittersweet, too. Not only did she learn about the mystery of her late husband's professional life. She also learned about his final moments.
"All these years," she said, "I had wondered what exactly had happened" on that terrible day in 1987 when she received a phone call saying her 53-year-old husband, Henry Osterweis, a contract negotiator, had suffered a heart attack on the job. At the reunion she met former co-workers who could offer some comfort that the end had been quick.
Standing in the grounds of her late husband's workplace, listening to the tributes, her son and daughter and grandchildren by her side, Osterweis was overwhelmed by the enormity of it all — the sacrifice, the secrecy, the pride.
"To know that this was more than just a company selling widgets ... that he was negotiating contracts for our country's freedom and security," she said.
"What a secret. And what a legacy."
Monday, December 26, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Hezbollah chief makes rare public appearance
Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Lebanon's Hezbollah group, has made his first public appearance for several years at a rally in Beirut.
In Depth
What is Ashoura?
In Pictures: Nasrallah addresses Ashoura crowds
The leader has rarely been seen in public since his group helped battle Israel in a month-long war in 2006, fearing Israeli assassination.
Since then, he normally communicates with his followers and gives news conferences via satellite link-up.
Nasrallah was seen walking through a throng of people in a southern Shia stronghold in Beirut on Tuesday before he addressed a crowd marking the religious festival of Ashoura - a major religious festival which commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.
He said his public appearance in the suburb of Dahiya was a message to those who believed they could "threaten us".
'Here to stay'
"I wanted to be with you for a few minutes ... to renew our pledge and for the world to hear us," Nasrallah said.
He said Hezbollah was "here to stay" and would never give up its weapons.
"We are increasing in numbers and in weapons ... and for those who are betting that our weapons are rusting, we say that our weapons are being renewed," he said.
Nasrallah has rarely been seen in public since Hezbollah helped fight against Israel in 2006
A smiling Nasrallah then left the podium, telling tens of thousands of supporters he would reappear in few minutes on a giant screen for a longer speech.
"See you in few minutes," he joked to his followers before he left.
His appearance is meant to portray confidence at a time of upheaval in the Middle East, and particularly in Syria, which along with Iran is Hezbollah's main backer.
Many Syrians and Arabs around the region have in recent years elevated Nasrallah to the status of a nationalist hero after the success of Hezbollah fighters against Israel in 2006.
Since the Syrian uprising, however, many Syrians have unleashed their anger at Hezbollah over its support for President Bashar al-Assad's rule.
Some protesters in Syria have set fire to the yellow flag of Hezbollah and pictures of Nasrallah.
'Ready to die'
In the speech broadcast on large screens shortly after his departure, Nasrallah vowed his group would continue to arm in the face of possible "regional change," hinting at neighbouring Syria.
"A message to all those who are conspiring against the resistance and banking on change [in the Arab world] ... We will never let go of our arms," he said.
"We are tens of thousands of trained fighters, who are all ready to die," he said.
"Day after day, the resistance gains more fighters, trains better fighters and arms even more heavily.
"These charlatans and hypocrites are known for their support of all dictatorships that collapse and for disowning these dictatorships immediately after they collapse"
- Hassan Nasrallah,
Head of Lebanon's Hezbollah group
"Every weapon that rusts is replaced."
Many observers say the Syria crisis, which is threatening to topple Assad, has dealt a severe blow to the Lebanese group.
He also lashed out at the US for seeking to destroy Syria in order to "make up for its defeat in Iraq".
"The United States has tried to portray itself as the defender of human rights and democracy in the Arab world.
"These charlatans and hypocrites are known for their support of all dictatorships that collapse and for disowning these dictatorships immediately after they collapse.
"This is the character of Satan."
Nasrallah renewed his vow to stand by Assad and lashed out at the Syrian National Council, the main anti-Assad opposition group, for aiming to "destroy Syria" while moving closer to Washington and Israel.
"The so-called Syrian National Council, formed in Istanbul, and its leader Burhan Ghalyoun ... are trying to present their credentials to the United States and Israel," Nasrallah said.
His comments came after Ghalyoun was quoted as saying a Syria run by the country's main opposition group would cut military ties to Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.
"There will be no special relationship with Iran," Ghalyoun, a 66-year-old university professor, told the Wall Street Journal, a News Corp title, in an interview published on Friday.
"Breaking the exceptional relationship means breaking the strategic, military alliance," he was quoted as saying. "After the fall of the Syrian regime, [Hezbollah] won't be the same."
In Depth
What is Ashoura?
In Pictures: Nasrallah addresses Ashoura crowds
The leader has rarely been seen in public since his group helped battle Israel in a month-long war in 2006, fearing Israeli assassination.
Since then, he normally communicates with his followers and gives news conferences via satellite link-up.
Nasrallah was seen walking through a throng of people in a southern Shia stronghold in Beirut on Tuesday before he addressed a crowd marking the religious festival of Ashoura - a major religious festival which commemorates the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.
He said his public appearance in the suburb of Dahiya was a message to those who believed they could "threaten us".
'Here to stay'
"I wanted to be with you for a few minutes ... to renew our pledge and for the world to hear us," Nasrallah said.
He said Hezbollah was "here to stay" and would never give up its weapons.
"We are increasing in numbers and in weapons ... and for those who are betting that our weapons are rusting, we say that our weapons are being renewed," he said.
Nasrallah has rarely been seen in public since Hezbollah helped fight against Israel in 2006
A smiling Nasrallah then left the podium, telling tens of thousands of supporters he would reappear in few minutes on a giant screen for a longer speech.
"See you in few minutes," he joked to his followers before he left.
His appearance is meant to portray confidence at a time of upheaval in the Middle East, and particularly in Syria, which along with Iran is Hezbollah's main backer.
Many Syrians and Arabs around the region have in recent years elevated Nasrallah to the status of a nationalist hero after the success of Hezbollah fighters against Israel in 2006.
Since the Syrian uprising, however, many Syrians have unleashed their anger at Hezbollah over its support for President Bashar al-Assad's rule.
Some protesters in Syria have set fire to the yellow flag of Hezbollah and pictures of Nasrallah.
'Ready to die'
In the speech broadcast on large screens shortly after his departure, Nasrallah vowed his group would continue to arm in the face of possible "regional change," hinting at neighbouring Syria.
"A message to all those who are conspiring against the resistance and banking on change [in the Arab world] ... We will never let go of our arms," he said.
"We are tens of thousands of trained fighters, who are all ready to die," he said.
"Day after day, the resistance gains more fighters, trains better fighters and arms even more heavily.
"These charlatans and hypocrites are known for their support of all dictatorships that collapse and for disowning these dictatorships immediately after they collapse"
- Hassan Nasrallah,
Head of Lebanon's Hezbollah group
"Every weapon that rusts is replaced."
Many observers say the Syria crisis, which is threatening to topple Assad, has dealt a severe blow to the Lebanese group.
He also lashed out at the US for seeking to destroy Syria in order to "make up for its defeat in Iraq".
"The United States has tried to portray itself as the defender of human rights and democracy in the Arab world.
"These charlatans and hypocrites are known for their support of all dictatorships that collapse and for disowning these dictatorships immediately after they collapse.
"This is the character of Satan."
Nasrallah renewed his vow to stand by Assad and lashed out at the Syrian National Council, the main anti-Assad opposition group, for aiming to "destroy Syria" while moving closer to Washington and Israel.
"The so-called Syrian National Council, formed in Istanbul, and its leader Burhan Ghalyoun ... are trying to present their credentials to the United States and Israel," Nasrallah said.
His comments came after Ghalyoun was quoted as saying a Syria run by the country's main opposition group would cut military ties to Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.
"There will be no special relationship with Iran," Ghalyoun, a 66-year-old university professor, told the Wall Street Journal, a News Corp title, in an interview published on Friday.
"Breaking the exceptional relationship means breaking the strategic, military alliance," he was quoted as saying. "After the fall of the Syrian regime, [Hezbollah] won't be the same."
Monday, December 5, 2011
US: Edging closer towards war with Iran?
The biggest problem for the US is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, but getting it and not using it.
Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neo-conservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neo-conservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear programme is all about:
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
Watch here.
Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it, but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?
Apparently not.
Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neo-conservativism.
Earlier this week, one of Pletka's colleagues at AEI said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we've got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to "understand the nature of the conflict." He continued:
We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear programme while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.
This admission that the problem with a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel, but that it would alter the regional balance of power is incredibly significant. The American Enterprise Institute is not Commentary, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, which are not exactly known for their intellectual heft.
It is, along with the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think-tank. That is why it was able to play such an influential role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this page from the AEI website from January 2002 (featuring, no surprise, a head shot of Richard Perle). It is announcing one of an almost endless series of events designed to instigate war with Iraq, a war that did not begin for another 14 months. (Perle himself famously began promoting a war with Iraq within days of 9/11, according to former CIA director George Tenet.) AEI's drumbeat for war was incessant, finally meeting with success in March 2003.
And now they are doing it again. On Monday, Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois - AIPAC's favourite senator - will keynote an event at AEI, with Pletka and Donnelly offering responses. It will be moderated by Fred Kagan, another AEI fellow and Iraq (now Iran) war hawk. The event is built on the premise that "ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed".
We all know what that means. AEI will, no doubt, continue to host these "it's time for war" events through 2012 and beyond, or until President Obama or his successor announces either that the US has attacked Iran or that Israel has attacked and we are at her side.
If you didn't know any better, you might ask why - given that Pletka and Donnelly are downgrading the Iranian nuclear threat - AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat", what is it truly about?
Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.
This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war), because virtually, the entire Iranian population - from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society - are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neo-conservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.
At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.
At a fascinating Israel Policy Forum (IPF) this week, Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a longtime journalist and author who specialises on Iran, noted that the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with the Iranians. Forty-five minutes! Just as bad, the administration no longer makes any effort to engage.
This is crazy. Of course, there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk, but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no. If we talk and the talks go nowhere, then at least we tried. But we won't try out of fear of antagonising campaign donors who have been told that the alternative to war is the destruction of Israel. (Thanks to those same donors, Congress is utterly hopeless on this issue.)
So, instead of pursuing diplomacy, we are inching closer toward war.
At IPF, Slavin predicted what the collateral results of an attack on Iran would be:
What's the collateral damage? Oh my lord. Well, you destroy the reform movement in Iran for another generation because people will rally around the government; inevitably they do when country is attacked.
People always talk about the Iranians being so irrational and wanting martyrdom. That's bull. They're perfectly happy to fight to the last Arab suicide bomber. But they don't put their own lives on the line unless their country is attacked.
So, you know, they would rally around the government and that would destroy the reform movement. And of course the price of oil would spike. The Iranians will find ways to retaliate through their partners like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the Israelis would have to attack Lebanon first, to take out Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets. It's not just a matter of a quick few hops over Saudi Arabia and you hit Natanz, you know, and a few other places.
That's why the Israelis want the United States to do it, because they can't do it, frankly. The US does it? Okay, the remaining US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. Iran is already playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That will become much more pronounced. They will perhaps attack the Saudi oil fields.
Slavin continues, but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cakewalk" neo-conservatives promised it would be.
And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli lives? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neo-con, wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)
Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war, while millions of organised dollars are available to those who support the neo-con agenda. Pundits used to say: As Maine goes, so goes the country. It's just as simple today: As the money goes, so goes our policy.
Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neo-conservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.
The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neo-conservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear programme is all about:
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
Watch here.
Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it, but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?
Apparently not.
Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neo-conservativism.
Earlier this week, one of Pletka's colleagues at AEI said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we've got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to "understand the nature of the conflict." He continued:
We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear programme while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.
This admission that the problem with a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel, but that it would alter the regional balance of power is incredibly significant. The American Enterprise Institute is not Commentary, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, which are not exactly known for their intellectual heft.
It is, along with the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think-tank. That is why it was able to play such an influential role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this page from the AEI website from January 2002 (featuring, no surprise, a head shot of Richard Perle). It is announcing one of an almost endless series of events designed to instigate war with Iraq, a war that did not begin for another 14 months. (Perle himself famously began promoting a war with Iraq within days of 9/11, according to former CIA director George Tenet.) AEI's drumbeat for war was incessant, finally meeting with success in March 2003.
And now they are doing it again. On Monday, Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois - AIPAC's favourite senator - will keynote an event at AEI, with Pletka and Donnelly offering responses. It will be moderated by Fred Kagan, another AEI fellow and Iraq (now Iran) war hawk. The event is built on the premise that "ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed".
We all know what that means. AEI will, no doubt, continue to host these "it's time for war" events through 2012 and beyond, or until President Obama or his successor announces either that the US has attacked Iran or that Israel has attacked and we are at her side.
If you didn't know any better, you might ask why - given that Pletka and Donnelly are downgrading the Iranian nuclear threat - AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat", what is it truly about?
Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.
This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war), because virtually, the entire Iranian population - from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society - are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neo-conservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.
At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.
At a fascinating Israel Policy Forum (IPF) this week, Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a longtime journalist and author who specialises on Iran, noted that the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with the Iranians. Forty-five minutes! Just as bad, the administration no longer makes any effort to engage.
This is crazy. Of course, there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk, but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no. If we talk and the talks go nowhere, then at least we tried. But we won't try out of fear of antagonising campaign donors who have been told that the alternative to war is the destruction of Israel. (Thanks to those same donors, Congress is utterly hopeless on this issue.)
So, instead of pursuing diplomacy, we are inching closer toward war.
At IPF, Slavin predicted what the collateral results of an attack on Iran would be:
What's the collateral damage? Oh my lord. Well, you destroy the reform movement in Iran for another generation because people will rally around the government; inevitably they do when country is attacked.
People always talk about the Iranians being so irrational and wanting martyrdom. That's bull. They're perfectly happy to fight to the last Arab suicide bomber. But they don't put their own lives on the line unless their country is attacked.
So, you know, they would rally around the government and that would destroy the reform movement. And of course the price of oil would spike. The Iranians will find ways to retaliate through their partners like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the Israelis would have to attack Lebanon first, to take out Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets. It's not just a matter of a quick few hops over Saudi Arabia and you hit Natanz, you know, and a few other places.
That's why the Israelis want the United States to do it, because they can't do it, frankly. The US does it? Okay, the remaining US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. Iran is already playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That will become much more pronounced. They will perhaps attack the Saudi oil fields.
Slavin continues, but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cakewalk" neo-conservatives promised it would be.
And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli lives? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neo-con, wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)
Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war, while millions of organised dollars are available to those who support the neo-con agenda. Pundits used to say: As Maine goes, so goes the country. It's just as simple today: As the money goes, so goes our policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)