Whose Side Are You On?
It's hardly a secret at this point, but one of the things reading Cobra II drives home is the extent to which the fix was already in during the final months of hand-wringing and diplomacy over Iraq. The administration had decided to invade, and the purpose of the diplomacy was to try and create a political environment -- both domestic and international -- that was maximally favorable to the invasion plan. Even Saint Colin Powell regarded the possibility that Saddam would back down and cooperate with inspectors as a threat to be avoided because was was the desired outcome. You can't think straight about the Iran situation unless you appreciate this reality and it's significance.
It's worth saying at the get-go that this doesn't merely reflect some kind of cynicism on the part of Karl Rove or an eccentricity of George W. Bush. It's part of a considered, and wrongheaded, view of America's foreign policy which holds that reaching diplomatic agreements with "evil" regimes is always a bad thing. The preferred method is the use of force and intimidation. The problem is that neither the American people nor the international community is prepared to endorse fighting wars for no reason at all. Thus, when the Iranians approach us with peace feelers, the offers must be rejected out of hand. Iranian intransigence at the IAEA isn't a problem, but an opportunity for war. I don't say that everyone in the administration thinks this way, but many of them do, and they're joined by many conservatives outside the administration. It's no secret, for example, that lots of folks have been pushing for action against Iran since long before the current iteration of the nuclear crisis broke out.
The key question facing the country at the moment is whether or not those people -- the ones who view a conflict with Iran as a good thing -- will drive national policy. These are not people sitting around, puzzling over the Iran question, scratching their heads and looking for solutions. They're people puzzling over the question of how to get what they want: A war. The task facing people who don't want to see a war is how to stop them.
That's why I find it disheartening to read Iran commentary like this from Suzanne Nossel or this from Dennis Ross. The presupposition of both of them is that we're engaged in a good-faith national conversation about how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program and so all good-hearted people should be putting notions on the table about diplomacy, pressure, etc., etc., etc. That's simply not what's happening here. Instead, we're watching a neoconservative push for war, and if you don't want a war, you need to push back.
I'm by no means opposed to the idea of more aggressive diplomatic and economic pressure and what have you. But I most certainly am opposed to starting a war. And insofar as twists and turns in policy are likely to be just smoke and mirrors -- as we saw before Iraq -- designed to smooth the path to war, I don't think people should waste their time talking about this stuff. The President has it within his power to alter this dynamic any time he wants. All he needs to do is say that, no, he's not going to start a war with Iran, but he does want to deal with the nuclear issue. With war taken "off the table," then we can have a conversation about diplomacy, the UN, sanctions, isolation, etc., etc., etc. But as long as war is on the table, then war -- not diplomacy -- is the issue, and the "military option" is a terrible one.
It genuinely is like Social Security, where the solvency question was being used as a cloak for the privatization agenda. Democrats kept getting labeled "irresponsible" for refusing to engage in a big wonk-fest about options for achieving long-term fiscal balance. But they rightly held their ground, perceiving that to the people who held all the power solvency wasn't the issue -- Social Security was. They wanted to destroy it, and Democrats didn't. Take privatization off the table, and then we can talk about solvency. Well, Bush wouldn't do it. Because, of course, we were right -- what he cared about was phasing the program out.
On Iran, it's the same thing. Liberals should be prepared to engage in a sophisticated and nuanced discussion of options for coping the Iran . . . the day after the President tells the "bombs away!" crew to buzz off. Until then, folks need to decide whether they want to collaborate, wittingly or unwittingly, with the people pushing us toward war or whether they want to fight them.
Anyone who thought that war could be avoided after we'd massed 100K+ troops in the gulf is hopelessly naive, or willfully blind to the exigencies of leadership.
Of course we didn't want Saddam to cooperate! The war in Iraq was supposed to server a number of goals, one of which was a show of force reestablishing the American military machine as something to be feared. We could hardly do that from Kuwait, now could we?
The mistake that Powell et al, made was to even give Saddam an out. It was obviously a (token) nod to the international community for the sake of Tony Blair and a few others, in hopes of quelling the international protest for the war. It's hard to imagine that an invasion without the sparse-set of international fig-leaves would have provked any more protest than did our weasling with the UN. And a war with Iraq based on something other than the pattent bullshit about WMDs would have at least had the virtue of being sold honestly, thus not exposing it to eroding support when, not surprisingly, no WMDs showed up.
For the record, I think that the case for invading Iraq was a strong one, and I supported the decision to invade. And I think that a case can be made for using force against Iran. But as long as this administration is in power, and they're using the threat from Iran as a weapon in the mid-term elections, no fucking way.
I need to see some evidence that the good of American comes before the good of the Republican party before I get behind the deployment of troops again.
May 1, 2006 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That this kind of attempt at good-faith engagement is still happneing among progressive policy types is a real testament to the strength of a kind of institutional intertia.
It was easy for someone like me, who came of age politically in the polarized environment of the late-90s and the 2000 campaign, to see that the run up to the Iraq war was not a time to be engaging in any serious, good-faith thinking about how to deal with Saddam Hussein, either as a threat to the region's security or a bad actor in humanitarian terms.
But I think seeing things that way was probably a lot harder for people who had a lot of time and thought invested in a political environment where serious policy thinking actually mattered. They had made their lives up to that point thinking of new ideas and working over old ones in a good-faith effort to provide real solutions to various problems. It was too hard for them to switch gears fast enough to recognize that the Iraq war run-up was fundementally not an environment where good faith wonkery had any place.
But now, after after having seen how the administration dealt with Iraq, progressive policy types really don't have any excuse for not stepping back and realizing that doing what they've always done--good-faith wonkery--has no place in the Iran discussion.
May 1, 2006 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Denis Ross might know all about pretending to have a good faith strategy for solving tensions in the Middle East for public diplomacy purposes while in practice adopting a ruthless push for the policies demanded by domestic politics.
May 1, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suzanne Nossel actually did a very solid job of laying out the Iran policy options that progressives should be working to promote if we had a President who cared about effective policy.
Unfortunately, Matt is right. To understand this situation, we have to see it through the eyes of Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer. Which is to say, we need to understand that war is not the last resort, it is the intended result. These people are not liberal hawks who believe in the use of force to achieve productive ends. They are thugs. They have no respect for any solutions that do not involve force.
They only way to keep them from going to war with Iran is to build a strong public opposition to war with Iran before they even get around to asking Congress for an authorization of military force. If Republican leaders believe a war in Iran will cost them their Congressional majority, there will be no war.
May 1, 2006 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing that is depressing about Cobra II is the unwillingness of anyone connected to the Bush Administration, especially Rumsfeld, w to listen to any alternatives about ends or means.
It is unclear what is Dennis Ross or Suzzane Nossel to do? They have no say over Bush Administration policy. Rumsfeld and Cheney came to office desiring to make the U.S. military a fast flexible force that would strike hard and sow fear in those they believe would harm to the United States. They more than Kristol and Krauthammer looked to remove Saddem.
Those who care about policy can only put forth their views to the American public hoping that members of Congress, who are up for re-election, as Bush is not, will be scared into action.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 1, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Instead, we're watching a neoconservative push for war, and if you don't want a war, you need to push back. ... It genuinely is like Social Security"
Ugh. It's really not like Social Security in the sense that pushing back has no impact.
Democrats could stop Social Security privatization because the WH needed Democratic votes. The WH doesn't need anyone's votes to drop bombs on a foreign country.
Push back all you like, but if you think that will have an impact on the WH's decisions, you're loony.
-----
And FWIW, everyone who thinks the WH plan is to bomb Iran to win the elections this November isn't paying attention. The WH plan is to ratchet up Iran rhetoric to win the elections this November. That much seems pretty clear so far. If you can't tell the difference between what's going on right now and what was going on in 2002, like I said, you're not paying attention.
May 1, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They only way to keep them from going to war with Iran is to build a strong public opposition to war with Iran before they even get around to asking Congress for an authorization of military force."
Every President from Truman to Clinton has shown that you don't need an authorization of military force to drop bombs on a foreign country.
If you think you have any way to keep the WH from doing whatever they want in Iran, you're not following the game closely enough.
May 1, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little confused. There's a man in Tehran with a thick beard who is supporting terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine, as well as other countries, who is in flagrant violation of the IAEA, who is promising to spread nuclear technology without restriction, who has denied the holocaust, and who has threatened to eliminate a neighboring state in the near future.
Given this information the left concludes that unless the people opposing the madman take all talk of military action off the table, a priori (and unilaterally I should add), they will not engage in a serious conversation.
Am I missing something here, or is the neccessity of winning an argument in Washington trumping all sense of proportion and common sense?
May 1, 2006 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But now, after after having seen how the administration dealt with Iraq, progressive policy types really don't have any excuse for not stepping back and realizing that doing what they've always done--good-faith wonkery--has no place in the Iran discussion."
Sure.
But what attitudes like this miss, (and Matthew is a prime culprit), is that while good-faith wonkery has no place in the Iran discussion, electoral political considerations have a very big place in the Iran discussion.
The WH is going to do whatever they want in Iran. They don't need anyone's approval to send bombers.
I'm operating under the assumption the WH plan is to not send bombers prior to the election, but instead to ratchet up the war of words with Iran. Since the Iranian leadership also stands to benefit from a war of words, we'll have a willing partner for bellicose threats.
The Democratic response to this should not be good-faith wonkery, but instead should be a play to win the Iran discussion among voters this November, and that requires something other than the shrill anti-war sounds we're getting out of the lefty blogosphere of late.
I'd whittle that electoral argument down to agreeing with the WH that a nuclear armed Iran is an eventual threat to US interests, agreeing with the WH that force should be an option in dealing with Iran, and then making the case that the Bush administration is not trustworthy to make the decisions to manage such a war.
The game is not to somehow stop the WH from sending bombers. That's not within our power. The game is to pick up seats this November.
May 1, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think Karl Rove's White House would go to war if polls showed it might cost the Republicans their Congressional majority, then you haven't been very close attention.
May 1, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that I agree with Peter Beinart's assessment in TNR that the military option is probably not a good one. But that's very different (and far less radical) than demanding that the president announce that he will absolutely not ever consider military options.
May 1, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dworkin:
I'm no expert, but reading the papers it seems there are three military options re Iran:
(1) Regime change. Iraq times three. If you reinstitute the draft today (and keep it a secret from the Iranians), you might have the army to do this somewhere in 2007.
(2) A preventive surgical strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Will only slow them down. Will be hell to pay.
(3) A preventive nuclear surgical strike. Will still only slow them down.
All three options are examples of preventive war. in other words, warcrimes.
As retaliation, the Iranians can incite terrorist violence in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Europe and probably the US. They can also invade Iraq or Afghanistan to go after US soldiers. They can simply stop providing the world with oil themselves and they can block the straight of Hormuz (and yes, they've got loads and loads of missile launchers in the mountains overlooking the straights. Sophisticated enough to hit even US navy ships. Or so I've read.)
The worse that can happen without military option is that Iran, like North Korea, gets a handful of nukes and is deterred from using them by means of unilateral assured destruction.
So the best possible outcome of a military operation against Iran is still worse than the worse possible outcome of negotiations.
May 1, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply don't accept the statement that a preventative strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is a war crime. The definition of a war crime ought to be a lot more than that, or the language is robbed of its meaning altogether.
Aside from that, I essentially accept the logic that deterrance makes more sense than military confrontation, hence my reference to the Beinart article.
But the idea that every liberal must pass a litmus test of demanding that the White House announce, in advance, that Iran faces no military threat despite its parallel pursuit of terrorism, nuclear technology, and raving anti-semitism seems to go further than even the most strident pro-diplomacy position.
Call it realism if you like, but it sure smells like a rhetorical surrender.
May 1, 2006 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you think Karl Rove's White House would go to war if polls showed it might cost the Republicans their Congressional majority, then you haven't been very close attention."
I'm already there. I don't think there will be bombing prior to the elections.
Ginning up a war of words helps them more for November than actual hostilities. The goal with Iran, much like with Tony Snow, is to communicate with their base. With Iran, they'll be trying to raise the specter of the anti-war left to motivate their people. Actual bombing risks scaring the center with a widening war. And since the Iranians also see an incentive to have a war of words, it works for both sides.
Few seem to have picked up that in the Bartlett story, he basically explained that Iran was a campaign issue, not a military issue.
---
I agree with you on a certain level in that the Democrats' only possible response to this is an electoral response.
But I don't think that response has much to do with whether or not war will happen. If inner circle of the WH wants war and thinks it'd be bad politically, they'll just bomb in December.
And I certainly don't think asking for an authorization of forces has anything to do with this. If Bush doesn't think it'd be to his political advantage to ask for an authorization, he'd just bomb without one.
May 1, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a pathetically partisan response to a serious world crisis.
Oh, all we care about is seats in November!
Wby? Because HE thinks Bush won't bomb Iran BEFORE November!
What if Bush doesn't follow YOUR game plan, but follows his own?
Where does that leave the Democrats? I'll tell you where - scrambling to get on the "War Party" train again just as they did with Iraq.
And agreeing with the neocons that Iran should be militarily attacked in an ILLEGAL war based on the SUSPICION that Iran MIGHT SOMEDAY have a nuclear weapon?
If the Democrats can't come up with anything better than that, they might as well rename themselves Republicans.
Or perhaps both parties should just unite into the "War Party".
May 1, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nossel is an Israel first neocon.
She posted the same crap at HuffPo.
I ripped her proposals to shreds in response.
However, you ARE TOTALLY RIGHT that we need to get Congress to stop this war before Bush can initiate it.
But you can't do it via the elections or by talking. Every single Democratic Congressman has to get behind Representative Pete DeFazio's resolution prohibiting Bush from initiating military action in Iran without the express authorization of Congress - and then they need to stop the Republicans from giving that authorization.
But to do that, you need to pressure hawks like Clinton and Lieberman - good luck with that.
May 1, 2006 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What part of OPERATIONAL PLANNING don't you understand?
What part of boots on the ground in Iran don't you comprehend?
Rhetoric, my muscular buttocks (to quote Jayne in "Serenity.")
I'll see you here November 2 - or at the latest, January 20th - to see you eat those words.
I thought Bush would do this with North Korea in 2004 - I was wrong then. I ain't wrong now.
You can only steal so many elections with rigged vote counts and fraudulent voting machines. The next time you have to use a real distraction.
May 1, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is a pathetically partisan response to a serious world crisis. Oh, all we care about is seats in November!"
Yup. Cuz that's all we can affect.
I think the only serious response to the craziness of the modern Republican party is to take back control of the government from them, chunk by chunk.
May 1, 2006 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing you have stated about Iran is true or particularly relevant to the actual issue - except the beard part.
With that level of ignorance of what is going on, you would be better off reading rather than posting.
May 1, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent summary of the situation.
You, unlike some other posters and the majority of the US population, have a clear grasp of the situation.
As Don Rickles used to say, "You win a cookie!"
May 1, 2006 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the treaties since the forming of the UN. Read the UN Charter. Read the NPT treaty.
Yes, attacking Iran over the current circumstances or even threatening to do so is illegal according to treaties signed by the US and recognized as having the force of US law by the Constitution.
Starting a unilateral war of aggression against another nation which is not directly threatening either your nation or a region is considered the ULTIMATE war crime because it encompasses all other war crimes.
Until Iran HAS nuclear weapons and threatens to use them against Israel or someone else - or at the very least has such weapons and remains a signatory of the NPT - attacking Iran is illegal under international law.
The British legal establishment has already pointed this out to Blair, which is why Straw is saying that a military attack on Iran is "inconceivable."
In Iraq's case, there were UN resolutions that COULD be interpreted to authorize the US to use force against Iraq. This was later demonstrated to be incorrect and the considered opinion by most international legal scholars was that the Iraq war was and is illegal. Blair pressured his law authority to agree that it was legal - after the man threatened to resign over the issue.
There are NO UN resolutions authorizing any kind of force against Iran at this time, and none are likely to be forthcoming as long as China and Russia have veto power, and the case against Iran is so incredibly lame.
Read the latest IAEA report and tell me if you think these minor suspicions and missing facts are worth going to war over - a war that could, if nuclear bunker busters were used, kill up to three million people, NOT including the normal "collateral damage" of large-scale aerial bombardment, not to mention the likely escalation of the war into a ground war in Iran or Iraq.
It's just ridiculous to suggest that the US has any moral or legal authority to attack Iran at this point. If it does, the US is indistinguishable from Nazi Germany trying to reclaim Austria or the rest of Eastern Europe on some "lebensraum" or ethnic basis.
May 1, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's not true? Can you be more specific? Each of the things I've mentioned comes from recent press reports and statements of the Iranian president, and each seems highly relevant to the consideration about what should be done.
The reliance on personal abuse almost always reveals where the ignorance is.
May 1, 2006 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're both wrong.
However, let's assume you're right.
Okay, it's now January 2007. The Republicans retain control of the House and Senate because, as Josh Bolton said, "the Democrats will lose over Iran."
So they did.
Okay, now what? Iran is still sitting there enriching uranium. The Iranisn President just ran his mouth again about how the Israeli regime must go the way of the dodo. They now have three 164-centrifuge cascades going enriching uranium. They've announced plans to put 3,000 centrifuges into production by end of 2007.
Bush does nothing for the next three years? Is that your impression? He sits like a bump on a log like he does with North Korea? He just ignores the issue?
How about Israel? You believe they just sit back and say, "Okay, we'll just accept those hundreds and eventually thousands of spinning Iranian centrifuges. We can't do anything. America won't let us."
The problem with ratcheting up the rhetoric to win votes in international matters is that it's not like saying, "Gee, we'll cut taxes!" Or, "Gee, we'll pass a health care bill." The problem is the other guys are still there.
And people tend to point that out to you - as they have been doing with North Korea.
The media, of course, is ignoring North Korea on cue. That's because nobody but the Japanese cares about North Korea - and we don't care about the Japanese concerns.
I don't see Iran as being in the same situation.
Your opinion is that Bush will ratchet up the rhetoric on Iran to the point just short of war - and then ignore Iran for the next three years because he really can't afford to go to war with Iran in case the Republicans might lose in 2008.
Okay - let's see how that plays out.
If Bush airstrikes Iran before November 2, you will be back here to correct your theory, yes? If he doesn't, I will be here to say I was incorrect - just as I said he would attack North Korea before the 2004 elections. I was wrong then. I ain't wrong on Iran.
May 1, 2006 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that the ayatollahs run the Iranian theocracy, not the Iranian president.
Tom
May 1, 2006 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
To respond to your points:
1) Lengthy Discussion of Illegality - Is this your preferred litmus test for all military interventions? If so, then how do you feel about Kosovo? Also a war crime perpetrated by the Americans? This is an utterly nonsensical standard as long as human rights abusers get to determine what is and is not legal. Beyond that, legal niceties will have little bearing on morality once a terrorist supporting state begins distributing its nuclear know how. I believe - and I suspect a large number of reasonable people would agree with me - that we should do whatever is neccessary to prevent the nuclear apocalypse, regardless of what international legal scholars and UN personnel think.
2) War - I'm not pro-war. Please stop pigeon holing me. If you can't grasp the distinction between a we-should-bomb position and a we-should-leave-the-possibility-of-boming-on-the-table position, then we're probably just talking past eachother.
3) America as Nazis - Have you ever met a real Nazi? Those who have can tell you that Americans, even American conservatives, are nowhere near the Nazis. Once again the dilution of language is simply appalling.
May 1, 2006 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, there soon will be a Security Council resolution of some sort, though probably not a strong one. It can hardly be claimed that we're shirking the diplomatic process when everyone - including Bush if judged by his recent statements - seems hell bent on avoiding confrontation.
May 1, 2006 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush group was not very smart and not very well-informed before Iraq, but it had the support of many traumatized post 9/11 Americans. There is no such support this time. We better all start screaming NO loudly right now. If we do Karl Rove might hear the sound of Republican control of Congress sinking and intervene to try to prevent the backlash that will come instead of the Republicans hoped for "rally round the flag" effect.
Tom
May 1, 2006 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the extent that there's any difference between the two ideologically, your point is valid.
May 1, 2006 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were doing very good there until the last two paragraphs. It was absurdly obvious before the invasion that Bush and his gang were going to invade Iraq and nothing anyone could do would stop them. That alone was all the reason needed to be totally opposed to that invasion. Those who lacked the common sense to realize that have destroyed their credibility as people with judgement.
Iran is more of the same. And, once again the obvious fact that Bush and his gang are going to attack Iran no matter what the rest of the world does, should be adequate reason alone for being utterly opposed to such an attack. Surely we have learned that lesson haven't we?
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 1, 2006 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
What will you do after they have the bomb?
I'm not trying to be snide. I'm genuinely curious - what is the liberal position beyond that of blocking Bush? The voters will be curious about that too, and they have every right to be.
May 1, 2006 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reiterate - nothing you have said is true.
If you will go back and reread those press reports, and if you will do the necessary research on Google to the relevant posts and articles on various forums, including numerous articles here on TPM, you will discover the following:
1) The President of Iran is misquoted when it is reported that he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." And who cares, anyway - see point 5 below.
2) Iran is in complete compliance with their obligations over the NPT. The latest IAEA report says this explicitly which is why I recommend you read it.
The only complaint the IAEA has about Iran is that it has not been adequately forthcoming about certain documents and programs that existed at one time but cannot be demonstrated by the IAEA to exist at this time. In other words, twenty year old issues need to be cleaned up, and Iran has been slow in doing so.
3) While the President of Iran has questioned the Holocaust, the implications of his statements were less clear than the Western press has reported. Again, some research into proper translations of Persian would serve you well.
4) Iran has not stated it will distribute nuclear weapons to anyone. It has said it will distribute peaceful nuclear technology if asked. The actual probability of Iran giving nuclear weapons to anyone - even if they had them anytime in the next ten years - is approximately zilch. No dictatorial regime gives away strategic weapons to anyone. None ever has. None ever will.
5) The President of Iran does not have the authority to embroil Iran in a war. His Presidential powers do not equal those of George Bush. Only the senior clerics of Iran can initiate military action by Iran. And they are not able to do anything against Israel as long as they have no (or a few) nuclear weapons and Israel has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons (including nuclear warheads on Harpoon cruise missiles on Israeli submarines) - not to mention the US nuclear arsenal. They are also, despite being depicted as "fanatics", not so stupid as to desire their country to turn into a plate of glass just to get rid of Israel.
6) Attacking Iran under the current circumstances is oompletely illegal under international law and treaties signed by the United States, including the UN Charter and the NPT. Even threatening to attack Iran is illegal under the present circumstances.
As I said, try to get better informed than listening to Fox News and reading the Wall Street Journal.
May 1, 2006 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bush does nothing for the next three years? Is that your impression?"
I have no idea what Bush does after the election. But no matter how well Democrats do in the elections, I do know that we won't be able to affect his decision.
Presidents have not historically needed any authorization whatsoever to send bombers.
"I was wrong then. I ain't wrong on Iran."
You can actually make some money on that thought if you feel certain enough. At Tradesports.com, you can get 6 to 1 odds on the proposition that the US and/or Israel will launch an airstrike on Iran this calendar year. Bet $50 and get back $300 if the bombs fall.
The futures markets can certainly be wrong, but at the moment, they're quite strongly supporting my crystal ball over yours.
May 1, 2006 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress has given Bush unlimited power to engage in war where ever he wishes. Bush has made it clear that he believes he has the authority as commander in chief to do anything he wants to do. Those two facts make it obvious that the only way to stop Bush is to impeach him. But, we are too scared to do that. This isn't a good time to be in the armed forces or in the reserves.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 1, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, even the beard part is wrong. Iran's president, the one who is the bombastic one, doesn't have a beard.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 1, 2006 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be demeaning, but you would have to be dumb as a doorknob to think Bush, as incompetent and ill informed as he is, would ever attack North Korea. These are seriously bad folks who are well prepared to respond. For decades they have had over 11,000 artillery tubes in a hill topography, all within range of the 10.5 million population Seoul. The city would be turned into a burning mass of rubble with maybe 1 million shells impacting in the first hour. Since Bush screwed up the negotiations with them and they kicked out the UN they also have 10-15 nukes and missiles to send them to US bases in Asia, Tokyo, or maybe even Chicago with one of their multi-stage experimental missiles.
May 1, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran, and every other country in the world that wants one, will have a nuclear weapon sometime in the future. What we will do is what we did when Russia obtained nuclear weapons. We will keep our defenses up, engage in disarmament talks, relearn diplomacy, and go on with our lives. There simply is no possibility of avoiding other countries possessing nuclear weapons if they want them.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 1, 2006 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sorry, even the beard part is wrong. Iran's president, the one who is the bombastic one, doesn't have a beard."
Khameni is on board with the brinksmanship strategy, FWIW. He's got the power, and he wears the beard.
May 1, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
And some of them are right here!!!! Anything that they say is in our "self-interest" is enforceable by means of our God given "police power"
Well who'll shoot these sheriffs? It is in our interest to kills untold thousands in endless wars costing hundreds of billions of dollars because they say so. Peace is hardly in their interest and political processes domestic and international are obstacles not opportunities for these trigger happy yahoos.
America has become a menace to itself and to the world because it is in THEIR notional self interest, the War Party's self-interest but theirs is not our national interest nor mine.
May 1, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people who said things would turn out just wonderful if we invaded Iraq seem to be the same people who say things would turn out just wonderful if we were to attack Iran. What worries me is the possibility that Bush is still listening to them.
May 1, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never followed Kosovo in any detail. The impression I get from casual reading of other people's opinions is that, yes, it was an illegal war. Not to mention that the consensus appears to be that the result was a Muslim Mafia country that is a hotbed of organized crime.
Since it is not relevant to the Iran situation, I've not interest in discussing Kosovo further since I'm not up on the details.
Since there is no "nuclear apocalypse" on the table in the Iran situation, your hyperbole doesn't contribute anything to a rational analysis of the situation.
As I and other more credentialed analysts have repeatedly pointed out, no dictatorial state will distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. That's a red herring issue. Losing one to terrorists is another issue - one that is being ignored with Israel's nuclear arsenal. If you want to stop countries having nukes, make it in their interest not to need them.
Neither is there any evidence that the possession of Iran with one or a few nuclear weapons will necessarily lead to a war with Israel or anyone else.
If you can't grasp the lack of legal distinction between "we-should-bomb" and "we-should-leave-bombing-on-the-table", you have no business discussing the legal issues. If you dismiss the notion of international law having any validity, then perhaps you can get away with that.
But if that is the case, then why not bomb Iran now? Why wait for UN sanctions? If you've determined with specificity that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program, and that Iran IS a terrorist sponsor, and that Iran IS a direct and immediate threat to Israel - then why wait for UN sanctions or UN resolutions? Fire up the military and attack NOW!
The fact of the matter is that attacking Iran under the current lame suspicious circumstances is regarded by everybody except Bush and Israel as illegal. And by attacking Iran, that means bombing Iran and threatening to bomb Iran. It is ALL illegal under the NPT treaty.
Nobody is saying that Bush can't threaten Iran WHEN Iran HAS nukes, has withdrawn from the NPT, and is directly threatening to go to war with Israel. THAT is when a pre-emptive attack may be justified. Anything before that is ILLEGAL under all international law - and for the good and simple I spell out below.
My point in citing the Nazis was that you can come up with all sorts of lame justifications for wars of aggression. There is no distinction between initiating a war of aggression because you SUSPECT that another country MIGHT SOMEDAY have nuclear weapons (which, incidentally, is only illegal if Iran remains a signatory to the NPT - as India, Pakistan, and Israel are all non-signatories and have nuclear weapons and nobody seems to care) and initiating one because you think Austria has an ethnic necessity to be part of Germany.
Especially if in reality your real motivations are to acquire the oil and also to establish control of an entire region of the planet for geopolitical reasons. There's no distinction between that and attacking all of Eastern Europe for "lebensraum." Dressing it up in language about "democracy" and "freedom" is so much ruminant evacuation.
The PNAC documents were quite explicit. They said that the US must insure that no other country on earth is allowed to become even a regional power, let alone an international power. If that is not a recipe for American Empire, I don't know what it.
International law prohibits wars of aggression without explicit and direct threat for the obvious reason that if it didn't, everybody would be attacking everybody for any lame reason they could come up with.
As a guy in the movie "The Assassination Bureau" said once, "You can always find a good moral reason for killing anybody!"
May 1, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really needs to stop is this whole "bearded madman in Iran" business. Well then who is Ahmadinejad? He's a marginally legitimate religious nut president who is wildly unpopular with the secular youth of his country and who has decided that macho posturing towards a foreign country is the best way to solidify his grip on power. Sound familiar?
The only difference is that he has no intent of actually attacking Israel.
May 1, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
China and Russia will veto any resolution regarding sanctions or authorization of force on Iran.
ElBaradei of the IAEA has said that sanctions are a really bad idea. A number of other countries in the region are in agreement on that.
The only reason Bush is approaching the UN at all is to establish its "irrelevancy", as he did with Iraq. Rice has already said this.
The only reason John Bolton was assigned to the UN post was to drum up the war on Iran, and failing that, to declare the UN "irrelevant" - which it is, since Bush is going to ignore it again.
If you read the IAEA report to the UN, you can see that there is so little in it justifying sanctions, let alone military force, that it is highly unlikely they will even agree on sanctions - which, again, Russia and/or China will veto.
May 1, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was the report of stealth bombers deploying to Fairfield, UK (?), assumed as training mission, and there is the test shot coming in June to fine-tune a ground burst nuke.
Vegas knows something we don't?
Actually, I tend to put a lot of weight on those betting odds; decision markets of the right kind are uncannily accurate.
May 1, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran will not have a bomb for at least three, and probably ten, years. That is, assuming they actually HAVE a program to develop one, which has yet to be established. I assume they do, for the record, but there's no solid evidence.
When they finally have one or more DELIVERABLE weapons (and deliverable is another issue), Iran will be contained the same way North Korea, India, Pakistan, and the rest of the nuclear nations are - by threat of mutually assured destruction - or even outright destruction by the US.
Iran can't even threaten Israel with a few nukes.
What Iran CAN do with possession of nukes is take the Israeli policy of using the US to conduct regime change throughout the ME off the table. If the mullahs are going to be targeted for regime change by the US anyway, they have no reason NOT to nuke Israel once they have nukes. Israel cannot absorb a nuclear first strike - although they DO have a second-strike retaliatory capability.
Therefore, the possession of nukes by Iran will prevent Israel from using the US to attack Iran - which is why the US is going to attack Iran NOW rather than later - or Israel will if the US doesn't. But Israel can't really guarantee stopping Iran's nuclear program with its own forces. Neither can the US, but Israel assumes we can do a better job of it than they can - and of course at much less cost to Israel.
Now, if a consistent liberal position were to be developed on all this, it would emphasize the creation of a nuclear free zone in the ME. This would require demanding thst Israel disarm itself of all nuclear weapons, to be verified by the IAEA and the UN, on pain of economic sanctions if they didn't comply. THEN we could go to Iran and convince them that we have no objection to them having a nuclear energy program as long as they allow us to verify that they have no nuclear weapons program - and that they don't need one anymore first because Israel has been disarmed, and second, because the US will issue guarantees not to pursue regime change in Iran. Issues about terrorism support and the like could be brought up in these negotiations as well. In fact, Iran once offered precisely this offer in 2003 - and it was rejected by Bush and the neocons.
May 1, 2006 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was painfully obvious to all but the most naive and self-deluding, around the world, that the Iraq war was a non-sequitur and cooked up for electoral reasons more than military LONG BEFORE the war began.
Matthew Yglesias continues to "educate us" as a way of apologizing for his being conned by Bush before the war.
Conned by Bush. Not easy to swallow is it?
May 1, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Iraq war was a non-sequitur and cooked up for electoral reasons more than military"
I think that's wrong.
If the WH's reasons for Iraq really were more electoral than military, they could have pulled back from the brink after the 2002 midterms where they benefited from the war talk.
They wanted Iraq for military reasons, and made the best electoral use of it along the way.
May 1, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am suspicious of all wars based on theories. WWI fits this description. Vietnam does. Iraq does.
The theory on Iran is they will be able to control the region, someday, possibly. The theory assumes they will always be an enemy.
No way will I support any war talk. It is counterproductive because it hardens Iran's attitude. Remember "talk softly"? We have the stick; let's try the talk.
May 1, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And exactly how do you take back control of the government FROM the Republicans by BECOMING the Republicans?
By the way, if Bush launches this war before November, you AREN'T going to be able to affect getting any seats because Bush will have thrown the entire election up in the air.
Like I said, the Dems will be scrambling to be part of the "War Party" again, and thus be indistinguishable from the Republicans just like Kerry's program was not distinguishable from Bush's - which is one reason Kerry lost (along with vote fraud in Ohio, of course, don't forget.)
A more practical proposal is to tie Iran to the mess in Iraq and get the Congress to prohibit Bush from initiating any military attack on Iran. Then, if people are right and it's all rhetoric, it won't matter. If people are wrong and the war is on, Bush will be at least somewhat prevented from starting it, and possibly impeachable if he does anyway. In any event, the Dems could use that against the Republicans.
Tie Iran to Iraq and stop Bush from starting another war that the American people aren't going to stomach.
Put THE FEAR into the US public of another war and tie that to the mess in Iraq.
What part of this can't Democrats get behind?
Your strategy is to AGREE with the Republicans about Iran and just complain about execution? Oh, yeah, that will work to distinguish Dems from Repubs...
This is why you Dems are constant losers. Absolutely no balls.
Like they said in 2000, Gore should have been a slamdunk against Bush. The same in 2004. Both times it was ballless wonders, vote fraud, and being members of the "War Party" that hung the Dems out to dry.
And it will happen again in 2006 and maybe even in 2008 - unless Iran is so bad by then that even the village idiot in a red state can see the Republicans have screwed up big time.
May 1, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, this is rich. I'll do my best:
1) Israel - You are entirely correct, I apologize. Iran's president doesn't say Israel should be wiped off the map, he says it is "heading for annihilation." Here's the link - www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5756050,00.html - You'll notice that's the Guardian, a real conservative rag. I'm sure Israelis are comforted by your legal arguments.
2) The Holocaust - He calls the holocaust a "myth" - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402403.html - which I guess is not technically a denial, though one can forgive Jews for interpretting it as such. There's also this Holocaust cartoon contest -
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1565443.htm - in the state-directed press, but I guess that's just for mood and atmosphere.
3) Nuclear "Sharing" - I've got another right wing rag for you - news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4943782.stm - Here he's offering to share nuclear technology with the leader of Sudan, who calls Iranian uranium enrichment a great victory for the Islamic world. No doubt he's referring to the potential for nuclear powered dildos.
4) Proliferation - The IAEA Board of Governor's Report from March 8, 2006, which deals specifically with Iran's NPT compliance - www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf - concludes that "It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency verification." That sure doesn't sound like a vote of confidence, nor a simple argument over old documents.
5) Conclusion - Your perspective, aside from apologizing for a stated policy of anti-semitism and regional aggression, runs the additional risk of allowing a group of theocrats to obtain an immensely destructive weapon. Are you really so sure that they will be hesitant to use it? And whose lives are you going to bet on that?
May 1, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the oil market appears to be supporting me.
6 to 1 odds ain't good enough for me to piss away $50 if for some reason Bush decides to bomb in January.
I might agree with you that Dems can't affect his decision - but Dems COULD, if they had the balls (which they don't), prohibit him from attacking Iran this year, then impeach him next year if he does anyway IF they get back at least one house. At the very least, being against the war in Iran now gives people credibility in the future when it happens, and will be forgotten if it doesn't.
What is REALLY lame is people like Kerry saying NOW, "Oh, gee, we were wrong three years ago!" Yeah, I want to vote for some moron who was wrong before and is still wrong for the most part now. AND who won't say what his position is on Iran OR adopts the exact same position he had on Iraq...
Losers, the lot.
May 1, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm well aware of North Korea's capabilities (although they do not as far as anyone knows have intercontinental delivery capability. I'm more concerned about submarine delivery - they have lots of subs and submersibles and their Special Forces are trained to infiltrate from them.)
I'm not that dumb. What I assumed is that BUSH was that dumb.
After all, it's basically the same situation as Iran but in reverse. While North Korea can kick our ass initially, we would win eventually. With Iran, we will kick their ass initially - and they will win eventually, just like Vietnam.
I figured as I do now with Iran that Bush and the neocons don't really care what it would cost us in military lives or money. All they care about is their agenda. What's the worst that is likely to happen to Bush in either case? Impeachment? Then he gets pardoned?
People need to realize that Bush really is invulnerable to any harm - short of someone nuking Washington or the usual "lone gunman" if he pisses off the wrong people really in power in this country.
And that's the kind of guy who causes all the trouble in the world - not the Third World dictator who needs tons of security just to keep from getting assassinated on any given day by his cronies.
May 1, 2006 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is why you Dems are constant losers. Absolutely no balls. ... Both times it was ballless wonders"
I'm not a supporter of Hillary Clinton for the '08 nomination. I think Presidential politics are more regional than most people realize, and nominating Bos-Wash candidates is electoral suicide for the Democrats.
But I would find one thing about nominating Hillary satisfying:
It'd make the idiots who are obsessed with the scrotal status of politicians seem even more like idiots than they seem now.
May 1, 2006 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm astonished. I'm not even sure where to begin. I'll try to recap a few of your more wild points:
1) Kosovo - You're not interested. Just a mafia state. Never mind how it effects your worldview.
2) Israeli Nukes - As likely to get into terrorist hands as Iranian nukes, at least that's your implication. Again I'm not even sure where to begin.
3) Legality - You're essentially stating (and restating endlessly) that any action, in order to be morally defensible (and above Hitlerism apparently) must be legal. And in order to be legal, it must go through the UN, or wait until right before the moment of doom. But you readily acknowledge that the UN won't do anything. So essentially any action is illegal and immoral. Period.
May 1, 2006 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan is already distributing nuclear know-how, but solving that problem is off the table. But you're worried about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and giving it to terrorists to use to attack the United States. Regardless of the fact that the first stage nuclear weapons out of a nuclear program are not mobile enough to be a threat to be delivered via smuggling. It amazes me how much this Crichton scenario drives what passes for thinking among right wingers who make noises about foreign policy.
May 1, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
May 1, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, I've got to head off for the night. Thanks for the debate.
May 1, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that in the IAEA report you mention "vote of confidence" and omit the part where the report explicitly states that there is a difference between "confidence building activities" and the obligations of the NPT, and that the Board cannot certify the future intentions of any state.
The report also lists the outstanding issues with Iran - none of which indicate any need to go to war over them.
You also have ignored most of the facts I refer to with regard to the rest of your initial statements.
As for whether I am prepared to risk possession by Iran of nukes, of course I am. I'm at absolutely no risk from Iran. The US is at absolutely no risk from Iran. Israel is at very limited risk as long as they possess their nuclear arsenal and are under the US nuclear umbrella.
Nobody else is currently or for the foreseeable future at risk from Iran. Iran has good relations with Pakistan, Turkey, and the rest of the Middle East. Only if Iran were to stir up the Shia in some of the Arab states would there likely be friction - and if Iran had nukes, there's nothing the other Arab states could do about it anyway except try to get nukes themselves - a problem taking another decade to make an appearance.
Obviously your response is as uninformed and emotional as your initial post. Your "best" was pathetically inadequate.
I'd suggest once again that you go back to reading rather than posting.
May 1, 2006 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but the beard, unlike the rest of it, is not debateable:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm
May 1, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong - he does have a beard. I just Googled for an image because I distinctly remembered him having one.
Now maybe the beard is a NEW look for him so you might not be aware of it. Or maybe the images I've seen are old and he doesn't have one today.
But he had or has a beard.
Just not a long one.
May 1, 2006 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. This guy is not relevant to anything going on except to provide propaganda points for the neocons and the Israelis.
It would be nice if the mullahs told him to shut the hell up until this thing could be resolved. But they're probably smart enough to know it isn't going to be resolved anyway, as long as Bush is in power, so it doesn't matter.
It's interesting, as someone pointed out elsewhere, that none of the press seems to spend much time on the perfectly rational talking points brought up by the Iranians actually engaged in the negotiations.
The media is fixated on the nonsense Bush speaks and the nonsense the Iranian President speaks. If we don't take Bush seriously, why should we take the other guy seriously? It's all ruminant evacuation.
May 1, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan,
What are you doing now that Pakistan has the bomb?
I'm not trying to be snide. I'm serious. Pakistan is a highly unstable country, teeming with anti-Americanism and potential terrorists. The factions in its army and its intelligence services responsible for acquiring its bomb are those factions which are most virulently anti-Israel, anti-India, and to some extent anti-American. Its Islamic bomb could conceivably be used against Israel, or could neutralize the deterrent value of Israel's nukes as a last-ditch stopgap in a conventional war if Israel were losing. (This is currently unthinkable, but it is one rationale for the Israeli nuclear deterrent.) And there are forces in Pakistan which would not scruple to give a bomb to a terrorist organization which could use it, in a difficult to trace fashion, against Israel or the US.
So, what do you (or the GOP) propose we do about it? And how has the Pakistani bomb changed your life?
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're not sure where to begin, let me make a suggestion.
Don't post at all.
I don't see any point in discussing this further with you. You seem incapable of understanding the simple point that wars of aggression are illegal and condemned by every nation on earth (except of course those engaged in them.)
You seem to be arguing that killing X hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians in Iran based on nothing but a SUSPICION that SOMEDAY they MIGHT have a nuclear weapon (like India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel) is somehow morally upright, legality be damned.
Somebody arguing for unilateral wars of aggression on a moral basis is a novel experience for me. I assume you are a fervid Bush supporter and believe that he is also above the law - since you don't accept international laws, I assume you don't accept US laws or the Constitution either. Your own "moral" judgement is apparently sufficient to justify war.
Well, as an anarchist, I can get behind that - but not when the President does.
Sorry, I'm not wasting any more time on you. The paucity of your argument should be apparent to any other readers of this thread.
May 1, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, except that it wasn't for "military" reasons but for economic and geopolitical reasons.
In other words, oil and American Empire, which is the heart of everything the neocons talk about.
Of course, Israel was in there, too, but while influential, it wasn't the primary factor - just the primary beneficiary, in their view, anyway.
We mustn't fall into the trap of thinking that Bush or the neocons have somehow "learned their lesson" and that Iraq has prevented them from ever attacking another country again, or that Bush and the neocons are solely motivated by US political power. Maybe Karl Rove is, but the neocons and Bush aren't.
We certainly can't COUNT on that being the case and ignore the threat of starting a war in Iran. That's just dumb. We need to make SURE Bush can't start that war - as far as is possible under constraints like the War Powers Act which gives him a lot of leeway.
May 1, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever met a real Nazi? Those who have can tell you that Americans, even American conservatives, are nowhere near the Nazis.
No, actually, having met some racist South African boers who fought in that country's armed forces, and many Russian Stalinists, and many Israeli West Bank settlers from crypto-fascist religious parties like the old Kach, and a couple of pro-Al Qaeda Muslims, and a couple of anti-Semitic Frenchmen, and one violently anti-Kurdish Turk, and many violence-advocating adherents of various African tribally or religiously aligned parties, I can tell you that they're pretty much the same as a lot of American conservatives. And while I haven't personally met any Nazis, they all talk basically the same way as the Nazis used to talk, based on written sources. American conservatives aren't responsible for as large a body count - yet. But I have little doubt they'd be capable of justifying equivalent atrocities to themselves, particularly if the US were wrapped up in an existential conflict like WWII was for Germany - a war which, of course, conservatives would always believe had been started by the other side, just as Nazis believed WWII had been forced upon them by the Anglo-Jew-Bolshevik conspiracy. After all, conservatives easily justified the US slaughter of millions of Vietnamese civilians, so effectively that they STILL argue the US bears no moral culpability for what we did in that war, and demonize John Kerry for having had the moral decency to talk about it.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're totally wrong. Pushing back has a huge impact. The political costs to presidential action are a very serious counterweight. The Social Security reform effort didn't collapse because of votes in Congress; it collapsed because of a total consensus in polls, Congress, and the media that it had failed. Even if the president had had the theoretical power to change Social Security unilaterally, by that stage, he couldn't have done it. If a public debate takes place over the next few months which makes it transparent that a US first strike on Iran will be vastly unpopular and potentially cost the GOP congress, it will not happen. You don't understand politics.
As for the rhetoric vs. actual bombing issue, if we can really get the country scared that GWB plans to launch a first strike and start a war, then it won't matter what his actual plans are. He will be hoist on his own petard of ratcheted rhetoric.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand Transhuman's frustration. He doesn't think we should go to war with Iran (or bomb them for a few weeks?), and he senses that the decision of whether we do or don't is Bush's, alone.
Each of us has to decide what justifications we think Bush would roll out before he went to war. And it is those "justifications" which have to be stepped on as each one appears and crushed (see, the 2005 Social Security "reform" where we did and the White House Iraq Group's "WMD nightmares" where we didn't).
But whatever we decide to do, Dems shouldn't allow themselves to be caught up in a debate about abstract theories about when the country should go to war. Keep it simple, practical, and concrete -- and . . . . . . contra-Bush.
May 1, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Fearmongering is a quantifiable behavior. Thus everything that comes out of Bush's mouth on this topic should be discounted on it's face, if not openly ridiculed.
May 1, 2006 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd whittle that electoral argument down to agreeing with the WH that a nuclear armed Iran is an eventual threat to US interests, agreeing with the WH that force should be an option in dealing with Iran, and then making the case that the Bush administration is not trustworthy to make the decisions to manage such a war.
This is basically the Thomas Friedman line, as I understand it. It has already made the rounds since he advanced it in his column last week, and is now wearing thin. The problem is that these too-clever-by-half political strategems are generally seen through rather quickly. At some poit voters will want to know what Democratic candidates would do differently, besides not being George Bush.
Attempts to out-think the voters, the political opponents and the Iranians, all at the same time, only end up with the would-be electoral wizards tying themselves up in devious and tortured knots, and then leaving themselves with little capacity to respond with intelligence to changing circumstances. Such sophistic games provide cheap entertainment for weasels like Dick Morris to show how clever they are for their panels of fellow-weasels, but are ultimately shallow and ineffective.
I think a much better and more durable strategy for aspiring candidates is simply to (i) examine the Iranian situation carefully in light of the actual facts, (ii) come up with the approach that makes the most sense for the US, on the merits, (iii) articulate that approach truthfully and directly for the voters, and (iv) stick resolutely to the approach, and make the case repeatedly so long as the fundamental material facts on the ground do not change.
If the geopolitical situation changes in a significant way, repeat steps (i) through (iv).
Democrats have a chronic tendency to underestimate their own power, and undermine themselves with self-fulfilling predictions of impotence. But the Social Security debate proved that people can influence the course of events even if their party of choice does not control the political branches of the federal government. One succeeds by, shockingly, knowing one's facts and advancing the superior argument.
Since Bush is so transparently ignorant, and such an abject failure; and since his policies are at long last mocked and rejected by a broad majority of Americans, it should in fact be quite easy to carry the argument, and limit his options. If we just sally forth into the public sphere with a modicum of confidence, and make strong arguments, then by September and October Bush's fellow Republicans will be begging him not to embark on another politically suicidal blunder - and demanding, in effect, that he get out of the way. The Republican control of Congress and the White House is in fact a burden to them in the current political environment, since their room for political maneuvering is quite limited. They are required to pander to their base, the 35% or so who still support George Bush, while at the same time trying to appeal to the brain-endowed members of their own party and independents. And as the majority party, they are all loaded down with the blame for everything that has gone wrong.
It's a painfully difficult exercise, and its only going to get worse for them as the year progresses.
May 1, 2006 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan, a few demurrals:
First, Ahmadinejad's beard is not thick. (Although your seeing fit to mention this physical trait in the current context gives me reason to be concerned that your position is not based on sober judgment, but bigoted personal revulsion and antipathy.)
Iran's recent actions may be flagrant, but they are not really violations. They amount only to a suspension of compliance with a voluntary additional protocol to their safeguards agreement. As for the Security Council - as opposed to the IAEA - following much US arm-twisting the Council only managed only a non-binding presidential statement last month, "calling" on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment - not demanding or requiring. El Baradei's own assessment of the situation is much less alarmist than yours. He has recommended turning down the rhetoric. Ultimately, Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program as an NPT signatory. Thus it will be hard to mount a strong case for durable sanctions. Unless we enter into talks with the Iranians, we will eventually find ourselves on our own.
The US has attempted to pump of the sense of crisis by speaking of deadlines and brinks and such. But most of the world is not buying it. Europe is with us, but reservedly. And the rest of the world - forget it. Most expect that we and the Iranians will eventually sit down and talk directly - as Senator Lugar has recommended - after years of negotiating only through proxies. And our rivals are no doubt planning to reap the geopolitical windfall from another US miscalculation. My sense of the global view is that Iran is rightly condemned for irresponsible brinkmanship, and for adding additional tension to an already fraught situation. In the same way, the US has been condemned for floating stories about possible nuclear assaults on Iran, and for a series of decidely unhelpful and undiplomatic statements.
Ahmadinejad is also probably not in charge of the Iranian nuclear program. The President in Iran is not the chief of state, in a full sense. Ultimate control over the military rests with the Supreme Leader, although we would be wise to be concerned about factions and power struggles, and to work to diminish Ahmadinejad's power, rather than enhance it. Since the man is a two-bit populist demagogue, and his power flows from his nationalist, popular base among whom the nuclear program is very popular, US brinkmanship and threats only seem to increase Ahmadinejad's stature at home. One has to wonder whether this is in fact part of the point of current US policy. It would fit with the usual Bush M.O. - for example, the deliberate choice not to attack Zarqawi's camp prior to the Iraq War, in order to be able to continue to sell the idea that Saddam was "harboring terrorists."
There are lots of ugly holocaust deniers in the world. They don't all need to be blown up along with tens of thousands of their fellow citizens. Military action against a country should be based on an objective assessment of exactly how much risk that county poses to our security. I would suggest that a cold and hard-headed analysis of the US-Iranian relationship would lead one to conclude that the threat to us is much more manageable than John Bolton, Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would have us believe, and that we possess both both more time and a wider set of options than their extravagant hysterics suggest.
It is of course true that military action is never taken "off the table". Every country reserves the right to respond militarily to grave threats to its security. However, it strikes me that we have avoid entering another one of those weird American episodes of personalizing our problems. Just as the war in Iraq was not a war confined to "Saddam" only - but killed many thousands of Iraqis - so an attack on Iran will not be confined to one obnoxious, bearded, holocaust-denying anti-Semite.
May 1, 2006 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of "justifications", two things have cropped up yesterday and today:
1) Iranian military forces are accused of shelling Kurdish positions in Northern Iraq and of doing a three mile incursion into Iraqi territory.
2) Italy's Intelligence Service SISMI claims that Iranian agents were responsible for the bombs in Iraq that killed Italian soldiers.
As an aside, I read an article yesterday - I can't remember where I saw it - which reported that the leader of the "main Iranian dissident" group was reporting all sorts of stuff about Iran's nuclear weapons including the notion that Iran had somehow got intercontinental ballistic missiles suitable for nuclear warhead delivery.
I thought I recognized the name of this female, who was described as having the self-bestowed title of "The President of Iran." So I Googled - and sure enough, this was the nutcase leader of the M.E.K. terrorist group/personality cult operating out of Northern Iraq with US and Kurdish assistance.
Today the Iranians denied that any of their forces entered Iraqi territory or shelled Kurdish positions in Iraq.
Anybody who trusts SISMI - the people at the heart of the Niger documentats forgeries - or M.E.K. - a terrorist group run by the neocons - has to be a complete idiot.
I suspect that what we are seeing is an attempt by the neocons to either provoke Iranian incursions into Iraq, or to drum up additional reasons for going to war with Iran.
While it is not unlikely that Iran is indeed fomenting Shia rebellion against the US occupation of Iraq (which would be quite rational if Iran is expecting the US to attack Iran with those US forces - after all, we've almost admitted - via Sy Hersh and Colonel Gardiner - to doing the exact same thing in Iran!), I suspect it is also likely that this sort of thing is being drummed up for "Reichstag Fire" reasons. In either case, it brings the likelihood of a war - and a ground war at that - with Iran that much closer.
It is not clear whether the alleged Iranian incursion into Iraq was due to Kurdish dissidents acting against Iran (apparently there have been a number of armed conflicts in the area on the Iran side of the border between Kurds and Iranian forces in recent weeks), or whether it was a M.E.K. operation that lured the Iranians into Iraq - or indeed if it actually happened.
Either way, it would seem that things are heating up along the Iraq-Iran border.
Everybody better keep a close eye on this situation.
If Bush can't get a war going for WMD reasons due to lack of a case against Iran by the IAEA...well, remember, in Iraq, he was prepared to lure Saddam into shooting down fake UN planes.
May 1, 2006 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
2) Italy's Intelligence Service SISMI claims that Iranian agents were responsible for the bombs in Iraq that killed Italian soldiers.
God help us - an ITALIAN first strike against Iran. Just what the world needed.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anybody who trusts SISMI - the people at the heart of the Niger documentats forgeries - or M.E.K. - a terrorist group run by the neocons - has to be a complete idiot."
Complete idiot? Does the letter W come into anyone else's mind?
Tom
May 1, 2006 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Matt,
The military's going to take the "military option" off the table. That's part of the Retired Generals' Revolt and the actives' Intifada
The British General staff is leaking to that effect as have their US counterparts (Sy Hersh article). Now they aren't even bothering to leak.
May 2, 2006 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Non
None Dare Call It Treason
MSNBC: Outed CIA Agent Was Working on Iran
I hate to disappoint the War Party claque amongst us, but Bush's bully bullhorn went missing a long time ago
May 2, 2006 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Non
None Dare Call It Treason
MSNBC: Outed CIA Agent Was Working on Iran
I hate to disappoint the War Party claque amongst us, but Bush's bully bullhorn went missing a long time ago
May 2, 2006 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly there were multiple factors involved, including oil and Oedipal ones, but the over-riding one was electoral. Bush/Rove are NOT committed to any philosophy except money and power. There are many examples (fetal stem cell research, etc) of sacrificing the most sacred beliefs on the altar of politics.
But the GWB whitehouse was LOST after 9/11 until they realized they could milk it. And milk it they have. In 2002 and in 2004. The neocons, and Bush's antipathy for his father's relatively nuanced foreign policy contributed gave political cover and a psychological rationale for Bush, respectively, but if you don't think Rove had the final say, you ain't paying attention to how these guys operate.
May 2, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink