Of Israel and Iran - And U.S. "Cooking" Iran Intelligence (Again)

[Important note: Cernig's Newshog also reports that the IAEA has just announced that they have concluded the U.S. "evidence" against Iran is patently wrong.]

And no, it's not just because Israel is making noises about attacking Iran on its own (their argument: Iran's nuclear capability is a threat to them which ignores the fact that Israel is NOT supposed to have the bomb and has been fully a nuclear threat since at least the 1970s).

No, both these questions are posted by Cernig of Cernig's Newshog and they're excellent ones that I've wondered myself and don't much see the traditional press asking.

First, why are we told constantly that Europe is a hotbed of anti-semitic hatred when the vast majority of Israeli citizens (4 out of 5) are clamoring for EU status? Why would they want entry into the European Union if they felt so badly treated? Is this just Bush-U.S. spin?

Second, would the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who said he doesn't buy all these bellicose rhetoric about "evidence" of Iranian complicity in the horrors of Iraq, be willing to attack Iran if Bush ordered it?

I was just debating this issue with someone last night; my question however was whether any military people here would ever take the extreme measure of open defiance of blatantly heinous and WRONG orders. I doubt America would easily recover from a military coup.

From Cernig's Newshog:

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, poses an interesting question.

So would Pace attack Iran if Bush ordered him to? His only alternative would be to resign, but he does have that option. Senior officers like Pace, while still bound by the code of military discipline, acquire a political responsibility as well. Like Cabinet ministers, they cannot oppose a government decision while in office, but they have the right and even the duty to resign rather than carry out a decision that they believe to be disastrous.

...The resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- and possibly several of the other chiefs as well -- would be an immensely powerful gesture. It could stop an attack on Iran dead in its tracks, for the White House would have to find other officers who would carry out its orders. It would doubtless find them, but such a shocking event might finally enable Congress to find its backbone and refuse support for another illegal and foredoomed war.

This is not a hypothetical discussion: My guess is that both the Joint Chiefs and the White House understand that the option of resignation is on the table. Consider the dance that was done around the question of Iran and "Explosively Formed Penetrators" in the past couple of weeks.

Frank Rich: "Oh What A Malleable War"

Brought to us by Rozius, here's a snippet of Frank Rich's column today (February 18th):

Maybe the Bush White House can't conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran's role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.

Surely these guys can do better than this. No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly. Back when Karl Rove ruled, everyone read verbatim from the same script. Last week's frantic improvisations were vintage Scooter Libby, at best the ur-text for a future perjury trial.

Yet for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.

In August 2005, NBC News, CBS News and The Times cited unnamed military and intelligence officials when reporting, as CBS put it, that "U.S. forces intercepted a shipment from Iran containing professionally made explosive devices specifically designed to penetrate the armor which protects American vehicles." Then, as now, those devices were the devastating roadside bombs currently called E.F.P.'s (explosively formed penetrators). Then, as now, they were thought to have been brought into Iraq by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Then, as now, there was no evidence that the Iranian government was directly involved. In February 2006, administration officials delivered the same warning yet again, before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Timing is everything in propaganda, as in all showmanship. So why would the White House pick this particular moment to mount such an extravagant rerun of old news, complete with photos and props reminiscent of Colin Powell's infamous presentation of prewar intelligence? Yes, the death toll from these bombs is rising, but it has been rising for some time. (Also rising, and more dramatically, is the death toll from attacks on American helicopters.)

After General Pace rendered inoperative the first official rationale for last Sunday's E.F.P. briefing, President Bush had to find a new explanation for his sudden focus on the Iranian explosives. That's why he said at Wednesday's news conference that it no longer mattered whether the Iranian government (as opposed to black marketeers or freelance thugs) had supplied these weapons to Iraqi killers. "What matters is, is that they're there," he said. The real point of hyping this inexact intelligence was to justify why he had to take urgent action now, no matter what the E.F.P.'s provenance: "My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple."

Read it all here.