Elliot Cohen, a shareholder in Atlantic OceanMilitary historian and founder of the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins College for Advanced International Studies (Sis). Cohen wrote many books about history and military strategy, but perhaps he was famous for his emotional support for the American invasion of Iraq, which has been in a large scale, both in the late 1990s, when he was a member of the new American -century research project, along with Bill Cristol, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, or after the 9/11 attack. In recent years of the George W. Bush administration, Cohen served in the Foreign Ministry under Rice Condoleezza. Since then, the so -called conservative has never been, as the president is regularly attacking while continuing to argue with a loud foreign policy.
Before President Donald Trump ordered Iran’s strike at the end of last week, Cohen A published piece in Atlantic Ocean Pressure for American participation, and praised the fact that Trump seemed to be moving towards a military attack. Cohen wrote: “As much as his critics may hurt to admit this, in this regard, he behaves, if not traditional, then like a state of state of Trump’s distinctive character,” Cohen wrote. Cohen continued this article with another article, ran in Atlantic Ocean On Sunday, after the strike, entitled “Trump got this rightHe explained: “Trump got this correct, and did what his predecessors lack intestinal stability (or, in order to be fair, promising opportunity). Talk to the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a harsh and dangerous system. “
I recently spoken by phone with Cohen about his case in American military action, and the date of his support for a pre -emptive American role in the Middle East. During our conversation, which was released for length and clarity, we also discussed his doubts about an American intelligence evaluation, saying that Trump’s strike only reached the Iranian nuclear program within months, its seventh journey after October to the Gaza Strip, and the lessons that he did not take from the war in Iraq.
What did you make on how Trump dealt with Iran during the past week, from a strike to pressure for a ceasefire?
I support the strike, and give it credit. As you know, I was criticized for him as much as one can be. I think I may have never been the origin, but I believe in this right thing, because this was a problem that brewed for a very long time, and no administration, including the will I was part of. Send an opportunity. Regarding damage assessments, my feeling about it, for a full range of reasons, is that it is very early to know that. But the strike was actually well. Trump being Trump, immediately called the nuclear program blurring. We do not know that. He claimed the credit for bringing peace, which I doubt a lot. But many of us, including close friends, hate the man, and made it impossible for them to know a good decision and desirable results.
I said that other departments were not able to “deal” this problem. Do you feel that Trump is dealing with the problem?
I think it’s more than other departments. We do not know how much damage caused to American strikes, but there were damages that the Israelis have caused to their good work, air strikes, and American strikes. What I think was the people who missed it is that he has already put a precedent to use the American military force to pursue the Iranian nuclear program. It is really important. We have tried sanctions and negotiations, and they may have somewhat slowing the program, but I think it is very clear that the Iranians were pressuring it.
What did you do? Tolsi GabbardThe Director of National Intelligence, saying in March that the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khounai, was not authorized to move forward in the production of a bomb, and that the American spying agencies agreed with this conclusion?
What I do is the same thing that I made from her statements that Bashar al -Assad was not such a bad man. It is the issue of nuts that do not have a special understanding of the facts of the situation. It is one of the number of people who should not be appointed to this position. if [C.I.A. director] John Ratcliffe said I was taking it seriously, because it is not a state of walnut.
We have no reason to believe that she was lying about what the American intelligence community believes widely, right?
We have no reason to believe it was [telling the truth]. By the way, the American intelligence community has a mixed busy record in this matter. Intelligence is always difficult. Second, on this one, they have an uneven record. Third, the Israelis had a much better record than we have, and they were excited because the Iranians wanted to exterminate them. So between the strange and lack of reliability of Toulcy Gabbard on the one hand and the registration of our intelligence community on the other hand, I do not take anything you say seriously.
I only said that we have no reason to believe that the intelligence community may reach a different result.
We do not know if she is providing what people say accurately. We do not know that it was actually a collective position. [On June 19th, the Times reported that it remains the consensus position of the intelligence community that Iran has not yet decided whether to pursue the manufacture of nuclear bombs; senior officials also told the newspaper that Iran was likely to move toward it if the United States attacked.] It will be a big mistake to believe that the supreme rulings are not issued, taking into account what you think the political leadership may do or hate. That was the experience that I went through in the government. Therefore, as you know, the intelligence world is mysterious. It is a mysterious world. There are some prominent people there and there are other people who have political opinions and act on them.
I just said that you were not sure of the amount of damage to the American strikes on Saturday. You Also writeOn Sunday, “for a period – a quarter of years, perhaps 10 – Iran will not have a nuclear option.” Did you have a reason to use these numbers, or were you just giving up? the Times And other outlets recently I mentionedAccording to the initial defense intelligence report, the strike appears to have only returned the program to “a few months”.
This was a preliminary assessment of professionals that the Israelis would not share. If you look at the Israeli press, you will see that this is not the Israeli opinion. [After Trump began an extraordinary attack on the media for reporting on the D.I.A. assessment, and defended his claim that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “obliterated,” Ratcliffe released an assessment saying that the American strikes had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program. The Times also reported, on Wednesday, that, according to U.S. government officials, “should Iran decide to move quickly to get a bomb, it is unlikely to use the facilities struck in the American attack but probably has much of the raw materials and know-how needed to continue.”]
The Air Force study ran on the first Gulf War. Even such a six -month or a year later, we are still arguing about bombs merging assessments. It is a very difficult task. So it is too early to know exactly what is the result of Fordo’s strokes in particular.
