Want Another War?
For a few months now, I've been the crank telling people I think -- really -- there might be military action against Iran. Most seem not to believe this. Now Joseph Cirincione from the Carnegie Institute says he was wrong to be so sure this isn't what the administration wants. I think he's right. And Kevin Drum's right to say Democrats had better be prepared to deal with this. My strong sense from following this issue throughout 2006 is that if this issue really hits the political agenda in a significant way Democrats will manage to botch it both politically and substantively -- the only real question in my mind is whether the politics or the substance will be botched worse. I'd be thrilled, though, if somebody were to prove me wrong about that.
At any rate, I think everything from my February article on the subject in the Prospect still holds. Airstrikes against Iran are, in my view, a totally nutty idea that would make invading Iraq look a stroke of strategic genius. It genuinely makes no sense at all and will exacerbate every problem it's supposed to be solving.
"My strong sense from following this issue throughout 2006 is that if this issue really hits the political agenda in a significant way Democrats will manage to botch it both politically and substantively"
There is no "substantively" to botch.
The President can bomb any country he damn well pleases, and short of a House majority and Senate supermajority for impeachment, Congress has no say in the matter.
Since Democrats have no say in the policy of the matter, the only thing to botch or not is the "politically".
As to the appropriate political response, I strongly suspect the way to not botch it is to not be as dovish in response as you'd prefer.
April 4, 2006 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As to the appropriate political response, I strongly suspect the way to not botch it is to not be as dovish in response as you'd prefer."
More precisely, the fine line to walk politically is to emphasize Bush's general lack of credibility while not appearing too dovish towards Iran. Something along the lines of:
"In an age with some very real threats facing America, isn't it a shame that we have a President who we can't trust to tell us the truth about those threats?"
April 4, 2006 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there are enough people in the senior brass ... not the ones who talk to Rumsfeld directly, necessarily, but one or two levels below ... who have learned the lesson from Shinseki. If you think the commander is wrong, resign and go public in a forceful way. I think you'd see Zinni come out of the woodwork, maybe he toys with running for President in back of his head.
Invading Iraq was dumb but couldn't completely destablize, you know, the world balance of power. Bombing Iran might. I think the military would say so.
Perhaps I'm being naive.
April 4, 2006 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the article that has nearly convinced me that the US will actually bomb Iran before Bush leaves office. And if he will bomb, I have to admit he is most likely to do it for maximum political effect, so September 2006 is as good a guess as any.
I very seriously considered writing a discussion post including a link to this with the title "Hack is right, the US is really going to bomb Iran".
But then I thought, it can't possibly be right. There is nothing Iran would want more than the US to bomb it. That way Iran doesn't have to pay for Bushehr, which the Russians look like they never want to finish anyway and the day after, oh the day after.
First, idiots (that's directed at Rice and Rumsfeld), of course Iran is not taking its own oil off the market. Are you crazy? Iran is going to have its assets in Saudi Arabia take Saudi Arabia's oil off the market. Even convincing attempts will get Iran the $100 oil it needs as payback for whatever damage the pinprick strikes do.
Then Sadr starts aiming Iran's new domestically produced shoulder-fired surface to air missiles at US helicopters. The one that was tested this week in Iran's war games the day before a US helicopter suddenly went down south of Baghdad. Oh, and the embedded US soldiers leading/teaching Iraqi forces? They better not be leading/teaching Shiite Iraqis or they will be shot in the back of the head. It is not certain how trustworthy the non-Shiites are if Iran really puts in the effort.
Now under the NPT, Iran does not have to inform the IAEA of any nuclear research it does unless it introduces uranium, and you can do a lot of testing of centrifuges before you get to that point. That's what Iran will do. It will not leave the NPT. The Security Council will try to reaffirm previous resolutions against bombing safeguarded nuclear facilities and the US will veto it, but sanctions, even voluntary European sanctions are now over. Iran will take the position that we may or may not be testing centrifuges as is our right, but if and when we introduce a controlled element such as uranium, we will certainly inform the IAEA. Of course, we cannot tell you where because the American would just bomb us there so you can't see what we are doing.
The Kurds are in trouble. Everyone in Iraq will hate them even more for being American quislings. Iraq's government, supported by "I was born an Iranian, I will die an Iranian" Sistani, will invite the Turks in to teach the Kurds a lesson. The Americans will ask the Kurds not to come in, but with Kurds getting more active in Turkey (more of Kurdistan is in Turkey than the other countries put together. About a third of Turkish territory should be Kurdistan based on who lives there) its going to be hard for Turkey to say no to Iraq's urgent request to help keep the peace.
To Lebanon. Hezbollah is going to fire missiles into Israel, more than anyone thinks they have. Now what? Does Israel reinvade Lebanon? Iran hopes so. Now Iran comes to the defense of Lebanon, sending supplies and publically supporting the resistance. The people of Egypt are going to ask Mubarak - are you gonna help? Mubarak says no. The Islamist regime change clock in Egypt moves ahead one hour. Repeat in Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. One of them will fall before Iran does.
Does Israel take advantage of the mess to announce a transfer? Iran is begging Israel to forcefully transfer Palestinians out. That moves the regime change clocks up two hours.
Oh, and this is the perfect time to shoot any potential pro-American leaders in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They will be shot. Pro-US leaders in Iraq are wise to spend a lot of time in basements in the Green Zone. By the way, the Green Zone is going to be taking mortars also.
A US bombing will be a dream scenario for Iran. Iran might just hold an emergency referendum, just so Ahmadinejad can say he has 85-95% support and he'll get that from an honest poll. Either way, we can move Iran's regime change clock back three or four hours. The US cannot be stupid enough to do this. But I guess it can.
April 5, 2006 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid as a bombing would be, we have to at least talk about what Democrats should do if war fever starts in July/August then a bombing in September then more US bodybags in October/November and an election whose main issue is patriotism.
One last thing about bombing. China would be willing to finance the war by itself just to see how Iran's Soviet-bought Sunburn missiles do against US naval forces. If they hit, great. If they miss but Russia and China get to see exactly how they were taken out, that is invaluable information, especially as China games an invasion of Taiwan.
On to politics. Americans have certain views on the Middle East. The time to convince anyone to change his views is not during war fever. If Bush announces Iran's deadline to stop enrichment is September 1, I'd suggest a public position "If Bush is right about Iran's threat to the US, we should bomb even earlier." Just leave room to debate how much of a threat Iran is to the US until after the war fever subsides.
"I'm not sure we can trust Bush, but he's in the seat, and if he is right about the threat Iran poses, we absolutely must bomb Iran to prevent it from getting a weapon."
If the Democrats "abortion" this issue, and say their position is about the same as Bush's then the election can still be over domestic issues to some degree.
April 5, 2006 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I very seriously considered writing a discussion post including a link to this with the title "Hack is right, the US is really going to bomb Iran"."
Thank you! SOMEONE remembered I've been flogging this horse for the last several months to no avail!
So naturally when someone does, I have to be down sick with the flu and miss it!
"The US cannot be stupid enough to do this. But I guess it can."
What did that guy say? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people?
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 5, 2006 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
At any rate, I think everything from my February article on the subjectProspect still holds. Airstrikes against Iran are, in my view, a totally nutty idea that would make invading Iraq look a stroke of strategic genius. It genuinely makes no sense at all and will exacerbate every problem it's supposed to be solving.
Except the problem of Bush's approval ratings, which are likely to spike upward - at least temporarily.
But as for the actual foreign policy and security implications: For those in the administration who are eager to bomb Iran, and for their political supporters and allies, perhaps a little "strategic exacerbation" is is precisely what they have in mind?
Some of them are itching to fight the Big One against the Global Islamofascist Menace. They hoped Iraq would light the regional fuse, but it sputtered. An Iran lashing out in response to an attack, and the predictable acts of retaliation and civil chaos throughout the Middle East, may be the only way to extract the overwhelming commitment they seek from the US public and Western nations, in terms of manpower and resources.
Remember, these guys are not constrained in their movements to the reality-based plane. Some see wars as they are, and ask "Why?" They see wars that never were, and ask "Why not?"
April 5, 2006 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
More precisely, the fine line to walk politically is to emphasize Bush's general lack of credibility while not appearing too dovish towards Iran. Something along the lines of:
"In an age with some very real threats facing America, isn't it a shame that we have a President who we can't trust to tell us the truth about those threats?"
Well, that's not going to work politically! In the immediate aftermath of a bombing of Iran, Bush's approval ratings will rocket upward, and nobody is going to be in the mood for such naysaying. We'll be back in full-scale "accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative" mode. The public will be thrilled by such a decisive and awesome strike against the Evil Muslim Hordes, with little immediate cost to American lives. Perhaps the only political response from Democrats that will sell is "How high do I jump next, Mein Fuhrer!"
If political advantage is the aim, then the goal should be to flood the public with as much actual information as possible before this attack occurs, show them how stupid it is, and throw a monkey wrench into it now. They won't be in a mood for rational thinking once their blood is up.
April 5, 2006 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll get some more scares like this but Iran is not Iraq. The US knows it would be a bad move for the US and a good move for Iran.
There will not be sanctions and Iran will get a year of experience in enrichment this year. Iran does not need US soldiers in Iraq as human hostages, they will improve their strategic situation as soon as they are bombed either way, so they don't really care if the US actually pulls out and leaves Sadr (of "the US, Israel and UK are the triad of evil" fame) in control of the country.
Bombing talk is pretending to be crazy to pressure Russia and China to impose sanctions. It won't work for several reasons. I will post on this sooner or later.
Anyway, here are my newest sentences for Democrats to say if War Fever starts this summer:
In public: "Bombing Iran will not be pain free. Iran will try to weaken the position of every single US ally in the region and in some cases may succeed. Bush is commander in chief and if he has weighed the risks and has information that Iran's nuclear program is advanced enough that taking these risk is necessary, then he should do what is necessary."
In private: "The disaster this moron is about to set off makes us a lock in 2008"
Bombing Iran would do to the Republican image as protectors of national security what the tax cuts and spending increases did to the Republican image as the fiscally responsible party.
April 5, 2006 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Arnold's right. I keep clinging to James Fallows's cover story for the Atlantic on what to do about Iran--the conclusion appeared to be "military action won't work, but scaring the Iranians might."
Arnold is probably also right, however, that the Iranians won't scare. It's a win-win for the leadership whether we bomb or not. And a land war would be *bad craziness.*
April 5, 2006 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shoot, It is all about the midterms and the tax cuts. They have to keep control of both houses to avoid investigations, and the guy to watch is Charlie Cook.
Win the midterms, scare Democratics silly, get the tax cuts, get the Social Security parts of the budget passed. They are going to do it.
April 5, 2006 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
Since gas prices would be going up like by a dollar per gallon at least by the time the voters get to the polls, I have my doubts this would be smart politics. Plus, the evidence that it will happen at all doesn't come from talk emanating from sources who know sources who lunch with Dick Cheney's chauffeur -- evidence would be, like, in the disposition of American forces in the world. Rumsfeld might be a mad coot, but surely, if the U.S. were preparing to bomb Iran, there would be preparation for response against U.S. forces in Iraq. It looks to me like the U.S. military in Iraq is as vulnerable as ever.
If history were just an endless series of the same thing over again, then sure, we'd have the same thing happen as happened in 2002. But it isn't, and -- much as I think the Dems are idiots politically -- I think they have less to worry about in Iran and more to worry about having no strong politicians around which to rally at the moment.
April 5, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In the immediate aftermath of a bombing of Iran, Bush's approval ratings will rocket upward, and nobody is going to be in the mood for such naysaying. ... The public will be thrilled by such a decisive and awesome strike against the Evil Muslim Hordes, with little immediate cost to American lives."
The public will, of course, support the bombing in the immediate aftermath.
However, let's look at a specific element of the electorate: folks who currently disapprove of Bush but who will get caught up in the moment of jingoism. How do you reach that 20% to 30% of the electorate?
By reminding them of their distrust of Bush while not actually opposing the supposed efforts to keep America safe from the nuclear armed Evil Muslim Hordes. Those folks will support the bombing while simultaneously doubting Bush's wisdom and motives, and so politically, that's where Democrats should be as well.
April 5, 2006 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think petey's right, though I sure wish he weren't. I think "I have to trust the President's decision to bomb Iran, even after all his previous mistakes," is the only position most Democratic congressfolk can afford to take.
April 5, 2006 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was citing James Fallows earlier in a vain attempt at hope, so let's hear Fallows on why our current threats are hopeless:
In other words, either we're dolts at negotiating (not unlikely), or the sabers are rattling because we're getting ready to unsheath them.
April 5, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think "I have to trust the President's decision to bomb Iran, even after all his previous mistakes," is the only position most Democratic congressfolk can afford to take."
Yup. Although there is plenty of room for expressing regret that having to trust Bush seems such a bad choice after what happened in Iraq.
There is room for questioning his wisdom after all the mistakes in Iraq. And more crucially, there is room for questioning his motives in trying to win the election through the bombing. It all just has to be coupled with grudging support for the President's freedom of action toward perceived enemies.
The key really is connecting with voters who will support the bombing but have deep problems with Bush. Those folks will be the whole ballgame this November if the bombing actually happens.
April 5, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a negotiation with Iran. This is a negotation with Russia and China over sanctions.
There is nothing to negotiate with Iran, Iran as the dominant regional power is not tolerable to the US, Iran from here out does not have to do anything special to be the dominant regional power.
If Iran can avoid North-Korea type economic isolation, then the intolerable situation for the US will come into being.
The US says (lying) if you do not allow sanctions we will bomb them.
Iran says (telling the truth) if you apply sanctions we are going to try everything to make them bomb us.
If Russia and China agree with the US that sanctions are a way to avoid bombing, the US can get North Korea-style isolation and Iran will decline.
If Russia and China agree with Iran that sanctions will immediately destablize the region and will lead to bombings anyway, there is no North Korea-style isolation in the cards.
The US military options are:
1) Become Nazi Germany and kill a large amount of Iran's 70 million civilians - that will have very bad effects on the US strategic position in that the pressure for a coalition to form that can counter US power will become immense and the pressure to withdraw cooperation from the US felt by every other country in the world will be immense.
2) Medium strikes that last for weeks, destroy Iran's military but leave Iran's leadership intact. That will still leave Iran ten times more difficult to successfully occupy than Iraq, occupation is still out of the question. Iran will rebuild with more support from everyone in Europe, Russia, China and the Middle East. Iran will still be 5 years away from a bomb.
3) Small strikes - just make Iran mad and justify Iran doing everything Iran wants to do in the region anyway. Iran is 5 years away from a bomb today. After small strikes, Iran will be 5 years away from a bomb.
There is no military option so there is no military threat to force China and Russia to apply sanctions. There is no legal argument for the UN to apply sanctions as a punishment for Iran continuing to enrich Uranium, which is understood everywhere as Iran's right.
Russia and China might overlook the legal aspects in order to avoid a military threat, but sanctions would not work to avoid the military threat and there is no real military threat anyway.
April 5, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly agree with all of the above post. My personal feeling is that the compromise Iran has offered -- having all nations in the Middle East INCLUDING ISRAEL sign a regional nuke-free treaty -- seems pretty reasonable to me. Given that Israel is no longer seriously threatened by either Arab states or any nuclear power, I don't see why they should possess nukes. I also wish that the US wasn't quite as hypocritical in overlooking the Indian and Israeli gross violation of the NPT, developing nukes (think Israel signed it, not sure,) as opposed to Iran's far more minor violation. Lastly, I truly don't understand why Iran is a military threat to the US. They don't like us, perhaps because we overthrew their democracy, installed and supported the murderous Shah, and supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran (including selling poison gas to Iraq), but that's not a reason to bomb them.
April 5, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are midterms about? Not the 20-30% Petey is talking about. Midterms are all about turnout. I will leave it to y'all as to whose base gets more excited after an attack on Iran.
If it happens, it will happen as late as possible. Bush might even try to get authorization from Congress, Who knows how that goes, but if Democratic Senators give him authorization, I know which side's turnout will be depressed.
And I am not sure of all the consequences, but they could be very bad, so my guess is that the attack will come as close to the election as possible. Democrats may not be able to directly attack the war, but maybe would be able to use $5 dollar gasoline in the campaign.
April 5, 2006 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What are midterms about? Not the 20-30% Petey is talking about. Midterms are all about turnout. I will leave it to y'all as to whose base gets more excited after an attack on Iran."
No. A midterm like this one really is about that 20%. Without those folks, the Dems probably don't take back the House and definitely don't take back the Senate.
We need lots and lots of folks who aren't part of the base to come out and vote Democratic, or else it'll be Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader McConnell.
(And FWIW, Dem proponents of out-basing the GOP need to figure out that everything they know is wrong. The GOP will win almost every battle of the bases until some future realignment. In terms of ideology, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1. In terms of the geography of the House, Democratic 'clumping' in urban and black rural areas means the GOP wins a 50-50 race. And in terms of the geography of the Senate, the drawing of state lines badly undervalues urban voters and means we get absolutely hammered in a 50-50 race. We need elections that aren't battles of the bases to succeed. We need depolarization to govern.)
-----
"Bush might even try to get authorization from Congress, Who knows how that goes, but if Democratic Senators give him authorization, I know which side's turnout will be depressed."
Yup. If I were Rove, I'd drum up a crisis, try to get Senate authorization in October, and skip the actual war. Forcing the exact dilemma you describe on the Democrats would be my worst nightmare. If we vote against authorization we lose, and if we vote for authorization we lose. The only way out would be for some GOP Senators to break ranks and allow for a bipartisan stance in opposition. But it's always a bad idea to depend on your opposition to save the day.
Just having to respond to a unilateral Presidential bombing would be easy in comparison.
April 5, 2006 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just having to respond to a unilateral Presidential bombing would be easy in comparison.
Nah. If they put Dems to an authorization vote, they can just say, "every 'fact' that caused us to vote for the last invasion turned out false; we can't vote for this until the administration figures out a way to give us better transparency."
April 5, 2006 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, let's look at a specific element of the electorate: folks who currently disapprove of Bush but who will get caught up in the moment of jingoism. How do you reach that 20% to 30% of the electorate?
By reminding them of their distrust of Bush while not actually opposing the supposed efforts to keep America safe from the nuclear armed Evil Muslim Hordes. Those folks will support the bombing while simultaneously doubting Bush's wisdom and motives, and so politically, that's where Democrats should be as well.
I wonder how many of these people there are. The volatile middle who supported Bush strongly two years ago, and are now down on him, consist largely of front-runners who follow a winner and hate losers. He is losing Iraq, and they hate him for it. But if he launches a succesful fireworks dispaly in Iran, they will love him again. If they are the type of people to get swept up in jingoistic ferver, then they are not the type of people to respond well to an ambivalent message like: "I support the action, but am suspicious of the motives."
It seems to me that we need to pre-empt a Bush attack by pointing frequently and noisily to the dog before it gets wagged. Democrats should be saying things like: "All the smart people who have looked at this situation have concluded that Iran is still a long way from having a workable nuclear weapon. There is plenty of time to work the problem carefully, and get the solution right. I am confident that the President, who no doubt cares as much about national security as we all do, is not seriously considering compromising that national security by stooping to a cheap and reckless election year political stunt in Iran. George Bush may have many faults, but he doesn't play campaign politics with the lives of Americans."
We need to get the public to identify a fall attack on Iran as a cheap and reckless stunt even before it happens. If we successfully define the event in that way, and fix that negative definition in the public mind, then Bush and his Republican cronies will not dare carry it out. But if we just wait and let it happen, then Bush will be the one who gets to define the event during the rush of jingoistic ferver.
April 5, 2006 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nah. If they put Dems to an authorization vote, they can just say, "every 'fact' that caused us to vote for the last invasion turned out false; we can't vote for this until the administration figures out a way to give us better transparency."
I'd guess at least 20 Dem Senators, mostly from red states, wouldn't go along with that. And in political terms, they shouldn't go along with that. In political terms, the entire Democratic party shouldn't go along with that, although I know that won't happen.
It's a nightmare scenario because it would result in a divided Democratic caucus compared to a unified Republican caucus. That's what makes it a wedge issue.
And it's a nightmare scenario because it doesn't permit the "We support the troops and the President's authority, even though he's a lying idiot" strategy that a unilateral Presidential strike would permit.
April 5, 2006 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
There are so many factors before the election that this kind of gameplanning seems rather pointless. For instance, according to almost all sources, this is going to be another terrible hurricane season. Yet, as the recent governor's convention made pretty clear, the cuts in funding for the National Guard, plus the spending on the Gulf Coast, means that we are even less prepared than we were last year. So, what happens if Bush is threatening Iran while hurricanes are threatening Savannah, or Jacksonville, or Charleston, or Houston, or Mobile?
It is pretty hard to play the odds in these cases, but surely what political strategists should be looking at is not how to play 2002 better, but how to understand the anger from Katerina. Which will certainly boil over, IMO, if Bush is pre-occupied with the Middle East while disaster strikes another American city. Who knows, we might be payig the first downpayment on the neglect of the environmental crisis that Bush has made his lasting monument to his effort to weaken forever the old, fair, just and optimistic U.S.A
April 5, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is pretty hard to play the odds in these cases, but surely what political strategists should be looking at is not how to play 2002 better"
Until we learn how to play 2002 better, we will be forced to replay 2002 every two years as long as there is a Republican President.
Until we learn how to play 2002 better, the other side has an incentive to keep running the exact same play.
April 5, 2006 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
Petey, that simply can't be the case. What, you think some DEM Senator is going to lose because they voted against establishing the Department of Homeland Security -- re Max Cleland? I think more likely the loss will come for SUPPORTING Homeland security -- your doing a heckofa job, Brownie has pretty much put a stake in that issue.
It is silly to play defense when the game calls for offense. Until the Dems learn to play defense, they will be caught, foolishly, in 2002. That election is so over.
April 6, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President can bomb any country he damn well pleases, and short of a House majority and Senate supermajority for impeachment, Congress has no say in the matter.
I disagree with this statement on two points. First Congress can refuse to fund any presidential war efforts, the power over the purse is not an insubstantial one. Secondly, even if Congress cannot stop the president, by acting in opposition (censuring the president, just out right saying they are against the bombing) will be enough to show the public that the democrats (assuming they control congress *knock on wood*) are acting in opposition to the president. A super majority is not needed to create a strong opposition.
April 10, 2006 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink