During the past month some of the information which had hitherto been relegated to the Internet has finally come to the attention of the mainstream media. Seymour Hersh published an extensive article in the New Yorker entitled “The Iran Plans,” in which he detailed the various options the White House is considering to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities. The title of this essay comes from that article. Our President in his usual blunt manner has told the Iranians that we will not condone even their intent to pursue research in the nuclear area and vigorously rattled the saber of America’s might. What he didn’t do was to lay out a plan how to prevent the Iranians from achieving their goal.

            Seymour Hersh did it for him and provided us with the thinking that goes on in the Defense Department on that topic. In essence it ranged from “a sustained bombing campaign” which will “humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government,” “sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as ‘industrial accidents,’” to fostering insurrections by the Kurds and outright covert on the ground activities not only by the CIA but also the regular military which is now being trained for just such tactics. The goal is not simply to remove a potential nuclear threat but, just as in Iraq, “regime change.” Hersh also mentioned that his sources informed him that these were not just some fantasies by zealots, who include the use of tactical nuclear weapons in pursuit of their goal, but these are “operational plans” and planning proceeds at a “hectic” pace. “Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions - rapid ascending maneuvers known as ‘over the shoulder bombings’ – since last summer . . . within range of Iranian coastal radars.”

            One might be inclined to dismiss Hersh’s reporting as “over the top” but his past performance by uncovering the My Lai massacre, publishing The Samson Option (Random House 1991) which details the development of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and more recently the bringing to light of the Abu Ghraib scandal give him solid credentials. His is not only a voice of reason but also of warning that if the Bush administration is allowed to proceed on its course a major war with Muslim nations will be the inevitable outcome. It is my belief that this war will not be won “on the cheap” as the administration seems to believe but has indeed the potential to ignite WWIII. The fact that the administration vigorously denounced Hersh’s article merely proves the saying: no rumor is true until it is officially denied.

            As mentioned, the title of this installment is a direct quote from one of Hersh’s informants. It is most á propos not only in relation to the Iran plans but also in regard to Iraq and even to events of 64 years ago as will become apparent later. As far as Iraq is concerned the Salt Lake Tribune published an article recently, “Baghdad embassy: The whole 104 acres.” While Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war we are currently building “the largest US embassy of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City with the population of a small town.” It will have its own defense force as well as self contained power and water supply. It is obvious, therefore, that neither Iran nor Iraq can be seen in isolation but these two countries (apart from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) form the center of the Middle East oil supply and as is apparent the U.S. is determined to control the region for the indefinite future from Baghdad. This is also borne out by an article in last week’s Newsweek, which pointed out that not only are we building the monster embassy but we are also expanding the Balad airbase, which with its “27,500 landings and takeoffs a month . . . is second only to London’s Heathrow airport in traffic worldwide.” Thus, an exit strategy from Iraq is not even discussed but the current idea is that we shall remain there for decades to come. There will be a pliable government and we will control the country from a few hardened bases with airpower which delivers its ordinance by remote control from Las Vegas. Although the latter statement might strike one as science fiction Newsweek assures us that this is the way it’s done already and only takeoff and landings of the drones which carry their lethal equipment is handled at Balad.

            The unrealistic ideas of a quick and dirty war with Iran have been clearly delineated by Hersh but what is the current situation in Iraq that justifies these building projects and especially that of the embassy? As of last week Iraq has a Prime Minister but even 4 months after the elections there is not yet a government that can control the city of Baghdad let alone the rest of the country. There is wrangling over cabinet posts, which hopefully will be resolved by the end of this month. But even after this has been accomplished from where will this government take the power to unify the country under a democratic leadership? This has never happened in the past because chaos, as it reigns in Baghdad today, has always been supplanted by a dictatorship. The administration’s hope is, obviously, that we will either get a Weimar type of republic or a dictator who will do our bidding, but this far from assured.

The summer is upon us and in Baghdad it will be accompanied by unbearable heat. Under normal times, and that includes by now Saddam’s regime, the people could escape from the heat in the evenings where they could do their shopping and visit with friends and neighbors. This will not be in the offing as long as an 8 p.m. curfew is in place which forces people to remain indoors during stifling heat with no air conditioning and only intermittent availability of electricity. The streets are patrolled by marauding rival militias which settle private scores, rob and murder people they disapprove of for the sake of power as well as just for the fun of it. When in addition bombs go off at unpredictable intervals, water supply is intermittent and sewage piles up with its resulting health hazards, popular unrest is bound to increase. Any reasonable person would say that under these circumstances it makes absolutely no sense to build this super-embassy at this time but we ought to wait until the dust literally settles there and then we could build whatever is appropriate for the circumstances.

As far as patrolling and pacifying the country from the air is concerned this is precisely what the Brits had tried in the 1920s and that attempt failed. Furthermore, as long as we keep military bases in the country any Iraqi government will be seen as illegitimate by fanatic Muslims and with shouts of “Allah Akhbar,” they will blow up refineries, pipelines and other aspects of the country’s infrastructure. Even the smartest Predators won’t be able to prevent that sort of chaos. Although the Kurds are still paying lip service to a unified country the smart ones, who are looking to the future, see no use for Baghdad and are quietly building up their part of the country towards eventual independence. Oil is the key and as the Christian Science Monitor reported they are offering attractive terms to companies that want to take the risk. The Norwegians and Canadians are already interested and announced that they will begin pumping oil by early 2007. If you were a Kurd who had experienced nothing but grief from Baghdad wouldn’t you want to wash your hands of that city which has nothing to offer and go your own way?

Truly “what are they smoking?” in the Bush administration to indulge in the fantasies outlined above while at the same time the Salt Lake Tribune has already downsized the word “victory.” A recent headline announced: “Safe return from Iraq a victory for the 115^th [Utah National Guard Company].” When one has been blessed with a long and eventful life official Washington’s current thinking brings up an eerie parallel with the summer of 1942. In August of that year Hitler was at the peak of his power. He controlled continental Europe and in Africa Rommel, who had beaten the British back to El Alamein, was in striking distance of Alexandria as well as Cairo. In Russia Army group B was advancing towards Stalingrad with the aim of destroying its armament production and closing the Volga; while Army group A (which by the way included my brother) proceeded to the Caucasus to gain the oil centers at Baku. Victory seemed to be in Hitler’s grasp and it is instructive to read his thoughts during the Russian campaign. They are available in two versions, but unfortunately both of them are somewhat incomplete. The English version which is more extensive is called, “Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944” (Octagon books 1981) while the German one has the more descriptive title, “Hitlers Tischgespräche im Fűhrerhauptquartier” (Hitler’s table talks in the Fűhrer’s Headquarter by Henry Picker. Bibliothek der Zeitgeschichte 1993). During lunch and dinner Hitler was in the habit of giving long monologues to his military and other co-workers during which he expanded on whatever came to his mind. He did not allow recording devices to take down the contents verbatim but this was done in shorthand by Ministerialrat Heinrich Heim for the period from July 21, 1941 to March 11, 1942. When some of the information was leaked to the press this practice was stopped and notes were taken in a more surreptitious manner, with Borman’s (Hitler’s Chief Secretary) approval, for March 21, 1942 to July 31, 1942 by Henry Picker. Thereafter they are somewhat more sporadic and Borman edited the material we have today.

Although we don’t have the pure unadulterated Hitler in these talks and they are chronologically incomplete, they do form valuable insights into the type of thinking he indulged in before the fortunes of war turned permanently against him. Contrary to popular belief the fate of the Jews did not concern him all that much. The most extensive entry is the first paragraph from the talk on the evening of July 25, 1941 where he stated:

“From the rostrum of the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the Jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the first World War, and now already hundreds of thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing. The attempt to create a Jewish state will be a failure.”

The entry from this date is missing in Picker’s book but there exists a German version of this paragraph on the Internet and instead of “parking them in the marshy parts of Russia” it simply says “send them to the morass” (in den Morast schicken). There is also no mention of “public rumor,” only, “it is good if we are preceded by the dread that we exterminate Jewry (wenn uns der Schrecken vorangeht, dasz wir das Judentum ausrotten). The sentence “terror is a salutary thing” is missing. Regardless of these differences what he meant is obvious: he would deal with the Jewish problem in any way he saw fit and the less said, the better. The interesting aspect and why I quoted the entire paragraph is the last sentence, because it bears a direct relationship to our Middle East policy including its dilemma. It has become quite apparent that without continued American material and financial support the State of Israel would probably have succumbed by now.

 Instead of worrying about the Jews Hitler devoted considerably more time to what he would do after the war with the Church. The entire evening talk of December 13, 1941 was devoted to that topic and it is only one of many where he dealt with it:

“The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all. . . .  I don’t interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can’t allow churchmen to interfere in temporal affairs. The organized lie must be smashed.”

For accuracies sake it should be pointed out, that Hitler was not an atheist. He did recognize a higher power or Vorsehung (providence) which guides human beings. His problem was with organized religions of any kind because they are based on unverifiable premises and interfered with his plans. His stance was that the state is responsible for the well being of the living Germans and the role of the Church should be limited to concerns for the souls of the dead ones.

But more important for our present topic are Hitler’s ideas in the summer of 1942 about how he would deal with the conquered land in the East. He intended to build an Ostwall from Archangelsk to the Caspian in analogy to the Roman’s limes. German towns would be created within that vast area all connected by Autobahnen. He even specified the width as 11 meters with three lanes: slow moving trucks on the right, normal traffic in the center and a fast lane on the left. The thousand kilometer stretch from the Reich to the Crimea would easily be covered within two days at 80 km /hour. Partisanen (guerilla fighters) would be no problem because it’s good for the German soldier to always have direct combat experience rather than merely training exercises. He also had great plans for the South Tyroleans, whom he had abandoned to Mussolini in exchange for the latter’s acquiescence to the annexation of Austria. They would be shipped via the Danube to the Crimea where they would live happily in a wonderful climate. Germany’s dependence on foreign raw material and food would be solved and all that would be needed from abroad would be coffee. England would see the error of its policies, the Churchill government would be replaced, the British Empire would flourish with German military help and there would be peace. Those were his ideas in the summer of 1942 while the Soviet Union and the Brits were still undefeated and America was gearing up for battle. The fact that he didn’t have the required number of boots on the ground to not only sustain the two pronged attack that was under way in Russia and subsequently to hold the conquered territory didn’t seem to bother him. Providence was guiding him! Again we must ask: What were they smoking?

This was presented as a reminder how rapidly the fortunes of war can change and how incredible our current foreign policy may look a decade from now. But there is more to the analogy. Our President also believes to be guided in his decisions by a higher power and dislikes to hear opinions that are contrary to his own, the quest is likewise for oil and self-sufficiency and the limits on American boots to fulfill the ambitious Middle East program is also painfully obvious. Furthermore, Hitler’s war against Poland, which started the entire catastrophe of WW II, was also clearly a war of choice and as such it was condemned by the Nuremberg Trials. Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal states under a)

“CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.”

It is somewhat ironic that one of these trials is currently enjoying a revival on cable TV with reruns of the movie “Judgment at Nuremberg.” Spencer Tracy portrayed the American Chief Justice who oversaw the trial of German judges and Marlene Dietrich was the widow of one of the German generals who had been hanged by the Military Tribunal one year earlier. The general in question was probably Alfred Jodl (Chief of Operation staff of the Wehrmacht), who had insisted that he had simply stuck to his oath as an officer who was under the command of Hitler as his superior. This is of relevance in regard to the so called “Generals’ Revolt” which we witnessed last month. Four retired generals spoke out against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s conduct of the Iraq war and publicly demanded his resignation. Two facts are of interest: 1) they did not criticize the invasion per se, which was illegal under international law, but they merely objected to the inadequate planning for the war’s aftermath. 2) Newsweek in its reporting of the affair stated, “Actually, it was not the job of a uniformed officer, even a high-ranking one like Newbold [Marine Corps Lt.General] to challenge the President’s decision to invade Iraq. That’s a political judgment: it’s up to the president and Congress to decide whom to fight. The military’s job is to win the fight.”  Yes indeed, but that was exactly the defense at Nuremberg and it carried no weight at that time, although Jodl has since been officially exonerated. 

The Judgment at Nuremberg movie is also ironic in regard to its main thesis that the German justice system had collapsed under Nazism and the various judges should not have followed orders which were incompatible with international norms. Yet the Bush administration has ever since 9/11 continued to violate international as well as American law. Our chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saw no problem with illegal domestic wiretaps on suspected terrorists and on torturing prisoners who are regarded as terrorists although no proof was required that the persons involved had indeed committed criminal acts. Our president seems to regard himself as above the law and he “decides what is best,” according to his own statement. His prime demand is loyalty which also brings to mind the motto of the SS “Loyalty is My Honor!” Loyalty is praiseworthy but when it conflicts with common standards of morality the latter need to take precedence.

Nevertheless, this principle is currently in jeopardy in our country. Abuses by the government have to be hushed up by government employees and the public must not be allowed to know what is being done in our name. Even people who have retired from government service are afraid of speaking out publicly and that is why reporters have to withhold the names of their sources. The CIA presented us with an example of what happens if one has a conscience and is appalled by government abuses. Mary McCarthy was a senior CIA officer who supposedly informed the Washington Post that the CIA was “outsourcing” some of its terrorist suspects to certain countries in Eastern Europe who have no strong scruples about using interrogation techniques that are shunned in the Western world. She denied the allegation but supposedly flunked one question on a lie detector test and was summarily dismissed. Further actions against her may be pending at this time.

Regardless, whether it was Ms. McCarthy or someone else, who “blew the whistle” on this travesty of the justice system the interesting aspect is how the media treated the affair. Supporters of the government vigorously argued that CIA officers sign an affidavit of secrecy and the agency would not be able function if anyone of its employees were allowed to go the press whenever they felt that some improprieties had taken place. The correct course of action would be to go through channels, if necessary all the way to the top namely CIA director Porter Goss, and/or the Intelligence Oversight committees of Congress. Again on can say: what are they smoking? Anyone who does so can kiss his/her career good bye and even if the person were to be willing to retire from the service and then testify he/she would still be hounded and vilified as the example of former ambassador Joseph Wilson in the infamous uranium from Niger affair involving his wife Valerie Plame, who was “outed” by the administration, shows.

Unfortunately we can not rely on Congress to set things right because its members are already more concerned with the November elections than pushing for government reforms. We, therefore, have only the media to broadcast the scandals which keep accumulating. By coincidence Mark Felt who, as the “Deep Throat” source for Bob Woodward, brought down the Nixon administration is currently publishing his memoirs and gets praised for his clandestine activities. Whatever Nixon did with the “plumbers” to secure White House leaks and the Watergate burglary did not rise to the level of what the current administration is doing. Nixon wanted to get us out of a war that he had inherited, with keeping American honor reasonably intact, while the current White House occupant has gotten us into two wars and seems to be actively planning a third one. Our international image and good will have been shredded by a “forward leaning unilateralism,” which is simply another word for: I do what I want and if you don’t like it tough luck.

Nevertheless there seems to be some change in the air. Even the President appears to have realized that when only about a third of the country’s people approve of the way he is running the country something needs to be done or the nightmare of a Democratic victory in November might come true. This election will be vital because if the Democrats were to win they would be in charge of committees with subpoena power, which they lack at this time. All the sordid scandals that have been documented here and elsewhere might then see the light of day. The White House is aware of the danger signals and now tries to reform its image by rearranging the furniture. The White House Chief of Staff, Andy Carr, has been replaced by another insider Joshua Bolten who is regarded as a more aggressive team player and will weed out slackers. The unhappy Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, who had valiantly tried to defend the indefensible was let go and in his place the telegenic Tony Snow from Fox News will now conduct the briefings. Although a supporter of the administration he is regarded as an honest person and we will have to see how often he will be forced to bite his tongue vis á vis his colleagues. Karl Rove has supposedly had his feathers clipped by having had to give up his job as overall policy manager but I believe that far from this being a demotion it is the recognition of the potential November disaster which will require all his well known skills in that arena to avert it.

But whatever the President tries to do on the domestic scene Iraq is the millstone around his neck and by now even the firing or resignation of Rumsfeld would be too late for influencing Iraq’s future. Therefore, the biggest question today is: does the President believe that a war with Iran would solve his problems and elevate his stature to that of other successful wartime presidents?  If so not only will the oil prices, which have soared in recent weeks, continue to climb but what we are experiencing in Iraq will pale against what the future will bring. When respected journalists such as Seymour Hersh and now even Thomas Friedman warn of the dangers the President’s policies are bound to produce it would be time for the White House to listen.

Friedman who can’t be labeled as a left wing radical or an enemy of Israel has recently published an article which breathes realism. “Take your pick: Nuclear Iran or Iraq II” was the title and in the article he made it clear that although a nuclear armed Iran is not a desirable event the alternative is clearly worse. This brings us to the crux of the matter and the ultimate evil: nuclear war.  Once the first bomb was built and dropped on Hiroshima, with the second one on Nagasaki, proliferation of nuclear technology was inevitable. To believe that we can control who is and is not allowed to possess nuclear weapons belongs into fantasy land. Our invasion of Iraq, which did not have nuclear weapons and having refrained from doing anything drastic about North Korea, which does, has sent a powerful message to weaker countries, especially if they have oil. It consists of: You better buy yourself some nuclear insurance as fast as you can because otherwise the Americans may take over your country. This is especially cogent for the Iranians who see themselves surrounded by American forces on practically all of their frontiers because even the Persian Gulf is regarded as private property of the American fleet. If you were an Iranian wouldn’t you be concerned, regardless of what political or religious party you belong to? Would you not also remember the 1953 CIA engineered overthrow of the Mossadegh government? This was the first time America practiced “regime change” and the details of that operation can be found under http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html.

            The Iranians have long memories but they are not stupid and even the mullahs have more intelligence than to send nuclear tipped rockets to Israel, which would be the only reasonable target to attack. Although our press reports that Iranian rockets can also reach Europe, this is clearly a scare tactic to make sure that the Europeans follow the American lead in the Security Council and condemn Iran for pursuing a nuclear option. The hypocrisy vis a vis Israel is, of course, apparent to everyone who has no particular bias. We have no qualms about Israel’s proven WMDs including what has been called “the ultimate capitalist weapon,” the neutron bomb which simply kills living beings but keeps the property intact. This is surely an inviting tool for get rich quick thinkers. You get rid of Arabs or Persians, as the case may be, but keep their refineries above ground and the oil below intact. I am not suggesting that such plans are being actively pursued currently but since the thought is obvious it would also have occurred to some of our war planners.

            It is clear, therefore, that the spread of nuclear weapons will be unavoidable but we can attempt avoid their use by a nation state. The UN should outlaw the use of nuclear and biologic weapons just as the use of poison gas has been prohibited. Further development of nuclear weapons, which include “bunker busters” and other ordinance that uses “depleted uranium” should also be prohibited because we have more than enough of such weapons to annihilate any country that might threaten us. This will not avoid the possibility of terrorist groups detonating such a device in our country but this is a problem we will have to live with and preventive measures can be taken. As pointed out previously one or even a few suitcase type nuclear bombs cannot destroy America, only we can do that by reacting inappropriately and excessively to inflicted damage. The danger to our country does not come from the outside but from our own politicians who will use scare tactics to abolish our freedoms and establish a dictatorship. This is the future of this country if we let it happen.

            Intimidation already exists on an unprecedented scale as shown above and only a free press could prevent further excesses by our government. Unfortunately our press is no longer free to publish “without fear or favor,” because the single most important subject, namely the coordination of American Middle East policy with the desires of the State of Israel, is taboo. In late March of this year a professor of political sciences from the University of Chicago and one from international affairs of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard wrote jointly a position paper, “The Israel Lobby.” Although they are Americans the paper could not be published here but had to appear in the London Review of Books (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html). Those of us who are Internet fans knew about the stir this created in certain circles although the professors had only stated common knowledge. Minor errors were castigated and an attempt was made to ruin the authors’ reputations. There was only Molly Ivins, a Texas syndicated columnist of solid left wing credentials, who was not cowed and her article: “Professors have the audacity to examine Israel’s lobbying in U.S,” appeared last week in the Salt Lake Tribune. She wrote, “One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it’s almost funny.” In her final paragraph she stated, “To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism - it’s about rational discussion of American interests.” Yes indeed, and the sooner the better. The “Lobby” led us into the Iraq war and is now leading the charge against Iran.

            Elections are coming up again and the influence of the “Lobby” on American foreign policy needs to be discussed openly now. Only under those circumstances will candidates for political office cease to have to be afraid of certain defeat unless they toe the Israeli line. If this does not occur we will only get more of the same and under those circumstances our democracy will be a sham.