I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iranis simply ridiculous.'

"(Short pause)

"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result:'(Laughter).'"

(TheWashington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 pressconference)

For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forcesto Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- thenotion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" airattack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includesoverthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubricof "regime change."

But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men --yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washingtonduring the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally,but one need not take my word for it.

According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blairand the Presidency, former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an oldsoldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to thesame officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary CasperWeinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ingcrazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Strawbefore the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned overtheir determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder thatthey got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use forhim.

If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at theunnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovokedattack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation'shistory...so far.

It Can Get Worse

"The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to lettheir ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further troublethat ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense,with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like afox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operatingout of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker"neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what theyare doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leapfrom papers they put out at the Projectfor the New American Century over recent years.

The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war inIraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle toAmerican domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that,with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and astill-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch asuccessful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- withthe added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency hasjust told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until"early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defenseexperts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under constructionand there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy themwithout causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will beginto close this year.

Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that theIranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate aleap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is,of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word incurrent fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud.One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out ofa desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as presidentafter an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel whenbedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefedpundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented moderates in Iranwho, with a little help from the U.S., could seize power in Tehran. I findmyself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invadingAmerican and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokesa painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence,"pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured upto help justify the imaginative but illegalarms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that theconjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian"moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates,was recently offered the newly created position of director of nationalintelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice ofhis national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State JamesBaker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing themfrom getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below thelevel of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of stateor defense.

Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "thecrazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated theirradical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft"Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of theneoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Itdismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that theUnited States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge --and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire"weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someonewith access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times, forcingPresident George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did-- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, whoproved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "thecrazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately,there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventualdisaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

The Return of the Neocons

In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in toppolicymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams,convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W.Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the WhiteHouse. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied byRobert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national securityaffairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closelywith John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, whohas now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980sare far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simplecase of déjà vu. They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in theeighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons anddaughters are being called on to implement.

Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentousreality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something ofwhich they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath theweapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared toinvade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case,the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they nowhave a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new"capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner ratherthan later.

Next Stop, Iran

When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factlytells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit arenow training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously.It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, itbrought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a youngsoldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote anop-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq.The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writinghome saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you meanAfghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the sonsaid, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what theymean."

Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran; and that appears to be whatthey mean.

Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together withadministration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though,and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly alsoinvolving some ground forces. Indeed, from the NewYorker reports of Seymour Hersh to WashingtonPost articles, accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground aswell as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In aspeech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer ScottRitter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack ofweapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signedoff" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclearweapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This doesnot necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but itmay signal the president's seriousness about this option.

So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the pastfour years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidentialadvisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgencyinto any discussion of the "Iranian option."

Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar,chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talkshow a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give thenormal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." Atthat point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word"Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel isalleged to have a nuclear capability."

Is alleged tohave…? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet hedoesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal,consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers areallergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then,usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar'sdisingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar,remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad ashypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standardoperating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or otherunflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balancedapproach are quashed.

If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears theinternal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran'sapprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from theBush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities,just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor atOsirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by thepresident and vicepresident can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that;while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporterson February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "inlight of its nuclear activity."

US-Israel Nexus

The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep itsnuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies forIsrael. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomband could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turna blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability istruly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidablenuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary hasthe means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a fewnuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "soleremaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with therange to hit Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlistWashington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran.Indeed, Americandefense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials havebeen pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are nowclaiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months --years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligenceestimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened tocomplicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth notingthat several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the DefensePolicy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actuallywrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They haveconsistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interestsof Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated hispreference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, asGen. Scowcroft said publicly, has the president "wrapped around hislittle finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign IntelligenceAdvisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year,Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also sayingthat the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possiblethat the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to goback at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran'sdemocratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insureaccess to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with hisnotorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regimefell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to dosome regime change of their own.

Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraqafter it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (whichincluded crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning ofSaddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving offan Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bushadministration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases inneighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (includingoccupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing topay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to theblack gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years toplay with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How todeter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a smallnation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or atleast claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Is the Nub

The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine andcraft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if youmade a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to thequestion, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems tome, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer,"Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians needthem" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that SenatorLugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians wouldprobably say, "in order to deter ‘the crazies' in Washington. It seems tobe working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining pointon President Bush's ‘axis of evil.'"

The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy