Former CIA Director Sets the Record Straight Regarding His Comments on an Iran Attack
In an interview with PJ Media, former CIA Director Michael Hayden sets the record straight about some of his recent comments regarding an attack on Iran.
Some news reports on Hayden’s CNN interview took his words out of context. Here are quotes from that interview posted on CNN’s Political Ticker:
“We engage. They continue to move forward. We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.” Hayden says military action against Iran is more likely now than ever — and could be justified. “When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call ‘the kinetic option’ was way down on our list. In my personal thinking … I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”
Many of those reports are saying that he stated a military attack on Iran was likely, while failing to add some of Hayden’s more nuanced thinking involving “kinetic actions” and deterrence.
PJM’s Elise Cooper interviewed Hayden to get some clarity on his comments.
* * * * * *
Many articles cite Hayden’s quote from the interview that “it seems inexorable, doesn’t it?” as proof that he is stating military action is more likely now. However, the meaning of the word “inexorable” does not fit that scenario. Today, General Hayden noted that he used the word to emphasize that “in a pursuit of nuclear technology and having a possible nuclear breakout stage, it seems inexorable they will move forward no matter what we do.”
In my previous discussions with General Hayden, he has always mentioned that his personal view is that Iran is “determined to have a weapon. If not a weapon, they intend to be in a permanent breakout state where they will have everything in place and will be able to create a weapon in a relatively short time. That may actually be their sweet spot.”
Perhaps this will be a war run by the military rather than a political war. Fat chance.
What was left unsaid is whether Israel will be comfortable with the deterrence option given the open threats by Iran’s president.
What threats? You still believe that Iran has threatened Israel? It is the other way around. Do a Google search on “Did Ahmadinejad threaten to wipe out Israel” and read some of the items that pop up. You don’t know what you are talking about.
One should not count on deterrence working against a government run by death-worshipping religious fanatics. Unfortunately, by spending our blood and treasure on lesser enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have left the much more serious threat from Iran unopposed. I say: Bring on the kinetic option!
Iraq made the “kinetic option” far more credible than it had been before. If Iran is the great opponent in the region, and I think Saddam was more dangerous at the time (1991), the Iraq invasion has had a huge effect in the ME which is now being frittered away. Remember Libya voluntarily giving up their nuke capability ? Lots of bad actors redid their sums for a while.
Ditto. It was almost unreal how the behavior changed in teh Middle east — for a while. But it had begun to revert to form in the Bush second term due to all the caterwauling from the left.
Of course since BHOs speech in Cairo, Libya has announced a new nuclear initiative. Thank you Mr. President.
Conclusion jumping seems to be the favorite sport of our time. Not being in the loop closely enough, we cannot tell whether the recourse to kinetics will eventually be warranted or not.
Too much depends on other things which we cannot predict, like whether the Tehran regime will eventually collapse under the burden of its popular ferment before it gets to be in a position to use its most ardently pursued “toys”. Let’s remember, we are not the only ones who find themselves in unfelicitous financial circumstances. Before we hyperventilate regarding the narrowing of our own options, let’s keep alert about the narrowing of their options. If their internal economy continues to deteriorate while their popular opposition continues to gather strength, our kinetic option may still become unnecessary.
This would be the optimal outcome, and it may still obtain, because the threat of kinetics can be more effective, and even preventative, than its actual use. The best option is to be ready to use it, and reach a point where the operational plan can be safely cancelled, even if just moments before it had seemed no longer avoidable.
How do you say “chicken” in Farsi? If we see large sums of cash moving out of Iran, seeking refuge in places like Switzerland, for instance, it will tell us that the powerful actors within Iran have decided that the game is too dangerous for their own creature comfort. We already can see the well endowed outsourcing their glorious jihad to poor souls who who don’t know better than blowing themselves up for someone else’s cause.
The Saudi billionaires who send money to Pakistan and elsewhere can still visit Lebanon to drink some whiskey whenever they wish, while the turbaned mujaheddin in the mountains have fewer options indeed.
Q: ” How do you say “chicken” in Farsi? ”
A: Obama
Sounds like a pretty odd interview. Mr Hayden was being exceptionally coy. Perhaps he should just lay the options out and trust the adults in the audience to grasp the obvious.
There really aren’t all that many options. This might be a reasonable lineup:
1. Believe that the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful energy production, and do nothing, hoping for the best. This option is probably not worth further consideration.
2. Believe that the Iranians are lying to cover up a military nuclear program, but still do nothing, hoping for the best. This is probably the default option.
3. Believe that the Iranians are making atomic bombs and will try to start an atomic war in the near future, but do nothing, hoping that these bombs will land on someone else. Basically a variant of (2).
4. Try to stop the Iranian nuclear program through external pressure and “engagement.” In practice this option would probably be indistinguishable from (2) above – it certainly has been so far.
5. Prepare for a conventional war with Iran in the immediate future.
6. Prepare for an atomic war with Iran in the slightly more distant future.
It looks to me like (5) and (6) are the only options which should be occupying the time of a professional defense establishment.
Back to Mr Hayden. Euphemisms like “the kinetic option” are not very informative, and, even worse, lead to lazy and imprecise thought. If TKO means a military attack on Iran and nothing more specific, it’s not very useful. If it means a strong attack which destroys much or all of Iran’s industrial, scientific, and military infrastructure, then it might be very useful, albeit very expensive for both parties. A weak attack would be much worse than a strong attack, as it would leave a big pile of dead bodies without accomplishing anything useful.
It’s also puzzling why Hayden thinks that “almost” having atomic bombs would be any sort of “sweet spot” for Iran. Such a stance makes Iran an obvous threat to its neighbors but provides it with not a shred of defense. It would make an arms race with neighbors like Saudi Arabia almost inevitable. Perhaps Iran could rely on the US to prevent, say, the Saudis from arming in their own defense. Parallels, none of them good, with the international response to the start of the Spanish Civil War come to mind. In any event, it’s hard to see any advantage to Iran in a local arms race. Iran’s best bet would seem to be to treat armament levels in the Gulf region as a dynamic variable, and to attack when the variables are most favorable to Iran – that is, immediately when Iran has what it needs and few others do. Which implies that time is much shorter than some think before we have the first genuine atomic war on our hands.
Agree with your conclusion. They will attack when, where and how it suits them. They already feel cornered – state of being which outrages them since they are supposed to take over the world.
Larry, Most likely scenario is Iran sneaking a dirty bomb ( G-d forbid ) into Gaza. The Israelis aren’t looking for oranges on those boats.
5a) Have a one-sided atomic war with Iran now. Much the preferred option in the real world, where the purpose of war is to remove threats. In Obama-world, where unicorns will bury the Iranian program in a pile of Skittle-crap, not so much.
The problem with apocalyptic folks is that they believe it will happen in their time or that they can force the apocalypse to occur in their time. Ahmadinejad will force events in one way or another before he gets too old to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He does not seek power to be safe from others, but to enforce his will on others.
Anyone ever been ice fishing on the lakes up in the north country. Maybe in January and February, but not in late March or April. Everyone knows that there are dates after which you just don’t go there.
After a certain point no one will be able to challenge Iran, because the Iranian fanatics will be able to undermine the functioning of the world. Then Iran will strike with impunity.
Kinetic energy = MVV/2
De-orbit a one ton tungsten penetrator
on the top 10 targets, request surrender,
repeat as required; Not a war between men,
but a prolonged battering with Thor’s Hammer.
And if we still had a space program that would be good. Hey, maybe we can sell it to O! as a form of Muslim outreach, as in reach out and touch…..
I think we still have to let it be known that a plan is still on the table for a first strike using either conventional weapons or nor conventional weapons. But it looks like Iran may have had technical issues in the enrichment phase and may not be as close to producing a weapon as they are disclosing and the Iranians appear to have internal problems in the Revolutionary Guard which could spill over into the present administration.
“When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call ‘the kinetic option’ was way down on our list. In my personal thinking … I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”
Many of those reports are saying that he stated a military attack on Iran was likely, while failing to add some of Hayden’s more nuanced thinking involving “kinetic actions” and deterrence.
-OK, Hayden isn’t exactly calling for war….just sorta, maybe.
War would be welcomed by Ahmadinejad. It’s just what he needs to take his countries mind off of its internal problems.
Two for the road-
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010072779260
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138819
Thanx for the links. Peace talks with The Palestinian Authority? In your opinion, how likely is this?
The problem with apocalyptic folks is that they believe it will happen in their time or that they can force the apocalypse to occur in their time. Ahmadinejad will force events in one way or another before he gets too old to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He does not seek power to be safe from others, but to enforce his will on others.
You are the one who is apocalyptic. Ahmadinejad will be gone in three years. He cannot run again and no Iranian president has served for more than the two terms allowed. Iran is not a dictatorship and Ahmadinejad has very little power. Certainly, he has no power over the military. So, you don’t know what you are talking about.