The Revolt of the Generals
against Iran War
Nov. 17, 2011 (EIRNS)This release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee.
In addition to the exclusive EIR interview with former CENTCOM commander, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), other military voices are being raised against the danger of general war, posed by the threat of an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran.
On Nov. 14, General John H. Johns, a retired Army officer who is a signator on the Human Rights First letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning against the police-state measures in the new defense bill, wrote an op-ed published in the New York Times, titled "Before We Bomb Iran, Let's Have a Serious Conversation." In the article, General Johns cites former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, another former CENTCOM commander, and former Congressman, Admiral Joe Sestak, all warning about the "unintended consequences" of any attack on Iran.
The general warned:
"While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences."
"Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel's Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran would mean regional war and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were the 'stupidest thing I have ever heard.'
"To be clear: everyone can agree that Iran is a serious problem. The development of Iranian missile technology is credible enough that NATO is (smartly) working with Russia to develop a defensive missile shield. And the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program should rally the international community to apply even more pressure."
The General concluded with a warning to the Presidential candidates:
"America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought."
Gen. Zinni appeared this week on Charlie Rose's show on CBS TV to issue another warning about the consequences of an attack on Iran. Asked about the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran, Zinni gave a graphic answer:
"I think the problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction. One mine that hits a tanker, and you can imagine what is going to happen to the price of oil and economies around the world. One missile into a Gulf oil field or a natural gas processing field, you can imagine what's going to happen. A missile attack on some of our troop formations in the Gulf or our bases in Iraq, activating sleeper cells, flushing out fast patrol boats and dowels that have mines that can go into the water in the Red Sea and elsewhere. You can see all these reactions that are problematic in so many ways. Economic impact, national security impact it will drag us into a conflict. I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish."