Misfiring on Iran
While President Bush is trying to make the case that Iran is arming factions in Iraq, elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran.
I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.
The reason why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all refusing to take the military option off the table is because there is no credible expert on Iran, nonproliferation, or any combination of the two who would advise them to do so.
Now, before someone charges that the Beltway establishment is a bunch of no-nothing warmongers, let me be clear: they are receiving this advice from a wide array of experts, with differing views on the region (I can assume this with some degree of confidence having sat through some of these same briefings – given by people who advise the entire field -- with other candidates).
Also, in the very same breath that they are undoubtedly getting this advice, they are also being told in no uncertain terms that a military strike against Tehran, much less total war, would be long, nasty, costly, and unwise. But precisely because these Democrats want to avoid war with Iran that they must offer the now familiar formulation: no nukes for Iran, no options off the table. Hillary Clinton stated this today, Barack Obama gave a version of it two years ago, and John Edwards said it last month. If I had the time to Google, one would find this same formula parroted by dozens of Democrats.
Does this mean that we should not be skeptical of the Bush Administration’s attempt to “sell” an Iran adventure? No. Does this mean that Congress should not have oversight over any such potential action (as Senator Clinton said today)? No.
What it means is that the keyboard commentariat needs to come to grips with the realities of diplomacy. It would hurt America’s interests right now if Iran felt that they could proliferate without ultimately facing a military response. It is the most important stick we have, and as we use other ways to pressure the Iranians and also look into what carrots may be employed to walk them back from going nuclear, it would undermine our position if we unilaterally said that this move was off the table.
Now, there are some who are generally pacifist and believe that the US should always take the military option off the table; I am sure there are others who actually believe that Iran doesn’t mean what its leaders say or don’t see that regime having the bomb as a threat; and still others may question this strategic rationale of keeping the military option on the table.
Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.
And as for those who doubt the strategy of no nukes, no options off the table, my only question is: what is that based on? Again, is there any person with real experience with the Iranians, diplomacy, or nonproliferation who has argued that? If so, let’s hear it. But – to my mind – rightly, the major candidates are listening to seasoned experts on this issue, and are thus sticking with the above formulation of no nuclear Iran, no options off the table.
So, let’s cut our candidates some slack and do away with this self-defeating Iran litmus test. What we should be asking our candidates are questions like: how do you perceive the Iranian threat? How does Iran and its designs intersect with the stability and future of the region – and our country’s interests? And how would you handle Iran if you were president?










Mr. Baer, I hardly ever agree with anything you say and this is not very different. However I agree that it is not necessary for candidates to foreswear military action against Iran. What IS a requirement for any Democrat to get my vote is an attack on the Bush attempt to trump up a case for war following (just to make it easy to follow) the precise same script that he used in Iraq). Now if you, or Hillary, or Edwards or Obama are too tied to AIPAC to speak out forcefully against another phony war then our differences are clear. Otherwise it is absolutely essential that Bush's march to war with Iran right now be opposed without ambiguity by any serious candidate. So the bottom line is not foreswearing military action, it is making clear pre-emptive war is completely off the table.
February 14, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we all hear what we want to hear. I hear many, many voices, including 'authorities', saying that such a continued militaristic attitude will only lead to what amounts to an asymmetrical WWIII (or IV, if one counts the cold war as III).
I also read and hear voices all over the world challenging such a 'preemptive' position. The US, being the only true superpower now (eventhough a fast-fading one in my humble opinion), has every reason to conduct itself above reproach in international affairs, something it has sunken to new depths at in recent years. If we have learned anything from history and current events, it is that violence ONLY breeds more of the same: what you do will come back to you - a fundamental law of nature.
I personally see absolutely no reason why Iran should first, not have nuclear energy (and you can check my blog here about this), and secondly, so what if they have a weapon. Do you really believe they would ever use it, first? If you say 'yes', all I can do is shake my head at the fear that you have absorbed from Zionist and Bushite propaganda. Personally, I have two fears myself: that Israel would use its nuclear bombs first(the ones it doesn't have...lol), thinking someone else is about to get the draw on them, because they just can't let the holocaust be history....even though African-Americans have had no choice but to let their own much worst and continuing Middle Passage go; and, second, that all of the focus on Iraq and Iran have totally distracted us from real terrorists (not the kind that dropped 4-million cluster bombs in the last two days on Lebanon)securing nuclear material to blow the shit out of us here in this country, or other US interests; I doubt they are any threat to Israel since its borders are much more secure than ours ever could be.
February 14, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if you'd laid out what these "serious repercussions" were, your post would have some substance. You didn't; it doesn't.
February 14, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then please give us some names? Which 'think-tank' advisors and experts? Next, as you have sat through some of these briefings, whose responsibility is it to filter that expert advice that arrives at our candidates table?
Also, I'm still trying to get my head around Clinton and others giving nuclear technology to India, "particularly since India, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty." Isn't trying to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan also in America's national interest rather than possibly starting a arms race? Does this mean we are going to have Democratic candidate that has no interest in working towards Nonproliferation of nuclear technology and weapons, just doesn't want Iran to have them - hypocritical maybe?
What do you mean... economic interests or military? That's seems to be the GUT of the issue... And if we are talking about serious economic "repercussions" then no I'm not naive... Nor are many of us that have noticed that China has a far chunk of our DEBT and is also after Iranian energy and oil... So, that's why I think our candidates should come clean -- who is advising them?
I'm not a pacifist, but I totally disagree with using tactical nukes and US kids to fight for corporate interests. If the US has to adjust to the crazy policies of our Free Traders (with zippo regulations) then let's have that debate.
February 14, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Baer
Thank you for bringing some sense to this issue. Giving Iran an out by waiting for the next Democratic President does not seem to sensible.
The Democratic Party has an enormous advantage going into 2008 having George Bush as the sitting President. However, how do Democrats convince that rest of the country that the Party does not stand for defeatism and unilateral surrender and stil cope with the blogsphere?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 14, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that just plain goes without saying is that all nations reserve the right to use force of appropriate scale, when it is in their interest. So overtly referencing force is not simply announcing the obvious, it is a pointed reminder that force is not that far down the priority list.
I guess we have gone far beyond the confidence of TR who thought it best to speak softly. We have a plenty big stick--only wimps need to wave sticks for attention.
February 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason Bush is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran is that he is an idiot who is still listening to Cheney and other morons who sold him a bill of goods on Iran. Oppose the heated up rhetoric and encourage rational foreign policy decisions.
Tom
February 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll address Baer's question--how would I handle Iran if I were Pres? Assuming I had not made promises about force in order to get elected I would simply do nothing about their nuclear program. I would, however, open negotiations on a security plan for the region, since they are an important player and could be an anchor.
The paradox is that in the campaign there might not be room to maneuver on Iran.
I note that Baer is assuming Iran is "proliferating". Iran is for now only enriching uranium, overtly. I would think that if Iran was planning a covert weapons program they would not advertise enrichment. They would have to be incredibly stupid to think they could hypnotize us with a peaceful enrichment operation, and then achieve breakout capability while we were lulled into complacency. Since exactly the opposite has happened, with a rudimentary enrichment operation instigating talk of bunkerbusters and the like, if that was the goal it has failed.
Could it perhaps be that the obvious is also the truth? There is enrichment, barely, and it is a national-pride endeavor, because it requires top-quality machines and engineers. With the West's history of sabotaging Iran, why should they trust anybody to provide them with fuel when some dispute arises? I sure would argue against it if I lived there. Would we really prefer they simply pump carbon to stay warm in winter?
If we go down this road of shooting first at folks that just act funny we'll become even more Roman.
February 14, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, perhaps with some realistic perspective to deal with fearmongering? It's hard to be defeatist with respect to Iran when Iran is presenting no significant threat other than a loudmouthed politician without much authority, although something of a flair for public relations.
As far as perspective, a good start would be pointing out that a goal is reducing terrorism worldwide, and that operations in Iraq are only one part of a whole. Many nations have had eventual victory when they recognized unworkable situations and reallocated resources, as with the British at Gallipoli and Dunkirk, or the US at Chosin Reservoir.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 14, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Imagining Bush briefing]
"Well, yes. Why not help Indiana's economy with nuclear technology? It would make Dan Quayle happy. Maybe they'll let me start the Indy 500 this year.
"What? Not Indiana? Oh...well, next thing on the agenda...the bunker busters on the nucular facilities under Des Moines.
"Not Des Moines? I thought the threat was in a place starting with I, four letters, and not Iraq...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 14, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are no credible experts left in the country. Donald Rumsfled once said on national television: “they were all wrong”; he was referring to CIA intelligence on Iraq. He only said that because it became obvious that there was no Weapon of Mass Destruction but Weapon of Mass Deception. He has to blame someone and CIA is the scapegoat. What a shame, a $30 billion organization can make such a BIG mistake. Now, whatever “experts” America may have, there is no credibility anymore.
It is interesting to see how this Cowboy President is able to balance the budget now that it is obvious America is sending more money out of the country than bringing in. It is a disgrace for the Harvard University, the world number one, to accept and produce a substandard student and to allow him to manage a country of 300 million people with no proper project plan. He has no project management training and cultural and linguistic abilities to understand foreign countries and dignitaries, all he has is a bunch of cowboy enthusiasm and “bring it on” attitude,
The consequence of a war with Iran would be:
1. More money spends outside the country which could have otherwise spent on health care and education and infrastructure and wealth creation within the country.
2. more casualties suffered on both sides
3. more hatred towards America around the world
4. the military is already stretched too thin and soldiers would become insane
5. more countries would seek nuke to protect their own interest against American imperialism
6. More American children would be left behind without proper education and as a result there will be more social problems in the years ahead.
7. More allies would be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and distance away from America and America would ultimately bare the full cost of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In other words, the American economy would collapse in order to micromanage a few other countries. The cost could run up to many trillion dollars.
May God has mercy on the soul of this cowboy president and ask him to repent and show kindness and mercy to others. It is enough of accusing others of wrong doing and takes a step back to reflect how much damage he has done to others. It is ironic that America has the best universities to produce the best students in the world and yet it has turned out a bunch of liars and aggressors to tell everyone in the world what is right and wrong. It is also ironic that America is teaching the world about democracy and human rights and America is doing the exact opposite by terrorizing, intimidating and bribing weaker nations and justifies torturing of other nations. This is not democracy, it is called hypocrisy.
February 14, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Baer,
How do you respond to Duncan Black's analysis of this process?
February 14, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the spillover effect from the antics of this administration. Only quiet time with a more rational adminstration will solve it.
February 14, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran. Kenneth Baer
Sounds like a strawman to me. See, Garance Franke-Ruta, here.
February 14, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT TOTAL & UTTER BALONEY STINKING TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!!!!
So there are no "credible expert on Iran" who would advise taking the "war-crime" option off the table, huh?
Here's a start: In this list, you'll find pretty much the who's-who of Iran experts in the US and around the world (people who have dedicated their entire lives to the issue and not made for TV insta-experts pushing the agenda du jour) in addition to Nobel Laureates, US ambassadors, and other distinguished persons.
February 14, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to explain the provenance of this list? Since we can assume you didn't interview them, it is from where? Especially given the unwieldy size.
Not that I doubt these are all opposed to pressuring Iran with force threats. It's just not persuasive without more info. (I need no persuading--it's others that might.)
February 14, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others can click on the goddamn link provided.
Here it is again, just to make it clearer: AntiWarPetition.com
Funny, this guy who claims there are "no credible Iran experts" is himself hardly qualified to judge other people's credibility on the issue & has probably never set foot in Iran himself but he feels free to opine about Iran-this and Iran-that.
Where does TPM get these guys?
February 14, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
America has used satellite images and evidences obtained from torturing to justify a war against Iraq and it is proven all wrong and many people are dead, America has lost its credibility among the world community. It does not matter how many signatories that you have obtained, it is just not credible anymore. Your list is questionable and suspicious. America is no more the voices of the truth. Any moron can manufacture a list like yours, just like the list used against Saddam Hussein. The world does not trust the cowboy president, what makes you think the world can trust you or your list.
February 14, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah hass, you fail to understand the unimpeachable logic of these things. Since the experts on your list are strongly opposing and warning against the military option in Iran, they are a fortiori "not credible". Only experts who refrain from warning politicians and the public about the dangers of attacking Iran qualify as credible.
Your failure to grasp this simple rule of US foreign policy management hereby qualifies you as a non-credible blog commentator.
Don't you know the consensus for keeping all the Iran options on the table is incredibly broad? It stretches all the way from one end of the Council on Foreign Relations to the other.
February 14, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find no link in the list post, but the one here explains fine. Thanks.
February 14, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.
Well, you know Mr. Baer, I would like to be able to assure our esteemed candidates that I will not use a firm anti-war, pro-talks Iran position as a litmus test of their candidacy, but as a mere voter without a lot of leverage to bring to bear on moving candidates toward my prefered position, I feel it is important to keep all my options on the table.
I think you need to come to grips with the realities of democracy. It is not in the public interest if rascally politicians are convinced that they can proliferate noxious political gas on Iran, without facing the possibility of a firm electoral response. So I will refrain from taking the "no antiwar litmus test" pledge at this time. Consider my position one of "strategic ambiguity."
By the way, why have you "tried to stay out of this debate in this venue"? Some might think it's actually an important debate. Perhaps it is the terror felt by that "wide range of experts in Washington" of participating in debate on Iran outside of the constricted circle of approved, orthodox venues that accounts for the confusions, gaps and double-thinking group-think on display in their reasoning. And maybe that's what accounts for the fact that our candidates are all getting the same uniformly bad advice.
February 14, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The link in the original post is
Here's a >>start
I hate the new fad of removing the underline for links as TPM does but nothing I can do about it.
Back to the point: I really want to see this guy eat some crow. So, there isn't any "credible Iran expert" opposed to the war "option", huh?
FYI even planning to launch wars to resolve disputes IS ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. A candidate who claims that attacking another country is an "option" is A CRIMINAL.
Frankly this guy embarrasses us Oxbridge grads.
February 14, 2007 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, I know you are smart enough to realize that there are an infinite number of options between waging another preemptive war and unilateral surrender. I have never heard a single US citizen ask that we surrender at any time in my 70 + years on this planet. And, that will not change, I am sure. Defeatism is nothing but a charged word devoid of meaning. Usage of that word in an otherwise intelligent debate adds nothing at all of value.
Mr. Baer, I suspect, is much more concerned with what would happen to the "defense" industry if we really did take the option to wage preemptive wars on a whim off the table. I'm disappointed in him.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 14, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not my list, don't blame me. Juan Cole cites it in his article:
More about it here.
If you were really qualified to opine about Iran on TPM, you'd know about this list. But you didn't, did you Kenneth?
February 14, 2007 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche'! Point, set and match! He scores!! Grand Slam!
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 14, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the dumbest thing I've read in quite a while. Two things to consider:
1) Given the state of our military and the logistical difficulties of conducting serious operations in Iran, it's altogether possible that a US attack could be repelled militarily. At this point it may be beyond our power alone to decide whether or not Iran can proliferate nuclear weapons.
2) Nations don't pursue nuclear weapons in a vacuum. Have any of you folks bothered to ask why Iran is interested in acquiring them, beyond the argument of pure, insensate evil? They want them because Israel has them, pure and simple. Has anyone in Washington considered that our selectivity in opposing nuclear proliferation might be part of the problem?
I'm guessing that you pride yourself on not being consumed by the babble of the Beltway establishment, but I still think you might benefit from a field trip or two.
February 14, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue has never been about Iran proliferating (for that we have Pakistan, our friend). It's been about building a bomb and changing the deterrence equation in the middle east. Is Baer mendacious or ignorant?
Baer's "seasoned experts" ! (Gotta love the seasoning. Paging Kenneth Pollack.)
I can picture Bush saying something like that.
"So time-consuming the googles."
February 14, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran also wants nukes to protect itself from our whack job President and our demented VP.
Tom
February 15, 2007 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran.
Which dirty hippie blogofascist elements are saying this, please?
Isn't the litmus test now simply "More evidence than 'Because Cheney says so'"?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 15, 2007 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs - don't be a stranger; we need you here.
Tom
February 15, 2007 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. Now I found the link.
Even with underlining, a single-word link is easy to miss. I like to select a complete phrase and make it bold type.
February 15, 2007 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. I would say out loud that war with anyone must be off the table for now because the White House incumbant has already proven that he cannot be trusted with having that option.
The trouble with anyone saying now that military action must be kept on the table is that for 23 more months the United States will be governed by lunatics. Maybe a candidate cannot say that, but we can.
global citizen
February 15, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr, Baer, You are in the communications business. We have no idea where your money is coming from or who your clients are. IIRC, one of your posts about an Iranian cartoon was lifted off the MEMRI website, of all places.
Who or what group is paying your bills?
February 15, 2007 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a problem here. Yes, of course, any presidential candidate should say that during any negotiation involving nuclear weapons and state support of terrorism, all options should be on the table.
However, at the moment we have a president who is does not believe all options should be on the table. The only options he has are ultimata and the use of force. So there is, and should be, pressure on the Democratic candidates to stop any military action directed against Iran, at this time, under this president.
Does that weaken the president's bargaining position? Yes. Does that make it more likely that Iran will act with impunity? Yes. How have we gotten to this point? Not by democrats who support having all options on the table. By a republicans who will not put all options on the table.
If I were a candidate, I'd talk a lot about ALL the options, and make clear that I do not mean what the president means. When I say "all," I mean all.
February 15, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel: we so often differ so vehemently on other issues that I find myself surprised to find at least one point of agreement with you here. (We also disagree, I believe, on the amount of risk actually posed by Iran.)
Be that as it may, thinking of this issue purely in political terms, we need only to remember the way the Swift Boaters went after Kerry to realize the risk of such a stand. However dishonest it might be, there inevitably will be opinion-shapers on the right that will paint them as defeatists, should the democratic candidates all say that they would never attack Iran, and a significant number of voters (including some that might tend otherwise to vote Dem) will inevitably believe them. So I agree that liberal members of the blogosphere ought not to impose this litmus tests on Democrats regarding the Iran issue (if that is what they really are doing in the first place seems arguable to me as well); it just poses an unnecessary risk that could hamper the electability of our candidates. There are other approaches that will accomplish the most imperitive goal: to prevent another foolish Bush war.
I think Vlazlo above stated it very well:
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 15, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You beat me to it, Dan.
This formulation is an ancient rhetorical fallacy. Agree with me you're credible, don't agree with me, you're not credible. It guarantees that debate on the issue itself will be diverted and profoundly unfair. Thanks for reminding me of the Latin.
aMike
February 15, 2007 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.
Do you remember that MLK said "violence begets violence."
Taking this a bit further, when America uses the pentagon as a role model,.... you certainly have to worry about "monkey see, monkey do!"
In my eyes, if the US can assert its hegemony in the region ("protect Amercian Interests") they why not Iran? Isn't that democracy?
Anyway, I like Dennis Kucinich and I don't believe that he's naïve. Instead, I think he's brave enough to go "off script" and puts the people's needs in front of the special interests.
February 15, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, it's important to make an honest evaluation of the Iranian regime, and what seems to be the case now is that they're bluster exceeds their capability -- for now. That gives the rest of the world time to consider options.
However, the Iranian regime has a long track record of supporting terrorism (while officially denying it). They've also demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for the civil rights and lives of their own citizens since 1979. Khomeini was many times worse than the Shah in terms of sheer brutality.
The nightmare scenario I could see developing in Iran is a counter-revolution -- which isn't out of the realm of possiblity. So, let's say this took place and the mullahs, armed with nukes, were faced with being driven from power. What would they do? I don't know the answer to that, but given their links to Hezbollah, they would have a lot of nefarious options for blackmail and/or actual use of those weapons -- with nothing to lose at that point.
February 15, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear this blather from liberal hawks all the time:
Such a litmus test is dangerous...
It is risky for the US to foreclose on the military option...
Foreswearing a military response would tie our hands...
Folks, when has this actually ever happened in history, that the US has foresworn military action, and that such a stance has led to a disaster? What is the likelihood that such a thing could ever happen? Never. Zero.
So this blather is just silly. A warning against something that has never happened, and isn't going to happen, is meaningless.
What has happened, time and again, and is looking more and more likely to happen in the case of Iran, is that *refusal* to foreswear military action leads to saber rattling leads to provocation leads to exaggerated charges leads to limited military strikes leads to undeclared war. "Keeping the military option open" is code for "not being willing to try diplomacy very hard, or to give it time to work."
Isn't a consequence that has actually happened, and is at least somewhat likely to reoccur, more important to warn against than one that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen?
February 15, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great Republican President said "speak softly, but carry a big stick." There were a couple of decades of concurrent Mutual Assured Destruction and arms control talks.
When we are taking things off the table, let us be sure we have a table. In other words, keep options open, but also start talking. Let us say the Administration offers unconditional direct talks with Iran and Syria, at the ministerial level. Will either country believe, even if we said we'd "forswear the use of force", that they would believe that no force would be used in drastically changed circumstances?
I'd rather hear candidates say that the approach to regional security involves talking, in any place, at any time, that might improve cooperation. Let the conditions start applying once an overt communications channel exists, and there is a mechanism for negotiating them. The talks might be multiparty, as with North Korea; talks directed at Iraq clearly would need to be multiparty. The US-USSR talks that deescalated the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and be assured the saber-wielders were covered by heavy artillery -- were bilateral, not including the Cubans.
Whether one likes it or not, military force is one of the many options in grand strategy. Barring relatively real-time events like a revolution or a direct attack on the United States, it is rarely necessary to go immediately to military force. We now know the Gulf of Tonkin Incident involved confusion on all sides. Were immediate reprisals appropriate? In retrospect, no. Of course, this was yet another area where there were no talks.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
To deal with Iran the U.S. need not go to war. However, sanctions or containment might work only if the U.S. is to gear up a greater effort than George Bush is willing to start. Afterall how many more tax cuts will limit Iran?
If the U.S. is prepared to engage Iran as Flynt Leverett proposed that might work but do people believe the Saudis and the Jordanians will sit idly by for such an agreement? What the U.S. ought to do is what it should have done on 9/12/01 and engage the entire world in economic, anti-terrorist and other efforts led by America. It means less whining about globalism and more honesty about its benefits.
However, to believe Iran is not now a serious threat seems naive at best. If the Democrats as a political matter take going to war off the table before they are even elected it will be a political disaster. Iraq and Bush as not made Americans either pacifists or isolationists. To be not too creative Democrats need to be for a forceful engagment in which military action is never the first choice but is available beyond those who see the globes problems through the prism of American actions regardless of who is president.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 15, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there was such brutality as you suggest I don't think the mullahs would still be in charge. That's just not credible.
And if we emphasize the power of the mullahs let's remember that the chief one issued a fatwa that defined nulear weapons as un-Islamic, contrary to teaching. If we think the religious sector is both in charge and fanatical, why not give credence to a religious pronouncement?
Finally, it is not the mullahs that are bragging about capabilities but mini-Bush, Ahmadinejad, whose power is more akin to that of a Texas Governor than a President here. And even little bigmouth has only claimed enrichment capability. So whence this assumption of a weapons program?
Iran is hardly alone in supporting proxies to do the nasty stuff--remember the Afghani mujahideen and the contras. We currently support the MEK, while keeping them on the terror list. But we and others do this because we are not willing to go in publicly and in force. So Iran is likely in the same boat; it uses proxies to do what it can't do in a big way.
Given that we did not back up the mujahideen with nukes, and the Soviets did not back the Cubans in Angola with nukes, what basis is there to assume Iranians are psycho and not like other people and countries?
February 15, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Tom. Believe me, I'm the one suffering from the lack of blogging time.
Alas, real life has reared its ugly head, preventing me from stopping by the Cafe. Nothing bad, just overextended, too damn busy, and unfortunately it's blogging time that's getting cut.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 15, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I have to agree with the vast majority of the comments that the post is more unforgivable pablum from liberal hawks. Yes, I don't mind a bit when Obama, Edwards, or Clinton offers the caveat that all options remain, while demanding negotiations and demanding Bush come to Congress for authorization for war. It's normal to talk in generalities upon entering negotiations, and anyhow they're only candidates, not entering on anything yet. It's no more than acknowledging that pigs could fly by the time they're president. It's not at all equivalent to Baer's insistence that maybe military action might not be as harmful as people say after all.
I feel we're grown-up enough to read that kind of context. A president might say we want peace and then both speaks and acts accordingly; another might incorporate a clause to that effect as the beginning of a speech taking America to war. We're smart enough to know the difference. A scientist can note that evolution is a theory and then explore its truth; a fool can remind us not to trust or teach evolution. We're smart enough to know the difference.
I don't say Baer's not smart enough to know the difference. I'm saying he's on the wrong side. The dismissive rhetoric he uses, with the bland invocation of all experts and lack of interest in learning more, is part of how that side works. Like Bush, it's not part of the reality-basec community. It knows too much.
I'm afraid that's also why it utterly dominates foreign policy posts on TPM Cafe, and I have to say, sadly, that I hold Josh accountable for that. He is not living up to his disclaimer that all views are welcome here. He's consistently airing an agenda, even as he disavows doing so and gets angry when it's pointed out.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 15, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and while we're at it, how do we convince the rest of the country that the Party does not stand for opening the prisons and letting all the rapists free? How do we convince the rest of the country that we aren't secretly intending to award medals to pederasts?
Geez, Daniel, you usually do better than this, don't you?
February 15, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, note the top post linking to those disagreeing with Ken currently featured on top.
February 15, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is almost too ridiculous to comment on. Almost. But I really need to call you on those unnamed elements of the liberal blogosphere who serve as your straw person.
Really, why are we having this conversation? Is this some pitiful attempt to get "the liberal blogosphere" to behave defensively and start yelling "I favor bombing the crap out of Iran."
Too silly for words.
February 15, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In what way is Iran more of a serious threat than Pakistan, North Korea or Saudi Arabia? In what way is Iran more of a serious threat than the Soviet Union was for 45 years?
If we could travel in time back to 1946, would you have been one of the people shouting "march on to Moscow!" to prevent the Soviet Union from having any possibility of getting nuclear weapons? Would that have been the correct move?
I do not see Iran as a uniquely dangerous threat to the United States, especially given our overwhelming firepower advantage and the undeveloped state of their nuclear program, not to mention their complete lack of interest in threatening the US. The problem is that US foreign policy is not predicated on defending the US, but rather on "American interests", which is a neat excuse for protecting American hegemony.
I don't see the current sabre-rattling, evidence-fabricating administration in the White House as being at all capable of dealing intelligently with Iran. To my eyes, the Bush administration is contributing at least as much to the problem as Iran itself is, if not more. No, that doesn't mean I'm starry-eyed about Iran or its leaders. (And before you tell me that the public is too stupid to understand the difference, I would caution you about presuming to know the public better than I do.)
I just think the United States needs to return to a sane foreign policy where pre-emptive military strikes are not seen as the solution to whatever crisis du jour arises. Because, to be honest, the people who repeatedly sell us on the latest crisis always seem to have a new impending calamity to sell. And I rather suspect that they are not so much concerned with the future of the United States as a whole, but rather with their own personal economic interests.
February 15, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are misusing the language of "rights" here. Did Japan have the right to use force to invade Manchuria? They certainly felt an invasion was in their interest. Did Germany have the right to use force to invade Poland? Czechoslovakia? The Low Countries and France?
You are confusing "power" and "rights". No nation has the "right" to invade another sovereign nation purely to advance its own interest.
February 15, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Along these lines, I just have to remember how many people told me five years ago that I was naive to think that Saddam Hussein had been sufficiently cowed by the various inspection routines and wasn't trying to secretly develop WMDs, in spite of all of the international pressure against that kind of effort.
If the example of Iraq can teach us anything, it ought to teach us that assuming the worse about other nations, especially what said nations just happened to be inhabited by people of a different race, is a piss-poor way to go about conducting foreign policy. The latest round of Bush shenanigans includes the accusations that (Shia!) Iran is secretly supplying weapons to (Sunni?) insurgents in Iraq to kill American soldiers. We've yet to have any good explanation of what Iran could possibly gain from such a strategy.
Can we please direct this debate to a discussion of what the various actors in the drama are actually trying to accomplish, as opposed to degenerating into a pissing game of "I'm tough, you're naive!"??? 'Cause, if the past five years should teach us anything, brainless unfettered hawkishness is definitely not good for the United States.
February 15, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the CIA knew that Iraq had shut down its WMD program. They just don't ordinarily have the freedom to go on TV and defend their collective reputation against the smears of a incompetent primate like Donald Rumsfeld.
February 15, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
After all these great responses, I have only one thing to add:
PWNED!
February 15, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is that America has lost its credibility in terms of people who justify war, and therefore we should not take at face value a list of alleged experts who all oppose the war?
I think you didn't really understand the point of the post. Seriously, why would anybody think that damage to the credibility of the warmonger crowd should translate to damage to the credibility of the people opposed to the war? What kind of logic is that?
February 15, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States of America has endorsed an official policy of launching nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis against Iran. About half-million Iranian were killed in a war with Iraq in which the US was arming Saddam with chemical weapons (60,000 Iranian dead as a result of chemical warfare) So Exactly who is a "serious threat" to whom?
February 15, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Yes, how short-sighted of me. The "credible Iran experts" are from AIPAC, JINSA, CFR and oh, AEI. Read all about the war criminals here
February 15, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're correct. I should have used the term "option". All states keep their powder dry.
My point was that mentioning this makes a point by itself.
February 15, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF is everyone talking about? Daniel, why does the U.S. have to “deal” with Iran? They threaten America how? They have no nukes, do not support global terrorists (Hizbollah is not al Qaeda), have declared no jihad against America (though they have declared that they will answer any attack) and have not invaded other countries. Israel’s enemies are not automatically ours.
Iran is our enemy only because George Bush has said so. They are part of an Axis of Evil because George Bush says they are. Democrats have acted like chickensh*ts for five years because they are afraid of being called chickensh*ts.
Congressional leaders should make it clear to Mr. Bush that he does not have authorization to engage Iran militarily. It doesn’t matter if an IED was made in Japan, Congress is the only body that can authorize war.
The midterm election was a mandate against Bush’s War of Civilizations or War of the Free World as it's sometimes called (read: War on Muslims). They should start this new chapter by rejecting Bush’s and the Neocon’s definitions, sham intelligence and propaganda campaigns.
February 15, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a key point: that current foreign policy seems to regard force, or the threat of force, as the first step in dealing with a difficult country. I do not renounce force, but I believe it is generally the last resort. Wherever possible, Just War doctrine should apply, not just to be nice but because doing so has proven to be wise for nations using force.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that the US was arming Saddam with chemical weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds, and that the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner inside Iranian airspace and then tried to blame it on the Iranians, I don't think we have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of "supporting terrorism". Who was arming and supporting nun-raping, village massacring death squads in Central and Latin America? Iran? Guess again.
ADDENDUM: Berckowitz - if you hae a problem with this post state your case instead of troll rating it on the sly.
February 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one can talk about the real reason Iran is our enememy, Saudi Arabia. That is the real conflict who gets to control the Middle East and we picked them.
February 15, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this list as well, one presidential candidate is willing to take it off the table:
http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option
February 15, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't troll-rated, you were given a 1. I did not state my case, Dear Leader, because it is customary either to give a rating or a reply, not both, other than in the most unusual circumstances.
In this case, however, I find your language inflammatory and your presentation too angry for reasoned discussion, your statement about arming Saddam in the general range of false to misleading, and the suggestion that US policy was nun raping, as an example of exaggeration.
Saddam was allowed to buy some dual-use chemicals from the US. No chemical weapons were ever provided to him. Dual-use materials also came from France and Russia. I define "chemical weapon" in the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Isopropanol, for example, is a widely used industrial chemical, common rubbing alcohol, and yes, one of the two precursors for binary Sarin. US export controls slipped in not noticing the amount of thiodiglycol sold, but, even if he had been blocked from using that intermediate for the more efficient LOST synthesis, all precursors for the Lewinstein synthesis were available domestically in Iraq.
In the case of the Iran Air shootdown, it is true that the captain and some of the crew of the USS Vincennes tried to justify it as a valid threat. Yes, Vice President Bush 41 tried to defend it, but there has been compelling evidence to the contrary.The investigation by Adm. Fogarty showed considerable negligence. Since the report has never been fully declassified, I consider that a coverup. The Navy tried, as far as I can tell, to assign blame where it was due, even in the censored investigation report. Significantly, the US paid reparations, although I do not feel the US formally took responsibility.
I do not, incidentally, consider it more heinous to rape a nun than any other woman. That being said, yes, there were death squads. In later years, the US made distinct efforts to get human rights principles across to Latin American security forces, with varying results. To suggest that rapes and massacres were deliberate American policy requires more documentation that the US had full control. Regrettably, there were rapes by US troops in Iraq. Rape apparently was a policy, or at least tolerated at high levels, on the Eastern Front of WWII Germany. The historical record shows the difference when something is policy.
Next time you want to give me peremptory orders, at least spell my name correctly. You will find that if you continue phrasing things as orders, you will be ignored. Josh, I believe, has agreed that a continuing pattern of discourtesy is grounds for troll rating -- a rating I did not give you.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So lets see now
You say you didn't troll rate me, but you did give me a 1. What's that if not a troll rating - and based on what - because you don't "approve" of my "tone"? WELL YOU CAN GO TAKE A SOAK as far as I am concerned. People are DYING and you come here trying to deny it? LOL! I'll say my part the way I want to say it and you don't have to read it, how's that?
You say that the US provided "dual use" chemicals to Iraq as if we fell off a truck and didn't know what use it was actually being put to (the fact that Iraq was on our list of terrorist states didn't seem to get in the way - we just removed it from that list) Go tell your apologist NONSENSE about "dual use" crap to the Washington Post:
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"
As for the "reparations" paid for the downing of Iran-Air 655, the fact remains that they were paid on an "ex gratia" basis meaning that we never accepted liability and still officially blame the Iranians themselves. NO ONE has been held responsible for the deaths of 290 people, and in fact several of the people involved received commendation medals. Adm Crowe only admitted that the VIncennes was inside Iranian waters AFTER he retired - 4 years after the incident. The Adm. Fogarty's investigation included presenting a map to Congress on which an Iranian island HAD BEEN ERASED. And you say the Navy was honest? Give me a BREAK.
And you want to know about nun-raping death squads who were supported by the US murdering entire villages? Fine - start with the Massacre at El-Mozote
Sheesh - denial is an ugly thing.
International Herald TribuneHere, read some more about what your lovely, innocent, white-as-the-driven-snow US government has done and lets see you try to deny it:
Yes, that's right. The US provided chemical and other weapons and financing and intelligence and political support to Iraq while Saddam was gassing Kurds - and then tried to blame it on Iran.
GO PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.
February 15, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try not to take up too much of your tone, except in quotes:
The pulldown rating defines 0 as "troll" and 1 as "unproductive". Do you have difficulty distinguishing 0 from 1? Is innumeracy, as well as anger, one of your problems?
No, I don't think that's acceptable. I do not run the place, but I have as much right as any poster to rate. If I believe your tone is inflammatory and detracts from the discussion, I will so rate it. This is an explanation of my criteria for rating you, so don't expect additional explanations.
I've read that committee report, which apparently was never read by anyone with a background in microbiology. The Saccharomyces strain leading one of the lists is quite potent, if you want to brew fine Belgian ale.
A continuing mistake among people who do not bother to study the details of biological warfare, yet want to make claims about it, is that getting the microbial strain is terribly difficult. It's the easiest part, and, for that matter, anthrax is endemic in Iraq and they could get it easily. They may have used some of the American Type Culture Collection strains in their BW program, but the same strains have completely valid use in a medical or veterinary microbiology lab.
Supported, or controlled?
You go on, liar, to claim that I consider the US government "lovely, innocent, white-as-the-driven-snow". You go on with an unattributed quote (although there is a floating bit of text saying "International Herald Tribune"), which describes the undisputed attack on Halabja by Saddam, but not one word about the US having supplied chemical weapons. Some of its language reads more like propaganda than reporting, although it might have fit in an opinion column. Indeed, it doesn't especially read like something written by one for whom English is a first language.
Dual-use chemical intermediates, according the the Chemical Weapons Convention, are not chemical weapons.
I'll blast the US government when it needs it, which is increasingly more often. As far as your criticism, see my .signature below. I seem to be doing my job in offending one wingnut, and have done my duty today.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I need no persuading--it's others that might."
I guess I am one of those others. The only name I recognise on this list of "who's-who of Iran experts" is Noam Chomsky! So I googled a couple of names and found an artist and a Bible scholar -- nope, no Iran experts there,
I'm sure that among the 193 signatories there are many very knowledgable about the current situation in Iran. And, you know, I could have signed that petition myself, I agree with the statement. But I do believe that petitions like this are essentially meaningless.
February 15, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bush has been nothing if not a cowboy in foreign policy, at least, in talk. Soft power is nuanced and they don't do any of that namby-pamby nuance. But look at the deal they are negotiating with No. Korea right now. True, Asian countries are acting as a beard, but there has never been even a hint that we might attack Korea in some pre-emptive way even though they were actually and openly, for reals, building and testing nukes and long range missiles. They were included in the Axis of Evil as bad company and guilt by association; to make Iran and Iraq look bad, not the other way around.
February 15, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hass,
Howard correctly points out that there is no link to the quote you attribute to the International Herald Tribune. Could you remedy that? And short of that, are you quoting an article or an opinion piece and if it's the latter, could you identify the person who wrote the op-ed?
One reason I ask is because last week you attributed an opinion from an op-ed columnist in the Christian Science Monitor to the Christian Science Monitor itself. As we discussed, I didn't think that it was appropriate to do that (and you disagreed) and, based on that discussion, I'm curious about this current citation you make to the International Herald Tribune without further attribution.
Thanks.
P.S. In your reply to Howard above, you refer to the "article" from the International Herald Tribune. Please provide the link to the "article" you cite, so that the readers of your piece can have a genuine understanding what you are basing your arguments on, to wit, either an opinion (informed or otherwise) or a news article.
Thanks again.
February 15, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just beccause Bush is a liar and a fool does not make everything he says wrong. As the "The Coming Crisis With Iran: A Conversation About Political, Diplomatic And Military Options" (Center for American Progress 12/15/2006)points out Iran is a very real danger to the interests of much of the world.
It is strange that you raise Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea as threats too and then suggest that means doing very little about any of them. For the Democrats to have a batch of candidates declare surrender before even taking office maybe the only way to get a Republican elected in 2008.
If you read my second post you will have noticed that I agree that U.S. need not use military force against Iran but that is not the same thing as guaranteeing that it won't. Presumably the Mullahs want to be assured that the U.S. will not over throw the regime. If they agree not to develope their nuclear weapons program, gain reprocessed material from the IAEA and cease support for terrorism that is one part of a deal that can be made. Then efforts should be made to expand the international economic institutions and actively involve Iran and the other nations of the Middle East. I am not confident that this will stop the growing hostility between Shiia and Sunnis but it is worth a try.
Just following WWII I would not have gone to Moscow. However, unlike some I would not have let the Soviets have had free run of the world because I was worried about American hegemony. Instead I would have prepared the nation and the world for 40 plus years of Cold War including actual wars in Korea, Vietnam, 2 Wars in the Middle East, Dominican Republic and Angola to name some.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 15, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried posting the link but couldn't go back to edit it and my html skilsl are limited. But Are you people Google impaired?
Here the LINK
But if you're looking for an excuse to "shoot the messenger" and try to discredit the author of the article, note that at the time he was an official with Human Rights Watch. And he's hardly the only person who'se written about this FACT.
And I would appreciate it if you didn't LIE about the CSM situation - I provied the actual link to the full artilce there and cited CSM as the SOURCE not the author, and did not "attribute it to the Christian Science Monitor" as you falsely claim. SO gtet your facts straight before making up nonsense.
February 15, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s true that our support of the House of Saud (our oil partners) is one of the reasons behind the anti-Americanism. And no one talks about the Sunni insurgents that flood into Iraq from Saudi Arabia, even though we threaten Syria for the relatively few that have come from there. These are the insurgents who are actually killing American troops with IEDs and the like.
February 15, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a flying freak if you rate me minus100, but you're doing so based on whether you "approve" of the contents tone and can't hold up on a debate on teh facts.
Supported- controlled- whatever. You're splitting hairs. We armed them, We financed them, We trained them, We provided political cover for them. Call that what you want - WE"RE STILL COMPLICIT AND JUST AS RESPONSIBLE.
So go on and yammer about how the article in the International Herald Tribune is "propaganda" but that's just the flat-earth society speaking.
People who are members of that society DESERVE condescension and anger. YOU"RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Incidentally, I find it laughable how you suddenly cite the authority of a convetion when it comes to defining chemical weapons, but you do your best deny that the defintion of GENOCIDE under the relevant convention applies to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
Here's a hint or two:
WE GAVE CHEMICALS TO SADDAM THAT WE KNEW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WERE GOING TO BE USED TO GAS PEOPLE TO DEATH.
WE GAVE HIM MONEY.
WE GAVE HIM ARMS.
WE GAVE HIM MONEY TO BUY ARMS.
WE ENCOURAGED OUR FRIENDS TO GIVE HIM MONEY AND ARMS.
WE GAVE HIM INTELLIGENCE - INCLUDING INTELLIGENCE USED TO LAUNCH CHEMICAL ATTACKS.
WE PROVIDED ANTHRAX TO SADDAM - NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUDDEN SHORTAGE OF ANTHRAX IN IRAQ.
WE DID ALL THIS KNOWING FULL WELL WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST QUESTION ABOUT WHAT SORT OF RULER SADDAM WAS.
IN FACT WE HAD TO REMOVE SADDAM'S IRAQ FROM THE LIST OF TERRORIST NATIONS TO DO ALL THIS.
THEN WE TRIED TO BLAME THE IRANIANS FOR SADDAM'S GASSING OF THE KURDS.
THESE ARE ALL INDISPUTABLE, ABSOLUTE, UNQUALIFIED FACTS
February 15, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible you haven't studied the history of the Khomeini regime. Basically we're talking about a Stalinesque purge in which tens of thousands of Iranians were executed -- both inside and outside the country. Some were even assassinated in Western countries. I know this because i've got good Iranian friends who were forced to flee here after half their family was lined up against a wall and shot. Ironically, Iran is the only country I know with an official policy of hunting down Marxists (who Khomeini despised)throwing them in prison and executing them. This makes the whole Chavez/Iran alliance quite bizarre.
Stalin maintained his grip on power precisely because he was willing to go to any lengths to keep it. Khomeini followed the same playbook.
My counter-revolution scenario is very real. Kurds and Sunni Arabs are 2nd-class citizens in Iran. There are uprisings in their regions on a regular basis. 11 Revolutionary Guards were blown up yesterday in the Arab sector. With restless minorities and 30 million living below the poverty line, this government is in a very fragile position. If they ever get cornered, no one can predict what they will do.
As for enrichment, no intelligence service seriously believes Iran is after strictly peaceful energy. If that were the case they would have taken the Russian deal to import fuel in exchange for big economic incentives. They want the bomb and no fatwah is going to get in the way. Khomeini basically broke all his promises to the Iranian people. I wouldn't trust the safety of my family to a fatwah.
February 15, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really? LOL!! So the fact that you don't recognize Iran experts means they don't exist .... you being such the expert yourself on Iran studies... and oh wait, you can Google and google can answer everything right?
Have you ever read anything by, say, Nikki Keddie? Do you have the slightest idea who she is? How about Ervand Abrahamian? Mark Gasiorowski? Hamid Dabashi?
If you were an actual student of Iran studies, you'd know these names, and very well. Naturally you may be more familiar with the talking heads that come on TV a lot - like Pollack - who don't actually speak farsi and have never really been to Iran and yet are supposedly "Iran experts" - but these two people on the list alone have more knowledge of Iran in their little pinky than all the talking heads combined.
February 15, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the link Hass. The link you provide confirms that you have cited to an opinion columnist named Joost R. Hilterman. If you click on Mr. Hiltermann's name on the byline above the opinion column you cite, you will be directed to various references to Mr. Hilterman in the International Herald Tribune. I found this reference interesting, in the form of a correction in the Trib., which reads:
"The article "Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?" (Views, Nov. 29) was a personal comment by Joost R. Hiltermann and was not written in his capacity as Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group."
And Hass, the fact that you write "lie" in capital letters doesn't transform anything I've written into a lie. You now seem to have a propensity, as demonstrated with respect to the CSM episode last week, and with respect to this current Trib incident , to obfuscate the important and material distinction between an op-ed piece, an editorial (for which attribution to the paper itself is appropriate) and a news article.
And that's no lie.
By the way, for what it's worth, I have no dog in this fight. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Reagan Administration provided some of the means for Iraq's chemical and biological programs in the 80s. I have no doubt that the Reagan Administration viewed Iraq as a buffer against Iran and pursued a foreign policy accordingly.
February 15, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Noam Chomsky on the who's-who of Iran experts list? I can just see Chomsky giving this issue the consideration it deserves: "Hmmm, I wonder, should the US bomb Iran or not?" I'm sure glad he decided against bombing.
Why do you wish to insult me? My point is that petitions like this are essentially meaningless. I'd rather read a thoughtful outlook from real experts (including those that are on this list) rather than this cattle-car petition approach.
February 15, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Denial denial denial...how pathetic. Any moron who read the article can see what it is - they don't need me to explain it. I cited the CSM and IHT as the SOURCE of the info, and it is YOU who are trying to muddy the waters by shooting the messenger and distract this thread into a question of my honesty when it is about the Bush administration.
So the fact that the author sat down and reviewed thousands of the documents and makes his view "just an opinion" (implying that he's being dishonest!)--- tell me if the paper itself has editorialized it, that would be "just an opinion" by the paper too, wouldn't it? In fact, short of Ronald Reagan waking up from the dead and testifying, you won't accept anything would you? Probably not even that.
The funny thing is that I"M the one who is actually citing verifiable sources that everyone else can follow-up on and read for themselves, and all you're doing is denying denying denying and and trying to evade the issue instead by complaining about citiation style. I cited my source on the Halabja incident, now lets see your source that says something else & let the readers determine things for themselves. GO on, I dare you.
You can lead a horse to water...but here, you want 'articles' about how how the US was complicit in Iraq's chemical weapons crimes? How about declassified US documents about
National Security Archives
February 15, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hass, I am returning to my paying job after this post. The principal problem with your reply in my opinion is that you assume that I'm trying to "shoot" your messenger. I'm not. I think you have cited a cogent and persuasive messenger.
It's your argument style I have a problem with. Name-calling and capital letters aside (getting used to that here), I think it's fair to ask that we all cite our sources appropriately (meaning that people reading what we post should know who or what we are relying on to support our positions).
February 15, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on your being obtuse.
He provided a document signed by dozens of experts and you single out Chomsky?
February 15, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You insult yourself. I guess the point was too complicated for you to grasp: that there are lots of real Iran experts who do NOT think that use of force should be an option - contrary to what Bauer claims. The petition is signed by Mideast experts not limited to Iran - but among them are many top Iran experts (Iran being part of the Mideast.) Thus, Bauer's claim is demonstrably false. I just can't explain it more clearly.
Now, by all means feel free to read their books. No one said you shouldn't.
As for Chomsky - he has written extensively about the mideast. Feel free to doubt his qualifications, but there just isn't any question that there are lots of well-known experts on Iran and the mideast on this list.
February 15, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah yeah whatever. If you have something to add about the SUBSTANCE OF THIS DISCUSSION I'd be happy to read your post but if all can contribute is to complain about my 'argument style" , you can go to heck. I'm not really interested in your opinions of me. I don't seek your approval, and I don't think anyone else really cares either.
February 15, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, your reading skills are right up there with your numeric skills. With the latter, you were apparently unable to tell the difference between a 0 and 1 rating. You claim:
Obviously, you do. What are you trying not to notice? Anger management might help both your expression, and your ability to get people to agree with you.
but the TPMcafe rating policy is exactly about the expression of the idea, including its tone, not about agreement with it. Someone may make a post taking a position with which I totally disagree, but, if it is well-written, provides relevant links where appropriate, and makes original arguments, it deserves a 5. Someone who posts on one of my favorite ideas, but is abusive, poorly written, and makes unverifiable quotes or, as in your case, misinterprets them, gets, at best, a 1. Again according to Cafe management, a persistent pattern of personal attacks (no, I am not channeling Spiro Agnew) can earn themselves a 0.
Your knowledge of science, or certainly chemical and biological weapons, seems to be right up there with your literacy and numeracy. Do you know why a legitimate laboratory would want reference cultures of anthrax, or other pathogens? Do you understand the purpose of the American Type Culture Collection? Do you understand the relative significance, compared to cultures, of fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, and lyophilizers of over 100 liter capacity?
The US signed the Chemical Warfare Conventions with no restrictions, but quite a few nations signed the Genocide Convention with restrictions. In any event, however, I will agree the Israelis are committing genocide as defined by the convention if you demonstrate you understand the Chemical Weapons Convention and its Schedules, and the supplementary, additional US export criteria, the Militarily Critical Technologies List. I will further continue to argue that the Genocide Convention perverts the meaning of real genocide, even though I regard the Government of Israel as something that American lawyers would find too unethical to join. In point of fact, I consider the recent Israeli weapons use in Lebanon much closer to genocide than their reprehensible actions in the Occupied Territories.
Ah, waving of hands is acceptable when you do it, as in chemical and biological warfare, but not when I find reason to disagree with the Genocide Convention.
Fascinating.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ATCC is a scientific entity - that in NO WAY distracts from the fact that the anthrax was shipped to a KNOWN WEAPONS LAB front organization in IRaq. This was NOT - repeat NOT - a harmless scientific exchange of a bit of anthrax to iraq for scientific research.
February 15, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dudes,
I love you both. Let's call it off, eh? It is distracting us from dealing with Mr. Baer, on which I think the two of you are in 97% agreement.
sPh
February 15, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dudes,
I love you both. Let's call it off, eh? It is distracting us from dealing with Mr. Baer, on which I think the two of you are in 97% agreement.
sPh
February 15, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hass,
My cattle-farming cousin explained to me when this came up during the First Iraq War exactly how anyone anywhere in the world could order as much anthrax culture as they wanted. Since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks this is no longer possible, but it was not hard in those days. Any veterinarian in Iraq could have place an order with the University of Iowa at that time.
In any case, my previous comment stands: I would ask you two to stop, or at least take it outside.
sPh
February 15, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, these voices of reason can be so damn reasonable at times. Thanks for the wake-up sPh. Point taken and duly noted. :)
February 15, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't care what your cattle farming uncle says. you don't get to make an assertion that demand that no one reply to it. Iraq could NOT order anthrax. Iraq was on the list of terrorist nations which prevented that. Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 by the Reagan administration in order to remove legal impediments to shipping dual use items that we knew perfectly well were going to weapons production.
Not only was the US providing anthrax to known Iraqi weapons fronts, the British were training them to weaponize it.
SOURCE: "Iraqis given anthrax secrets by Porton Down scientists " by
SHYAM BHATIA
01/25/1998
The Observer
Page 003
(Copyright 1998)
Read more about this here
February 15, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The funny thing is, if you and hcb weren't into it hammer and tongs on this thread-drifting point, this is exactly the type of incredibly detailed, hyper-technical post he would have written!
Here's a hint for both of you: a lot of stuff goes on that isn't exactly as written in the Law and Regulations of the Land(tm). And a lot of people know a lot of stuff, even if they don't have security clearances or even engineering degrees. You would be surprised.
sPh
February 15, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm perfectly willing, now that I have reminded Hass of the rating criteria, out of courtesy rather than a requirement, to stop commenting on that. I am concerned, however, about his putting out substantial misinformation, especially about chemical and biological weapons.
While Saddam's missile programs were indeed rocket science, the rules, at the time Iraq bought the beer yeast and anthrax cultures, were not as strict as they are today. Your uncle is quite correct; just yesterday, on the PROmed mailing list of the International Society for Infectious Diseases (with support from the Centers for Disease Control), there was a report on an anthrax outbreak in Australia, for which reference cultures would be needed in public health. Another outbreak was reported, in Peru, on Sunday. Yet another report came from Zimbabwe on February 6.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what youre talking about.
This isn't "hyper technical" - this is FACT. This is the basic history of US-Iraq relations, widely written about. Everyone SHOULD know it except of course the flat-earthers.
Heck even 60 Minutes did a show on this
February 15, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, sPh. I don't think you want either hypertechnical or misinformation. While I recognize 60 Minutes is threatening to take over the authority of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology or the Centers for Disease Control, there's a fairly glaring technical error that Hass managed to include even in the paragraphy he copied.
I shall now be silent on CBW in this thread, and rate appropriately those posts that are abusive.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, I'm the one who is repeatedly citing verifiable sources and all you're doing is deny & deflect and evade...
FACT: Iraq could NOT have ordered anthrax from the US - not while it was on the State Dept list of terrorist nations.
FACT: Reagan took Iraq off that list in 1982.
FACT: The anthrax samples were sent to known weapons fronts in Iraq.
FACT: The US congress investigation showed that the same anthrax was weaponized in Iraq.
This had nothing to do with cows.
February 15, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
60 Minutes is interviewing a deputy undersecretary of defense named Dr. Steven Bryen. DOCTOR Byren, who said:
"Dr. BRYEN: I was shocked to see that biological samples would be going to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission because in--it was absolutely clear that--that--that the at--Is--Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission was involved in their nuclear weapons programs and God knows what other weapons programs. "
February 15, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obtuse? I don't think so. I think hass' misrepresentation is funny and my harping on Chomsky is how I express that.
Baer is NOT talking about whether the US should bomb Iran now. Not Baer and not even one person who reads this thinks we should bomb Iran now. And yet hass comes back with a list of hundreds of people -- INCLUDING Chomsky -- who think we shouldn't bomb Iran!!!
An excellent case of hijacking the discussion. And as a result 13 TPMCafe'rs rate it an "Excellent." This is high humor indeed! And hass' repeated insults add extra flavor to this comedy.
February 15, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The five is merited because you point out something very significant, and that is that this is not a debate about bombing Iran now.
Frankly, I do not understand the merits of saying never never never with respect to going to war with Iran. I do not understand how that is prudent policy.
That does not mean that war should not be limited to legitimate self-defense situations and I'm sure there's lots to debate in terms of what is legitimate. But turning this debate into whether a bona fide Democratic presidential candidate must, without question, take a military option against Iran off the table strikes me as being off the mark. It's kind of like a union going into a labor negotiations and saying no matter what happens we won't strike.
February 15, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your writing, I could tell you have not traveled around the world to understand the world issues and I could also tell that you are very much an American with an American attitude that the US government does not represent the will of individual Americans.
I hate to give you an education but it is essential for your understanding of the world. The world sees the US government as the ultimate authority of the American people, it does not matter whether you agree or not, it is what every country regards the current Bush administration as the voices of the American people.
When the US government lies, intimidates, terrorizes, bribes other nations, it reflects badly the whole country. Now and around the world, US has lost its credibility and whatever claims it may have against another nation, in this case we are talking about Iran, it does not matter how sophisticated and accurate the information may be, it is just not credible anymore.
Credibility is very important in the world community and America does not have any at this stage. All it has is a bunch of BS and lots of money and lots of sophisticated weapons. The list that I am talking about, may just be another BS, any moron can produce such a list. Where is the credibility? None, I have not seen any, even if it is against the current administration.
February 15, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following your logic, no American has credibility as long as the visible government says something false. What would you have Americans do, overthrow their government? Perhaps educate other nations that there really are differing opinions, which, in my travels around the world, seems to be understood in democracies from Japan to Sweden.
Apparently, your government never lies. Would you mind sharing its name so we can learn from it?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh playing dumb again ,aren;'t you?
See, unions have a right to strike.
The US does not have a right to go around bombing other countries and launching wars whenever it feels like it.
Simple really. The difference is readily apparent to most morons.
February 15, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply |