Bush Era CIA Boss Stumps For Iran War

By Steve Hynd

Michael Hayden, nowadays principal of the security contractor founded by Michael Chertoff, has some old-fashioned neocon crazy for us today.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."

"In my personal thinking," Hayden said, "I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes."

The former CIA chief predicted Iran would build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon, saying his view was "that Iran left to its own devices will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn�t quite in the red for the international community."

Hayden said that reaching even that level would be "as destabilizing to the region as actually having a weapon."

Hayden admits, in other words, that Iran is pursuing the "Japan Option" - the ability to build a weapon but no actual weapon-in-being - which is a non-aggressive option and is entirely legal under the terms of the Non-proliferation Treaty. Then he says that Iran will need to be attacked anyway.

That there would be no legal basis for such an attack doesn't seem to bother Hayden one whit. That attacking Iran only because we 'have to' attack before they have the capacity to retaliate is a straight-up Nuremberg level crime of aggression doesn't even seem to register.

None of this seems to have occured to House Republicans either. They're putting forward a House resolution assuring Israel of a US "green light" if it decides to attack Iran.

The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed "crippling" Congressional Iran sanctions into law. Neoconservatives who were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.

Hawkish former Bush Administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right to self defense. Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should "defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran. He urges that Congress can "make it clear" that it supports such strikes and that "having visible congressional support in place at the outset will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned about Mr. Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack."

The measure, House Res. 1553, states:

Expressing support for the State of Israel�s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.

And as to what would be most "destabilizing to the region"...Daniel Larison succinctly covered that yesterday.

That aggression is directed against a regional power that could inflict significant damage on U.S. forces, bases and allies, including Israel, in any retaliatory strikes it would launch in response to an unprovoked attack against its nuclear facilities. That doesn�t begin to cover the harm such a conflict could cause to the global economy and the stability of the broader region. There is obviously no understanding among the resolution�s supporters of what an Israeli attack on Iran would do to American interests in the Near East, and there is apparently no awareness of the escalation by Hizbullah to which Israel would be exposed as a result.

What may be worse still is that Israel has less of a chance of successfully destroying Iran�s nuclear facilities than U.S. forces would have, and it is unlikely that a U.S. attack would do anything more than briefly delay Iran�s nuclear program. Even if we granted that Iran posed a �nuclear threat� to Israel, Israel could not eliminate it if it tried, so the resolution is little more than an invitation to senseless warfare that has no hope of accomplishing its objective.

Republicans, and more than a few hawkish Democrats, are engaged in an open conspiracy to engage the US and Israel in an illegal and destabilizing war of aggression against Iran. The Nuremberg Principles say that such conspiracy is itself a war crime. Every single congresscritter who votes for House Resolution 1553 should be arrested and charged under international and domestic law, but unfortunately they won't be.

One law for some, another law for the rest.