Breakdown:
1. Context and Setup
- The Premise:
The story uncovers behind-the-scenes details from high-level U.S. government and military meetings about plans to invade Iran during the Iraq War era. - Backdrop:
- The narrative begins with a reflection on the lead-up to the Iraq War, where intelligence was allegedly manipulated or fabricated to justify military action.
- The connection between Iraq and potential plans for Iran sets the stage for an alarming escalation of conflict.
2. The Order of Battle Meeting
- Key Event:
A high-stakes military briefing is described, called an “Order of Battle” meeting. This is where military strategies and troop movements are discussed. - Major Players:
- George Tenet: Then-CIA Director, who sits at the head of the meeting.
- Unnamed General: The speaker presenting the military strategy.
- Narrator: A note-taker observing the meeting, who provides insight into the unfolding events.
- Crucial Detail:
- The general casually mentions that U.S. forces could be in Tehran (the capital of Iran) by August, implying that plans for an invasion of Iran were being seriously considered.
3. The Shock and Disbelief
- George Tenet’s Reaction:
After hearing the mention of Tehran, Tenet turns off his microphone and asks in disbelief if the general said “Baghdad” (Iraq’s capital) or “Tehran.”- His confusion and disbelief underscore how unexpected or reckless the plan to invade Iran seemed, even to someone in his position.
- His rhetorical question, “Have these people lost their minds?” highlights the recklessness of such a strategy.
- Narrator’s Role:
- As an observer, the narrator confirms the general’s words, solidifying the impression that Iran was a serious target.
- The narrator’s conversation with a deputy director later reveals that discussions about invading Iran were not new, adding to the sense of foreboding.
4. Insight into Decision-Making
- Disconnected Leadership:
- The deputy director’s nonchalant response, “Oh, are they still talking about that?” reflects a troubling casualness toward the possibility of expanding the war into Iran.
- This reaction reveals a bureaucratic detachment and lack of accountability in planning decisions that could lead to catastrophic consequences.
- Searching for Justifications:
- The narrative emphasizes how, during the Iraq War, the administration sought to justify its actions, even when evidence was fabricated or tenuous.
- This same pattern appears to extend to Iran, suggesting a willingness to manipulate narratives for political or military objectives.
5. The Larger Implications
- Miscalculated Ambitions:
- The mention of potentially being in Tehran by August highlights the overconfidence or naivety of such plans, considering the complexity of military intervention in Iran.
- Iran is a far larger and more challenging adversary than Iraq, making the idea of a swift invasion highly unrealistic.
- Loss of Lives and Trust:
- The story underscores the human cost of decisions made in such a cavalier manner. It also hints at the erosion of public and internal trust in the government’s integrity during this period.
Conclusion:
This passage is a sobering look into the inner workings of U.S. military and political decision-making during a critical time in history. It exposes a culture of casual escalation, poor communication, and disregard for the potential consequences of reckless military ambitions. The revelation about plans to invade Iran reflects not only the hubris of leadership but also the danger of unchecked power.