Ex-CIA Officials See Outbreak Of Conflict With Iran looming

Michael Roston
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Raw Story

In statements to Harper's magazine today, four ex-CIA officers mulled the possibility of war between the US and Iran. One named and two unnamed former employees of the agency agreed that conflict was likely to break out, though they differed on whether the Bush administration is planning it or wether an accident might occur due to tensions in the Persian Gulf region. A fourth said that he would "bet against it, but the spread isn't big."

Harper's Washington editor Ken Silverstein interviewed four ex-CIA officials, two of whom were not willing to be identified by name. The article at his Washington Babylon blog is part of an "online forum," with Silverstein soliciting comments from various experts on Middle East and US military-intelligence affairs.

Milt Bearden, who served as CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986-89, described the idea of military action in Iran as "insane." Still, he warned that "Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran." He saw the trumpeting of evidence of Iran's assistance to the insurgency as a possible creation of a casus belli by the Bush administration.

Second, an anonymous CIA official who served in the Persian Gulf in 2003 said he did not believe the Bush administration was planning war with Iran, especially because "the military does not want to do this....Iran has a lot of ways to hurt us." Still, he warned war could break out by mistake.

"The administration's actions are increasing the chances for an accidental confrontation," he told Silverstein. "People don't realize how small and narrow the Gulf is....When you have, on both sides, 19-year-olds manning weapons, it's a formula for an accident that could spin out of control."

Frank Anderson, who served three tours for the CIA in Middle East, offered a third explanation for why we are "'locked and loaded' for an attack" on Iran. He warned that "a significant minority of officials who are determined to take on Iran," combined "with an abundant supply of provocations from an Iranian President whose political core is radically and almost recklessly anti-American," created a scenario ripe for battle.

However, he added that there were constraints to determined action being taken by either side to actually start a war, so he would "bet against it, but the spread isn't big."

Finally, a fourth CIA agent with "broad experience in Middle East" also saw "war planning" by the Bush administration. He explained that the White House "is unlikely to embark upon military action immediately, but it's trying to squeeze Iran, to egg on the government, and hoping that Iran commits some sort of military action that the Bush Administration can use as justification for a strike."

They are taking this course, he said, because the Bush administration has been "hurt by the accusation that it conducted a war of choice against Iraq, so it's trying to create a situation where it can say this is a war of necessity against Iran."

Silverstein's full article can be found at the Washington Babylon website at Harper's, along with a link to the previous installment in his "online forum."