IPFS Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern: My Take

More About: Iran

‘Talking Points’ for Hagel on Iran

March 5, 2013

Some neocons hope they softened up new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his bruising confirmation fight. But ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern suggests in these proposed “talking points” that Hagel stick to his principled reputation as someone who tells it like it is, regardless of political pressures.

From: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern

To: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Subject: Proposed Talking Points on Iran for Your Meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in his official “portrait” at the Pentagon.

You may wish to draw on some of the following talking points for today’s meeting, cast in the first-person, as though you were speaking.

Regarding Barak’s Speech at AIPAC

Mr. Minister, I have read your speech Sunday at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The language you used in discussing Iran prompts me to make sure that you understand that there has been no change in U.S. policy as set forth by President Barack Obama at the AIPAC conference a year ago. There he said (three times) that his policy is “to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (emphasis added)

You chose more ambiguous wording, asserting that “it is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities which is the greatest challenge facing Israel, the region and the world today,” adding that you do not believe sanctions will make the Ayatollahs “give up their nuclear aspirations.” (emphasis added)

As you may have been told, I have a reputation for plain speaking. Let me just say that, from my perspective, loose words on issues of this importance are not helpful. Not only do they provide grist for pundits intent on finding significant policy differences between our two governments; they also can chip away at what you described Sunday as the “rock-solid U.S.-Israel relationship.”

President Obama chose his words carefully at AIPAC last year: “The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program.”

U.S. intelligence agencies are, indeed, exceedingly vigilant in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program – the more so, since all 16 concluded, “with high confidence,” in 2007 that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon (as distinct from its continuing program to enrich uranium for energy) in 2003. As you know, each year since 2007, U.S. intelligence has revalidated that key judgment and has assessed that Iran has not resumed the weaponization activity halted in 2003.

The UN Inspection Regime

In preparing for today’s meeting, I was pleased to be reminded of some of your more candid statements on this key issue. I refer specifically to those you made during an interview with Israeli Armed Forces Radio on Jan. 18, 2012 – the day before Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey arrived for discussions in Israel. You were asked by your interviewer, “is it the Israeli assessment that Iran has yet to decide to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?” You answered:

“The onlookers’ confusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break its subordination to the [UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency’s] control regime right now …  to try to procure nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible … it is evidently not.”

The all-too-familiar next question was one you handled with equal candor: “How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads?” You replied:

“It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran will have to dissociate itself from the control regime, to announce its departure from the control regime, to stop responding to IAEA’s criticism, and so forth. They haven’t done that. Why?

“Because they realize that, under the circumstances, when it is clear to everyone that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, such a move would be definite proof that time is indeed running out and might generate either steeper sanctions or another action against them, and they don’t want that. That’s why they are not doing it. …”

A Premium on Candor

Forgive me for quoting you back to yourself. I do so only because I find it hard to understand why so few of your colleagues display comparable candor in acknowledging that the UN inspection regime has been effective as a disincentive as well as a monitor.

Let me ask you, as you lay down your duties as defense minister, to bring word to your colleagues back home that it is precisely that kind of honesty and candor that builds trust, prevents erosion of our “rock-solid” relationship, and thwarts those who wish to muddy the situation with ambiguity and hints of danger not yet there.

I speak not only of Israelis, of course. There are those in our Congress and in U.S. media who are prone to raise alarms by playing fast and loose with the facts. That’s another reason why I put such a high premium on avoiding ambiguity. Nor are White House officials and nominees to higher office immune from the common urge to please.

I mean to find out, for example, why John Brennan, the President’s nominee to be Director of the CIA, said the following on Feb. 7 in his prepared testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee:

“And regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang remain bent on pursuing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems.”

Never mind Brennan’s disingenuousness in conflating Iran with North Korea. The question is how could he diverge so markedly from the unanimous assessment of the entire U.S. intelligence community that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and has not resumed that work. In no way does that continuing assessment support his claim that Tehran remains “bent on pursuing nuclear weapons” and ICBMs to deliver them.

Embellishing Threats … and Commitments

Now, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Iran might be seeking a capability that eventually would allow it to rapidly break out of Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) constraints on building a nuclear weapon. That is, of course, why we monitor Iran’s activity so closely.

But “bent on pursuing” ICBMs? Really? As you are aware, Iran has not flight-tested a ballistic missile with ranges in excess of its 2200-kilometer-range Sajjil MRBM. Nor has it launched a space rocket that would be a suitable model for an ICBM.

What am I saying to you? Simply this. Caution your colleagues against mistaking for U.S. policy the occasional hyperbole that is the handmaiden of pandering to Congress. We make decisions on defense policy in the White House and here in the Pentagon – not in Congress, and still less at the CIA in Langley.

Frankly, I am determined to avoid being put in the awkward position in which my predecessor found himself late last summer as the drumbeat for attacking Iran grew loud and intense. Secretary Leon Panetta had to authorize Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey to say publicly, “I don’t want to be complicit if they [the Israelis] choose to do it [bomb Iran].”

Things should not reach such a pass that Washington has to say that kind of thing publicly – particularly when the President has taken such pains to articulate our policy on this issue so clearly. Please remind your colleagues about what that policy is – and isn’t.

On Monday, Vice President Joe Biden restated it before AIPAC, saying: “So we have a shared strategic commitment. Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

Let us not endanger that commitment by unilateral attempts to widen it.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and conducted briefings with the President’s Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).


2 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

1. All of anything that is of any importance for Israel - even the name Israel - comes from the Bible, the Tanakh, and portions of the Talmud (the Talmud contains corruption by ancient Babylonian culture and religion).

2. The patriarch Abraham, the guy on whom the whole of the Bible and Israel religion-state was founded, was given his position by God because Abraham believed God. That's it. He wasn't super-human. He wasn't the best thinker. He didn't twist God's arm. He simply believed God. And his faith in God is the thing that moved God to found the nation of Israel on Abraham.

3. Descendants of Abraham, from God's standpoint, are NOT people who genetically have Abraham in their line of ancestors... although many of Abraham's descendants ARE physically descended from Abraham. Rather, in God's sight, Abraham's descendants are those who believe the God of the Bible - the same God that Abraham believed - with a faith like Abraham's. Genetically speaking, because of intermarriages, multitudes upon multitudes of people around the world have the genes of Abraham within them, and have Abraham as one of their ancestors, no matter what they believe or don't believe about God.

4. Strike 1: God's destruction of Israel the first time - because of their unfaithfulness to Him - occurred in 588 B.C., with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. It lasted 70 years, the destruction of Israel as a nation. After the 70 years ended, Israel returned as a nation with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but it never had the strength that it displayed prior to it's fall in 588 B.C..

5. Strike 2: In 70 A.D. Israel as a nation fell with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The fall to the Babylonians lasted 70 years, and longer if you want to consider that it took awhile for Israel to regain a semblance of strength. The second fall - by the Romans - lasted 1,800+ years.

6. Strike 3: Strike 3 hasn't happened... yet. The point is that God said to Isaac, Abraham's son, Genesis 26:4,5 (NIV): "I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”

7. If Israel doesn't recognize that God is the God of all nations, and that blessings come to all nations through Israel, rather than that all nations other than Israel are to necessarily be "Goyim," Strike 3 just might happen. If it happens, it will be forever this time. Bible prophesy seems to say that it will not happen.

8. If Strike 3 doesn't happen, it will be because Israel truly returns to the God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Jacob's other name is Israel). Any people who want to be counted as God's people need to return to God as well. Get into the Bible to find out about God, and become a descendant of Abraham spiritually, if you are not one already through faith in God.

NOTE: Lots of Jews, when writing about God, write God like this: G-d. They do this because they have been instructed to NOT misuse the name of God. So they don't want to even use the NAME, because they might accidentally misuse it. But "God" or "G-d" is not His NAME. There is one NAME of God. It is the NAME that God gave to Moss on Mount Sinai. Even the "nicknames," scattered throughout the Bible, and that God accepts, are not really His NAME. The true NAME of God, even though it can be spoken, is really a spiritual communication between the spirit of the user and the Spirit of God.

Comment by TL Winslow
Entered on: