WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     Jun 4, 2008

Cheney builds an explosive case
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - For many months, the propaganda line that explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) that could penetrate United States armored vehicles were coming straight from Iran has been embraced publicly by the entire George W Bush administration. But when that argument was proposed internally by military officials in January 2007, it was attacked by key administration officials as unsupported by the facts.

Vice President Dick Cheney was able to get around those objections and get his Iranian EFP line accepted only because of arrangements he and Bush made with General David Petraeus before he took command of US forces in Iraq.

The initial draft of the proposed military briefing on the issue of

 

EFPs, which asserted flatly that EFPs were being manufactured and smuggled to Iraqi Shi'ite groups directly by the Iranian regime, was met with unanimous objection from the State Department, Defense Department and National Security Council staff, as administration officials themselves stated publicly.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley tried to push back against Cheney's proposed line because they recognized it as an effort to go well beyond the compromise policy toward Iran that had been worked out in December and early January. The compromise policy had been to focus on networks working on procuring EFPs within Iraq and not to target Iran as directly responsible.

At his regular press briefing on January 24, 2007, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Department spokesman Sean McCormack revealed the primary basis for the State, Defense and NSC opposition to the Cheney line on EFPs.

Asked whether the US government had any evidence that EFPs were manufactured in Iran, McCormack did not answer directly but said, "You don't necessarily have to construct something in Iran in order for it to be a threat to the US or British troops from the Iranian regime. There are lots of different ways you can do that. You can bring the know-how. You can train other people in Iraq to do that."

McCormack thus revealed that the State Department wasn't buying the accusation that Iran was manufacturing EFPs and sending them to the Shi'ite forces of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fighting against US forces.

On February 2, while briefing the news media on the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Hadley asserted bluntly that the draft military briefing that had been circulated in Washington had not been based on evidence.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing was overstated," said Hadley. "We sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts."

Hadley did not tell reporters which points in the draft briefing paper had not been based on the evidence, but the remarks by McCormack and Gates were clear indications that the briefing had made claims of Iranian manufacturing of weapons and smuggling them into Iraq that could not be supported.

Hadley further revealed that he, Gates and Rice had tried to use the imminence of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)on Iraq to force the issue of the briefing's exaggerated claims. The briefing, he said was "an attempt to ... address some of the issues in the NIE in a briefing on intelligence of Iranian activity in Iraq. And we thought, hey, why are we doing this?"

He said he and his associates wanted a briefing that "we're confident everyone can stand behind". The national security adviser was implying that the proposed briefing was not supported by the NIE on Iraq, and that the drafters would therefore have to redraft it so that the intelligence community could support it.

Hadley didn't say who he meant by "we", but Gates told reporters the same day that he and Rice had joined Hadley in ensuring that the planned briefing "is dominated by facts".

The declassified version of the NIE's main conclusions indicated that it did not support the claim that Iran was exporting EFPs to the Mahdi Army. The only sentence that related to the issue was, "Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shi'ite militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq." But in the absence of any language alleging Iranian EFP manufacture and export to Iraq, that phrase appears to be a reference to training of Mahdi Army officers.

Hadley, Rice and Gates thus appeared to believe that the briefing would have to reflect the NIE, and that they would be able to review the revised version before it was presented to the press. On February 9, McCormack said, "[W]hen the working-level folks at the deputies level ... produce a presentation that they are comfortable with, I am sure that they'll share it with Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates and Steve Hadley over at the NSC just for review."

But Cheney had a surprise for the opponents of his hard line on Iran. When White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked on February 9 about when the briefing would be held, she replied, "Decisions on that are being made out in Baghdad."

That announcement came just as General George W Casey was to be replaced by Petraeus as the new commander. Petraeus had only arrived in Iraq the day before and the changeover ceremony came on February 10.

The day after the ceremony, three military officers presented a briefing to the press which not only asserted that the EFPs could only have been manufactured in Iran but that Iran's Quds Force was behind the smuggling of those weapons into Iraq. They strongly suggested, moreover, that the Iranian government knew about the smuggling.

Cheney had used the compliant Petraeus to do an end-run around the national security bureaucracy. Petraeus had already reached agreement with the White House to take Cheney's line on the EFPs issue and to present the briefing immediately without consulting State or Defense.

State and Defense tried to counter this maneuver. McCormack argued, rather lamely, that the briefing had really been about "a threat to our troops from these devices and from the networks that supply them". And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, responded by saying that he could not "from his own knowledge" confirm the assertion that the Quds Force was providing bomb-making kits to Shi'ite insurgents.

The US command in Baghdad temporarily backed away from the briefers' charge against Iran. The command spokesman, Lieutenant General William B Caldwell, who had been one of the three military briefers, was forced to tell reporters on February 14 that the purpose of the briefing had been to talk only about the threat to US troops, implying that briefers had gone beyond their brief in making statements about Iranian complicity.

But the hardline position on EFP was the one that dominated press coverage. Instead of the more cautious line focusing on the EFP networks inside Iraq, which was what State, Defense and NSC and agreed to in January, Cheney now had a potential casus belli against Iran.

And Cheney would continue to use his alliance with Petraeus to advance his proposal for an attack on Quds Force bases in Iran. The very first episode in the Cheney-Petraeus alliance sheds additional light on the nomination of Petraeus to become the new United States Central Command commander later this year.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service)


And the winner is ... the Israel lobby
(Jun 3, '08)

A giant backward step on Iran
(May 30, '08)

Where are those Iranian arms in Iraq?  (May 24, '08)


1.
And the winner is ... the Israel lobby

2. Crisis deepens in Myanmar

3. Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'

4. How the Pentagon shapes the world

5. A worrisome understatement

6. The bubble of all US bubbles

7. Nuder than nude

8. Tin-opener theology from Turkey

9. The dollar-aligned dollar

10. Who'll stop the reign?

(24 hours to 11:59 pm ET, June 2, 2008)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110