March 1, 2007  


For overstating its case against Iranian activity in Iraq and basing it on evidence presented by three officials it won’t identify. In doing so, the Defense Department’s argument sounds too much like the case that was built for invading Iraq.

The Pentagon’s own inspector general report on how the Defense Department’s policy office presented alternative intelligence assessments to policymakers in the summer of 2002 criticized those actions as “inappropriate.” Though its pushing of alternative interpretations of intelligence data was neither illegal nor unauthorized, the Pentagon policy office overstated the case for Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and for Iraq’s links to al-Qaida.

If it’s going to build a case for a possible strike on Iran, then it should use named experts to present legitimate, unadulterated evidence that is not biased toward creating a premise.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in early February that America was not planning for a war in Iran. If, however, America finds itself on a collision course with a nuclear-armed and dangerous Iran, then propaganda campaigns given by anonymous officials will not persuade Congress to give its support.