Iran-Contra Revisited
The New Yorker published a long article (five pages) by Seymour Hersh yesterday. Although it might take you all an incredible 20-30 minutes to read, I’d encourage everyone to read it nonetheless: it’s very informative, very interesting, and very shocking. Hersh explains how the Bush administration is involved in something quite similar to Iran-Contra.
America’s (and Israel’s) number-one enemy isn’t Osama Bin Laden anymore. It’s Iran. America fears Iran’s influence in the region – Bush et al. are afraid that America’s interests will be jeopardized. As a result, they have decided that Iran must be stopped against virtually all cost.
(I will, for the first time, use the “read more” feature: click on the link to read my entire TMV post on this)
This has resulted in a program, co-designed by former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. prince Bandar, designed to limit Iran’s and Shia influence in the region on the one hand, and empowering Sunnis on the other. These Sunni terrorist organizations, then, have to take on Shia organizations.
Now, we have to remember that most U.S. casualties in Iraq, are not caused by Shiite terrorists, but by Sunnis. Besides that, of course, it’s also quite relevant to realize that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.
One of the major mistakes of U.S. policy throughout the years has been that it has supported extremists (and dictators) when doing so appeared to be in its own best (short term) interest. Seemingly, people never learn from history because those exact policies, empowering extremists, dictators, etc., have had disastrous long term results. Without American funding / equipment there would be no Al Qaeda, or at least not in its present shape. And do we have to remind ourselves of the relationship between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein way-back-when?
Empowering extremists might be in one’s short term interest, but it’s never in one’s long term interest.
Hersh also writes that John Negroponte decided to accept the position as Deputy Secretary of State because of Iran-Contra-2. Crooks and Liars has a video up of Wolf Blitzer interviewing Sy Hersh about his article in The New Yorker.
Hersh also said that Iran Contra Revisited wasn’t Negroponte’s only problem: he was also considered to be “too ethical”.
As becomes clear from Hersh’s article, Saudi Arabia fears Iran tremendously and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to limit Iran’s influence in the region. Well, not whatever is necessary: Saudi Arabia opposes using force against Iran. A Saudi source told Hersh:
“We have two nightmares: for Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.�
Iran should be stopped, yes, but destroying one monster by creating a new one isn’t a long-term solution. Sunni extremists cannot, despite what the Saudis think about it, be controlled for long. Once they’re in power, once they have a lot of influence, they’ll turn against America instantly.
There is no Congressional control, money is being spent (without approval) on covert operations, the U.S. is fighting enemies by (indirectly) empowering (future) natural enemies, the entire region is torn apart by sectarian… lets call it competition —- what a mess.
Also read:
Libby Spencer at The Impolitic who writes:
Granted at the moment, this is as usual based on unnamed sources but taken within historical context of the runup to Iraq, Americans should be taking this news very seriously and consider whether we’re in more danger from Iran or from a White House that is so willing to again gamble our future on half-baked strategies in order to save face for the president.
Americans need to read up. This is getting very confusing for your average citizen, even for those who follow these things. The players are planning on the run to solidify turf, coupling with anything but the usual suspects, as they play with regional dynamite. It’s one thing to want to move players around when enjoying a game of Risk, ala Dick Cheney. It’s quite another to do it by throwing Israel and the Saudis together while Iraq is on boil.
So here is where we stand today. Iraq is in play, with the Saudis freaked out about ethnic cleansing and a Shia crescent, while the U.S. ratchets up tensions with Iran, who is linked in a swath of power from Iran to Lebanon, with Israel getting more nervous by the day and the Saudis offering up all the cash they’ve got to make certain that the Shia power is balanced with Sunni force, actually dipping their diplomatic toes into a relationship with Israel, all the while the United States agitates the situation, even though our influence in the region has plummeted, giving the Shia and the Iranians a leg up. Got that? …and that’s only the short version.
Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily who emphasizes that Hersh’s article is a must read.
Kevin Hayden at The American Street:
As it stands now, if the world turned the post- 9/11 Bush question around and asked him if he was ‘with or against’ the terrorists, the only honest answer he could give is ‘both.’
And therein lies both a moral and strategic disaster in the making.
At this point, I feel there’s only one way left for the country to clear itself from the ambiguity, dishonesty and potential for blowback. Bush and Cheney must be impeached for giving aid and comfort to too many enemies to count.
The Xsociate at State of the Day.
34 Responses to “Iran-Contra Revisited”
Anything Sy Hersh writes, I take with a huge grain of salt.
Blah. I just can’t understand how right wingers manage to live in a buble and even be proud of it. Those are facts, coming from named officials or former officials who have the knowledge. This is much better investigated information than coming those unnamed leakers, spreading WH talking points all the time. ‘A grain of salt’? Isn’t the truth bitter enough for you?
Anything Bush, Cheney and their leadership team say, I take with the entire salt mine. Just to be clear, in a huge religious based fight in the Mid East, we support Bandar and Saudis (Sunnis) against Iran (Shiites), but in Iraq we are essentially supporting the Shiites (Malaki and his noble cohorts) and the Sunnis. No quagmire here, just pass on by.
Holly is right in re: Hersh. He has been desperately seeking to reprise his Vietnam era rep for years. Every year or so he has a “BIG” story – remember last year’s one about how Bush planned to nuke Iran?
All of these stories have the same cast of characters: consultants, former senior intelligence officials, a Democratic senator/congressman…Once in a while Hersh is right, more often not.
That said…why is this Iran-Contra 2?
Alas, I remember following the Iran-Contra story closely. It was a scandal precisely because it was illegal: people in the Reagan Admin (Col. Oliver North etc.) decided to arm the Contras in violation of a Congressional decision not to (without telling Reagan). They used funds from arms sales to Iran to do so.
Where is the illegality here? There may be covert ops.
But folks, use your critical reading skills. Notice how vague Hersh (and his source) get when it comes to describing these covert ops.
Do you think, if they actually knew anything, they would not publish it?
Also, where are the laws being broken? What makes this Iran-Contra 2?
That is like saying Iraq is Vietnam.
Note the vagueness below…if Hersh and Co. had hard info it would be here. They got nothing, and use inneuendo and covert language to disguise this:
The MONEY QUOTE:
“The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. “There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,â€? he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.”
What has he been wrong about? Wikipedia might only list the things he was right about but recently they’ve included Abu Ghraib and the Defense Dept’s “alternate” intelligence program. About Iran, the article said that in the plans to bomb Iran they were considering using bunker busting nukes — how do we know this isn’t true? (Incidentally the wikipedia article points out you shouldn’t pay attention to anything he says as it seems he needs an editor to keep him honest.)
Anyway, perhaps Iran-Contra II isn’t the best description. It’s not really illegal and secondly the public would actually care about this.
“remember last year’s one about how Bush planned to nuke Iran?”
What exactly was wrong with that? It’s well known that the US is developping new tactical nukes, especially as ‘bunker busters’. Do you have any evidence that there are no plans at the pentagon for using that Nukes against Iran, Marlowe?
“Notice how vague Hersh (and his source) get when it comes to describing these covert ops.”
And it’s perfectly clear why he doesn’t have exact infos about troop strengths, missions, and objectives. Because not even the CIA knows. but if this turns out to be true, this is reason for impeachment. Let’s hope hard evidence, pro or contra, surfaces fast.
Shorter Marlowe: There’s smoke, so there may be fire or may be not. Let’s just assume everything’s ok.
I agree with Mikkel- if you are going to disagree with Hersh on a factual basis, its one thing, but I haven’t seen anyone here who has been able to do that. The New Yorker is not a left-wing rag, and I’m sure Sy Hersh knows he could be sued for libel if he made unfair charges about Cheney.
Marlowe- what kind of sources should Hersh use? Is it better to have someone like Judith Miller serve as a mouthpiece for Cheney’s office, and gin the country up for war based on false claims?
And I second Mikkel’s question- what has Hersh been wrong about?
More Importantly: What have Cheney, Bush and the neocons who got us into this war been right about? WMD’s? The insurgency? Debaathification? They stand up, we stand down? Reconstruction costs being covered by Iraq’s oil production? Being greeted as liberators? Slam dunk? Out in 90 days? That Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war? Keeping Rummy for 6 years? Ignoring warnings that removing Saddam from power in Iraq could empower Iran? Marginalizing Powell and Shinseki regarding what level of force to use during the invasion? Mission Accomplished?
That’s a partial list, but you get my drift. Yet the right still trusts what comes out of their mouths. Amazing.
Mikkel, you are echoing my point. Here a quote from a Columbia Journalism Review article on Hersh:
“These days, questions about Hersh come from a number of directions. Some of his friends and admirers express a sense of uneasiness about the heavy reliance on unnamed sources in his reporting since 9/11….At various moments since 9/11, Jack Shafer recently proclaimed in Slate, “Hersh’s predictive take on the course of events has been wrong. Boneheaded-dumb wrong.”
Hersh is sometimes right…often he is not, and is a victim of his unnamed sources who — in true Washington fashion — are leaking stories and rumors for their own agenda.
This is not to disregard Hersh’s reporting or this story. I think you just have to read it more critically than normally, especially with an eye to the “anonymice” as they are called.
“About Iran, the article said that in the plans to bomb Iran they were considering using bunker busting nukes — how do we know this isn’t true?”
That is an example of my point. There may be some staffer suggesting the use of nukes in some contingency plan in some office. But the burden of proof must be on Hersh. “How do we know there are no Flying Saucers or aliens at Area 51?” Same thing.
This is, I think, why the Wiki suggested Hersh needed a good editor to keep him honest.
Gray said: “Shorter Marlowe: There’s smoke, so there may be fire or may be not. Let’s just assume everything’s ok.”
Hahahaha…
No, just providing context. Hersh may be right. They may well be covert ops underway.
But (1) this would not (as such) be illegal, in the way that Poindexter/North’s actions were in Iran-Contra;
(2) Hersh has not described said ops, only implied that they exist;
(3) Hersh has a history of “ginned up” stories, using unnamed sources, that often do not pan out. I cited one quote above.
Again, I ask the questions: Where are the laws being broken? What is the real story here?
Please note: I am asking for critical reading, not dismissing Hersh. I think there may be the germ of a real story here — a strategic shifting of US thinking on the entire region — that is ginned up by dark implications of Bush funding insurgent groups blowing up US troops.
Marlo,
Dang…Vietnam era? How old IS this dude?
Kritter said: “if you are going to disagree with Hersh on a factual basis, its one thing, but I haven’t seen anyone here who has been able to do that.”
Kritter, there is a huge paper trail on Hersh’s sloppy use of sources and inneuendo over the years. His “Dark Camelot” was particularly devastating to his reputation, as he warped time itself to lay every slur he could at JFK’s doorstep (I am not a fan of JFK, but he clearly deserved better).
Here’s one review of Hersh’s “Dark Camelot”. Please read, and see what Hersh’s critics mean:
“How bad is Hersh’s scholarship? Consider the Section of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT in which Hersh states that JFK “endorsed” the CIA assassination of Lumumba of the Congo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since CIA thugs beat Lumumba to death on January 17 and JFK was sworn in on January 20, Hersh must overcome a serious chronologial problem. He does this by baldly asserting Kennedy vigorously supported and emphatically agreed to Eisenhower’s policy to kill the African leader.Hersh carries this subterfuge off by only quoting former CIA men who were ideologically opposed to JFK’s policies, by refusing to cite the copious well-known record affirming an opposite interpretation, and by not interviewing the numerous individuals who would have provided a true picture.
Early in January 1961, Kenedy’s staff and special Congo study group had alerted the CIA that American reactionary policies in the Congo would change and that a JFK emissary had warned Belgium intelligence services not to “liquidate” Lumumba. By February 2, Kennedy had devised a plan for a new Congo policy that would ultimately include Lumumba. He did not learn of the murder of Lumumba until February 13; a famous photograph depicts him receiving the news, his head bowed in anguish.”
ChuckPrez said: “Marlo,Dang…Vietnam era? How old IS this dude?”
Ah, I initially read this as an ageist slur on your truly, who alas remembers the 1980s. Though brain cells have vanished since (insert expected comment from Gray here!)
Yah, Hersh played a role in exposing the My Lai massacre, if memory serves. This is my point…he sometimes has good stories, but sadly seems to want to reprise his great years.
This makes him vulnerable to sources who dangle a big hunka cheese in front of him.
OK Marlowecan I will grant you that I find all his “officials” to be highly suspect (btw am I the only one that found it hilarious Wikipedia quoted Amir Taheri complaining about his credibility) and that the way he writes about future plans makes it so he can’t be wrong. I mean if he’s just writing about what we’re planning to do, then he can reasonably say the plans changed.
So yes I would compromise and say that if he’s writing about something that has already occurred and is just breaking it to the public then he should be given the benefit of the doubt, but if it’s about some future prediction then it should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course the latter is true no matter how accurate his reporting is because things change.
Since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and this story is contradictory on a number of levels at first glance (i.e. saying groups are Al Qaeda linked means nothing. Not to go on a tangent but the GWOT crowd has done a great disservice by combining all these localized groups with local aims into one giant global homogenous group and it’s not useful to do the same thing just to criticize Bush) then I wouldn’t take it as gospel.
On the other hand, those radical groups are probably the only organized powers in the region that are used to acting covertly and circumstantial evidence from Iraq suggests many of the jihadist groups have decided that attacking Shia is more important than targeting us. Multiple stories have quoted Sunni/”Al Qaeda” members as saying that they now only attack American forces inasmuch as we’re providing protection to the Shia.
MvdG,
Iran may be “the Enemy” but it’s an enemy we in essence created. We should be aware of this fact.
Marlo,
No worries on the age thing…I’m a 70s baby if that helps any so the 1980s were my childhood/adolescent development years…
Komrad Marlow – The Camelot story is one example, how about some more. The Abu Ghraib trumps his dislike of the Kenedy myth. Why is Elliot Abrahms still a power player? Hersh’s sources are just as credible as hokey PowerPoint presentations of Western stencils on RPG rounds that are supposedly from a Farsi country.
Mikkel said: “Since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenceâ€? and this story is contradictory on a number of levels at first glance (i.e. saying groups are Al Qaeda linked means nothing. Not to go on a tangent but the GWOT crowd has done a great disservice by combining all these localized groups with local aims into one giant global homogenous group and it’s not useful to do the same thing just to criticize Bush) then I wouldn’t take it as gospel.”
Mikkel, I fully agree. I think in ways that Hersh is almost a tragic figure as his desire for a big dramatic story sometimes leads him to overlook a big non-dramatic story lying underneath.
There might be a huge story here about a shift in US strategy. However, the implications of US covertly funding Sunni insurgents blowing up US troops…and only the Far Left believes Bush would do this…may lead folks to ignore the big story.
Is Bush attempting to divide and rule the Middle East? Is he risking a regional religious war within Islam on an immense scale (the Iran-Iraq War cost a million lives)?
These are serious questions. I think the dramatic inneuendo of Hersh’s article obscures these points which are subtle.
Rudi the Red said: “Hersh’s sources are just as credible as hokey PowerPoint presentations of Western stencils on RPG rounds that are supposedly from a Farsi country.”
Nice snark, comrade. As you follow this business, Rudi, do you know was there ever an explanation for why Iran would make munitions with English markings? I recall questions being asked?
Your post makes a good point, though. Lots of people are ginning up intelligence, and making dramatic accusations, these days.
Clearly, many people are attempting to shape the news agenda for many different reasons. None of this bodes well re the possibility of a war with Iran.
“Where is the illegality here? There may be covert ops.”
I am sure these covert acts have been approved by Congress, and certainly Congress has been briefed about what is going on – nothing illegal here, please move along.
Marlow I found a possible explanation on some blog (alas I have forgotten — the Agonist perhaps?) that sent its people out searching the internets. They came across an Iranian weapons manufacturer that sells them commercially. In fact, if you have an importer ID you can buy them online! I presume the stuff was in English because it was for export…if that’s the place that did make them. Of course it seemed to be private and I don’t know how the Iranian gov’t is involved, so all that might have proven is that people can buy arms which is hardly a stunning revelation.
Komrad Marlow – The Camelot story is one example, how about some more. The Abu Ghraib trumps his dislike of the Kenedy myth. Why is Elliot Abrahms still a power player? Hersh’s sources are just as credible as hokey PowerPoint presentations of Western stencils on RPG rounds that are supposedly from a Farsi country.
Rudi- Great snark, man. lmao, as usual!
Hersh has been right more than he’s been wrong. There’s always been a ton of conflicting information about Kennedy- I don’t think we’ll ever know the real truth about his life any more than we will know the truth about his death. Arthur Schlesinger, who disputes Hersh’s findings on Wiki was a Kennedy loyalist, the way Karl Rove is a Bush loyalist-he’s not going to destroy the legend of Camelot.
Mikkel said: “In fact, if you have an importer ID you can buy them online!”
Are you serious? Hahahaha….what a truly f**ked up world we live in!
Once upon a time, arms dealing was a dark and dirty business. Now we can buy our Strelas and IEDs online + get Frequent Flyer Airmiles if we use our Visa Corporate Terrorist Gold Card.
Amazing.
Hersch is pointing to the difference between covert ops of the CIA (which require some oversight by Congress) and those undertaken by the NSC. So, I have to disagree slightly with my friend Marlowe on this one, because if Hersh’s allegations are true then I think this would be serious, and likely illegal (or at best, a troublesome overreaching of the Executive branch).
The money quote you referenced above, Marlowe, exemplifies why this would be so troublesome. Even if intentions are assumed to be good and pure- if the administration were trying to covertly destabilize Shiite extremists while putting money in the hands of Sunni moderates- it’s likely that the money will be diverted. And this quote is also quite telling, as to why that would happen:
I think the overall strategy makes sense but may simply be undoable. There may not be enough moderates in the region with the power to pull this off, and the only way they know to gain more power is to unleash the Islamist genies of their sects in order to fight off the Islamists on the other side. What we want is to strengthen the moderats of Sunni dominated nations and to strengthen moderate Shia leaders, to establish a balance of power in the region. But if each sect’s moderates fear of the extremists on the other side is greater than their love of stability and moderation, then they will turn to the extremists of their sect for ‘help’.
On a separate note, I found the opinions of Nasrallah quite fascinating. It’s interesting to note how suspiciously he views attempts to partition Iraq, for example. It just goes to show you how we can get into trouble by analyzing things through our own filter, without considering how the situation is actually viewed by those who are living through it. It seems to most Americans that partition of Iraq would make sense, and that we think that most Iraqis probably want it too. We even think that throughout the region, that ethnic groups probably want to fragment their countries and reverse the effects of colonialism that drew unnatural borders. Yet the people of that region would rightly fear that happening; even if they didn’t want the borders to be drawn as they were, they now have to live with the fact that division would be dangerous for their survival.
CStanley…you make good points.
“We even think that throughout the region, that ethnic groups probably want to fragment their countries and reverse the effects of colonialism that drew unnatural borders. Yet the people of that region would rightly fear that happening….”
I would argue you are wrong here. Think about where Nasrallah is coming from – Shi’a interests. A unified Iraq would be dominated by the Shi’a. Of course Nasrallah wants a unified Iraq.
Do the Kurds show fear of division? Not that I have seen. The experience of the Balkans suggests many groups would be happiest divided.
Also, I am not aware of any inherent illegality in covert operations by the NSC. Historically, the NSC has been the executive’s prime instrument in issuing directives in this area. The Constitutional oversight of Congress on the NSC is grey…. In Iran-Contra there was a specific law passed banning US support for the Contra, that Poindexter and crew disregarded. There is no such law here.
As for Islamic moderates/extremists, I think one has to play the hand one has. The US has historically supported “our bastards” often because they were the only tool at hand. It would be foolish to think any strategy could perfectly control all localized groups and issues.
CStanley, I would agree with the subtext of unease in your comment.
If this strategic redirection is at play, it would require some serious thinking about the region. This quote you cite is very disturbing as it has the suggestion of truth: “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia.”
I suppose the question is:
Does one think the Bush administration has the intelligence (in all senses of the word) to carry off such a Grand Strategy?
Mikkel – The site appears to be a plant. A google search for “Iranian weapons manufacturers” leads to AMIG.
http://www.diomil.ir/en/amig.aspx
This phony Iranian arms dealer has a “spiffy” website with two stage HEAT munitions. The US and Russia doesn’t share this type of munitions with the rest of the world. The RPG-7 is copied world wide, the RPG-29(HEAT) isn’t. A great source of military info(unbiased) is GlobalSecurity.org. A search at their site gives no results for AMIG, a search for DIO gives back over 20. Other weblogs also call AMIG a fraud, if GS.org doesn’t have any info on it i’d say MEK is doing a good job.
Whoa Rudi too many acronyms — DIO and MEK? Incidentally I like how the new form of “research” is to send everyone to google things without having any background knowledge.
Obviously quite a lot of reason to be dubious on that, wouldn’t you say, Marlowe? I feel uneasy as I did during the runup to the Iraq invasion; I remember thinking at the time, if they CAN pull this off, then it’s worth it. Similarly now, I think this may be the only strategy that could work, but at the same time the odds seem stacked against it, the administration’s track record doesn’t support the idea that they can pull off grand schemes with adequate planning and foresight, and the consequences of failure will be great.
And, even without Hersch’s analysis, I see the administration putting a lot of eggs in Bandar’s basket and that fact alone concerns me.
I still have mixed feelings though. Getting the Saudis to help with roadmap to peace in Israel/Palestine seems like a brilliant move; finding a way out of Iraq that prevents genocide of Iraqi Sunnis and/or igniting a regional war between the Sunni powers and Iran, also a good idea. The question is how the Saudis would attempt to help us accomplish these things.
Forgot to add, Marlowe, you’re probably right about the legality of covert ops by the NSC; I was mainly making the point that I’d still be disturbed if the worst of Hersh’s allegations were true and would consider it an excessive use of Executive authority because I believe that it’s probably not possible to control a mission like this; once the money is thrown out there, it will seek the lowest ground and get into the hands of uncontrollable Islamist groups.
Mikkel says:
This got me curious and I looked for this group. A phony site actually in Iran(appears) has weapons on it’s site that the Iranians cannot make, no license from Russians.
http://www.diomil.ir/en/amig.aspx
This site is a fake. The Westernized name is DIO – Defense Industries Organization. The Iranian name is SASAD – SAzemane SAnaye Defa. Sasad has an actaul website blocked by a firewall.
http://www.sasad.ir/
Another dual purpose Iranian defence company is AIO – Aerospace Industries Organization. It’s Iranian name is Sanam and has a Western website anyone can visit.
http://sanam-op.com/
The phony DIO site is all over the web and may make cable TV, but it’s as phony as Amir Taheri’s patches story.
Mikkel – Like the W administration, groups from the left and right cheery pick the info you can find with Google. What one has to do is dig a little deeper, more Google or a IP or DNS search. What you don’t know at the start is knowlege gained if you search long enough.
MVG- Thanks for writing a post on this subject. Predictably, many attacked Hersh’s credibility, but I watched him on CNN, and he convinced me. Is it that hard to believe that given America’s propensity for covertly funding and arming one group against another-Iran-contra is a perfect example, that we wouldn’t be foolish enough to fund radical Sunni groups to contain Iran? Iran seems to be perceived as the bigger threat these days -al queda is no longer #1. These operations are feckless, reckless and full of all kinds of unintended consequences. This is foreign policy played like some kind of cheap video game, not the work of seasoned professionals, and it scares the hell out of me.
“Ah, I initially read this as an ageist slur on your truly, who alas remembers the 1980s. Though brain cells have vanished since (insert expected comment from Gray here!)
”
Hmm, Marlowe, I remember the 80s very well, too, and many posters here have already speculated about the state of my brain cells. But since you asked for a comment, why don’t you simply insert ‘(as a result of the continuous mindwashing by the MSM and the Bush propaganda machine)’…
