BIZARRE: Bush CIA director talks honestly about why attacking Iran is a bad idea

[yurbud]

When Washington talks about the causes and possible effects of attacking other countries (at least publicly), it makes about as much sense as a Steven Segal movie.

The other country is evil and only lives to jump in front of our bullets and be killed or see their comrades, grandmothers, and children killed and then cower before our awesome power.

Instead, this guy states the obvious, If Bush had or Obama or Israel does attack Iran's nuclear program, it would only strengthen their resolve and urgency to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to future attacks.

What is especially amazing is his quote about thinking two, three, or four moves down the road.

If we had that kind of discussion publicly about the ''threat'' posed by Iraq, people would have realized that even if Iraq had everything the Bushies claimed, it would have been suicidal for Saddam to nuke us or Israel or give nukes to terrorists who would.

The real calculation the Bushies made a couple of steps out is if we remove Saddam and replace him with a puppet government, they would denationalize their oil and give it to our oil companies for a song. But no democracy, dictatorship, or monarchy would be stupid enough to give that up because they know their own people would string them up like Mussolini the next day.

But it's still nice to see a slight glint of reality on foreign policy sneaking into all the talk of bogeymen, spreading democracy, and nation-building.

Now all we have to worry about is Hugo Chavez orbiting death ray that he may have possibly considered constructing, which of course would be an existential threat to all mankind.

[font size=5]Bush’s CIA director: We determined attacking Iran was a bad idea[/font]
Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 6:28 PM


Bush era CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden

Without an actual occupation of Iran, which nobody wants to contemplate, the Bush administration concluded that the result of a limited military campaign in Iran would be counter-productive, according to Hayden.

"What's move two, three, four or five down the board?" Hayden said, arguing that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was only a short-term fix. "I don't think anyone is talking about occupying anything."

Hayden then said he didn't believe the Israelis could or even would strike Iran -- that only the United States has the capability to do it -- but either way, it's still a bad idea.

***

"Even if a U.S. strike went as well ... there is little guarantee that it would produce lasting results," Kahl wrote. "If Iran did attempt to restart its nuclear program after an attack, it would be much more difficult for the United States to stop it."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/19/bush_s_cia_director_we_determined_attacking_iran_was_a_bad_idea

[RZM]

1. I don't see why this is bizarre

Thinking this way is what people like Hayden are paid to do.

I've always assumed this is what the Bush administration calculated, since they never actually did anything on that front.

[tabatha]

2. Not bizarre at all.

The Pentagon since Bill Clinton's Presidency (who wanted to bomb Iran and was told no by the military) have run numerous scenarios, and in none of them can the US win.

[yurbud]

3. what's bizarre is saying it out loud in public. The only thing more bizarre would be

if they were honest about why we don't want them to have nukes--you can't push around someone who can defend themselves.

[tabatha]

4. I think Obama would like to prevent the proliferation of nucelar weapons.

That is what he did as a senator - and he has had a couple good projects since he has been President in getting old nuclear weapons out of other countries. Rachel reported on them.

[yurbud]

5. air raids are not a good way to prevent proliferation

[tabatha]

9. Who said anything about air raids.

I thought Obama was applying sanctions.

And Iran is open to talks, which will happen on Jan 29.

[denverbill]

6. What I don't get is why anyone, even Israel, is so concerned about Iran's nukes.

Iran has no love for Israel, I grant you that. But Iran, IMO, has no reason to want to nuke Israel. Their dislike of Israel has to do with not liking a Jewish state when there are so many displaced Palestinians. Nuking Israel would make it uninhabitable for decades and destroy it as a Palestinian homeland. I doubt any Palestinian would even want Israel nuked. And to cap all the bad reasons for nuking Israel, it would immediately invoke a nuclear attack by both the US and Israel on Iran, which would promptly be turned into a nuclear desert. Even the mullahs aren't that stupid.

[yurbud]

7. you are thinking realistically, not in the cartoon logic Washington spoonfeeds us.

[jakeXT]

8. They aren't, what they want is regime change

But he also said that efforts to slow down the nuclear program, through mostly clandestine measures and encouraging internal dissent, is the better course of action.

"Could we go back to July 2009 and see where that could have led?" he said, referring to the Green Movement protests that raged through Iran then but ultimately failed to alter the regime's course. "It's not so much that we don't want Iran to have a nuclear capacity, it's that we don't want this Iran to have it ... Slow it down long enough and maybe the character [of the Iranian government] changes."

It can also be used as a pretext for buliding a missile shield against Russia...

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
http://www.securityconference.de/archive/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2007=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=179&

[mojowork_n]

10. Whatever happened to "starting wars is immoral?"

And could bring an indictment in a war crimes tribunal?

OH, my bad.

Never mind.

[yurbud]

11. that is SO pre-9/11.