Untangling the Issues on Iran
While I understand my friend Ken Baer's concern that blogospheric anger about Iraq is spilling over into demands for a "litmus test" on Iran, I think his own "no option off the table/no nukes" formula conflates two crucially different issues, and misleadingly labels all sorts of people, myself included, as quasi-pacifists.
And when it comes to the question of what Democrats should be saying right now about Iran, there's another legitimate issue to weigh: the complete and absolute and well-earned lack of credibility of the Bush administration, at home and abroad, in assessing security threats. Absent some unlikely immediate threat from Tehran, there's nothing inherently wrong about saying of military action towards Iran: "No way; not on their watch!"
As a general principle, of course, no one who wants to be president should ever categorically rule out military force as an option, if only a final option when all other remedies have been exhausted. I'm with Kenny on this one, with the crucial qualifier that it's difficult to envision a scenario that would justify military action towards Iran by this particular administration during its remaining lame-duck tenure. Given the predictably calamitous consequences, in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and around the world, of a Bush strike against Tehran, you'd have to have an unimpeachably urgent case for action, and that's fortunately not in the cards.
But that brings me to the other problem with Ken's formula: the "no Iranian nukes" stand. What, exactly, does that mean? Must Tehran's nuclear program be halted immediately? Should we ignore the evidence that an actual nuclear weapons capacity is far off into the future? And nonproliferation concerns aside (which may be a bit tardy at this point, given the outmoded international nonproliferation system generally), at what point do we lose faith in nuclear deterrence, from Israel and from the U.S., to rein in a theoretically nuclear Iran? These are all legitimate questions you don't' have to be a pacifist to raise.
(Maybe that's why Bush is trying to raise a very different issue--alleged Iranian responsibility for weapons used to kill Americans in Iraq. To be sure, it's a lousy argument for this administration to be making, given (a) the shaky evidence, (b) its irrelevance to the far more prevalent Sunni violence against American troops, and (c) the strong likelihood that Tehran would be channeling most weapons to the SCIRI militiamen who are supposedly our staunch allies in Iraq. But when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and it's hardly surprising that Bush would try to lump all enemies, including Democrats warning against his saber-rattling towards Tehran, into one basket.)
Even in Israel itself, where there is very widespread subscription to the idea that a nuclear Iran is an "existential threat," it's clear that the character of the current regime in Tehran represents the "tipping point" that makes consideration of a military strike realistic. It's the specter of a theologically driven Holocaust-denier with nukes that legitimately freaks out Israelis. But one prong of the Iranian threat--the Ahmadinezhad government--is eminently disposable by a decisive majority of the Iranian people. And the one thing that's abundantly clear is that the threat of U.S. military action against Iran is the one thing that can give Ahmadenizhad an unshakeable popular mandate.
The bottom line is that there's not some clear formula for what Democrats ought to say about Iran, and no lefty blogospheric "litmus test" for Democratic presidential candidates that sets out a systematic, quasi-pacifist approach. Ken Baer is right to warn progressives against letting the horrible experience of the Bush administration dictate Democratic national security policy in perpetuity. But as someone who would probably be anathemitized in parts of the progressive blogosphere as a "liberal hawk,"' I have to say: Iran today, like Iraq yesterday, is absolutely the wrong arena for an exhibition of where tough-minded liberal internationalists are willing to take up arms.
Absent some unlikely immediate threat from Tehran, there's nothing inherently wrong about saying of military action towards Iran: "No way; not on their watch!"
Fine. But voters don't just want to know what the Republicans in charge shouldn't do. They want to know what the leading Democratic candidates, if they were in charge right now, would do. That's how they judge their attitudes, leadership and judgment. So this kind of safe, duck and cover response doesn't cut it.
In some sense, of course, no president takes military options "off the table". If the Canadians begin sinking our salmon fleet next week, and send terrorists to blow up New England maple trees, I suppose we would have to consider military options. If the Chinese shelled our base in Okinawa tomorrow, we would have to consider a military response. The military options toward Canada and China are, in that sense, on the table as possible responses to carious contingencies.
However, if a prominent American leader or candidate were asked today about their policy toward China or Canada, and they replied by saying "all options are on the table", I think we would all agree that such a reply would be a kooky, dangerously inappropriate respone.
Now a number of people have convinced themselves that in the current circumstances giving that sort of reply in response to a similar question about Iran is not a kooky, dangerously inappropriate respone. They believe our leaders should be engaged at this time in saber-rattling and brinkmanship. Why? Why shouldn't our candidates instead say something like, "our disagreements with the Iranian regime are significant but manageable, and can be dealt with through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, so long as those efforts are guided by strong presidential leadership - the kind of leadership I would provide if elected."
And if goaded by reporters to affirm that "all options are on the table," why not respond by saying something like, "it is grossly irresponsible for American leaders to engage in the sort of provocative and extreme rhetoric at this juncture. The security of our soldiers in Iraq and of our interests in the Middle East are at stake. Now is not the time for pandering to reckless and irresponsible extremists."
The pro-peace and pro-diplomacy camps are always being told to pipe down and give the candidates room to pander to hawks. But why has Ken Baer decided to lean on us? Why isn't he out telling hawks to shut up so that the candidates aren't forced to move so far to the right that they lose their credibility among average Americans? After all, it's not like the hawks are in the American center.
February 15, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ed
Is there a distinction between what Congress my do, for example barring the Bush Administration from sending troops into Iran and what the Democratic Candidates for President have to say?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 15, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
In theory, Congress doesn't have to bar anything. The President is not empowered by the Constitution to unilaterally launch military attacks on other nations. We are not at war with Iran. He has no authorization to use military force against Iran. Using military power absent the approval of Congress is illegal.
(I realize it's been a hobby of Presidents since Truman to ignore this constitutional limitation, but I have to wonder why anybody thinks a President who's already been pretty actively flouting laws passed by Congress [FISA anyone?] would give a rat's ass about anything Congress had to say about the necessity of a Declaration of War. Have we all forgotten just how narcissistic this President is?)
February 15, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The conservatives say that the provision in the Constitution which states that the COngress has the power to declare war is an anachronism, along with the Letters of Marque and Reprisal which are mentioned in the same phrase. So, according to them, the President DOES have the power to launch a war on his own.
However, attacking another nation except in the narrow case of self-defense is a violation of the UN Charter and constitutes a WAR CRIME. It is illegal. The Nuremberg Principles say so explicity. People have hanged for it. That's the sort of thing that Saddam did. Any candidate who says that launching a war is an "option" is endorsing an international crime
February 15, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How would you like it if the Iranian president went around saying that attacking the US is an "option on the table"? Wouldn't we call that "terrorism"?
Attacking other countries in order to get them to do your bidding IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. Even planning it constitutes a crime.
February 15, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK: this isn't the first post of yours that has led me to regret the lack of a 10 on our rating scale.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 15, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, we all owe Ken Baer an emphatic thank you for bringing this matter up in the clueless way that he has. His attack on liberals/progressives for their howls of dismay and discomfort at the war talk that Clinton, Obama and Edwards have embraced and engaged in has crystallized this issue at a time when many in this country fear the actions and aims of Bush and his few allies. I think Black at Atrios hits the issue squarely in his short comments:
"Look, regarding this "all options are on the table" stuff, it's only a phrase to use if you're making a threat. All options are always theoretically on the table. The only reason to state that war is on the table is because you feel it's advantageous to make a threat.
We don't hear leaders saying, "we hope to come to a trade agreement with El Salvador, but until we do all options are on the table," because we're not trying to threaten them with war. This week, at least.
If Bush is interested in war then the impact of a bunch of presidential candidates throwing out threats of war is to validate that view."
Of course that is our worry, that yet again, our candidates validate, enable the reckless foreign policy instead of joining with Webb, Clark, Kucinich, Murtha, and rule out war in the present context. The only ones to benefit from this insane "brinksmanship/war-provocation" policy are Bush and the Iranian leadership. The candidates may think they are gaining short term advantaages or winning over donors, but they will continue to earn our animus. Clueless Ken who does not seem to understand at all, only signals how very much we differ from our "friends" at DLC.
February 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe 'he thinks' he has the power:
So, what is he trying to tell us, that he doesn't agree with the War Powers Resolution? Shouldn't Congress NOW pull him up on his perceived powers? Speeches won't cut it -- where's the resolution that needs to be out in the open?
Maybe redundant anyway -- Larry Johnson believes Bush is planning a war of "retaliation" rather than "pre-emption" -- and Congress will have to go along with it to 'protect the troops' -- Great! and we have three carriers that are going to be in the Gulf...
Bush needs a psyc evalution... there must be some way to stop this.
February 15, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Senator Candidate, do you agree with the President that all options are 'on the table' with regard to the situation in Iran?"
"Well, nameless reporter, I do agree with the President and the international community that the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran would be of grave concern to the world, and would destabilize an already volatile region. But I see no interest of the US advanced by making none-to-subtle threats along the lines that the President has been making. Iran has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate these matters with the United States and with the regional powers. Perhaps instead of seeking a fight, we should ask questions first and shoot later this time?"
OK, that's perhaps a bit too erudite. Second shot:
"George W. Bush was wrong to order the invasion of Iraq, wrong when he claimed that Iraq was a threat, and wrong to ignore the intelligence from within Iraq that said that Iraq's WMD program was completely dormant and no threat to anybody. He is making the same mistakes with regard to Iran and, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what he's thinking, or why anybody would believe anything he said at this point."
I like that a little better. It ignores the question, and I think that's the proper response.
February 15, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed posters on this site love to parse phrases and duel over semantics. I think the facts actually can be summed up pretty simply:
a. Can you think of any Democratic candidate for president who, as president, would recklessly go to war with Iran?
b. Can you say the same thing about Bush?
Any Democrat will be better than what we've got now. The issue we have to deal with is getting a lease on the Bush administration to keep it from doing something unbelievably stupid over the next two years.
February 15, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoping is not a plan. We can't just hope that a Democtatic pres won't bend to the influences of the pro-Israeli lobby. We have to make sure it doesn't happen.
February 15, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point the hawks tend to elide is this: how effective would military action be at preventing a nuclear-armed Iran in the first place? The hawks keep framing the debate as a choice between the military action and a nuclear-armed Iran, which assumes the efficacy of military action. In reality, if we attacked, what we would more likely have is all the negative consequences of a military attack plus a nuclear-armed Iran.
February 15, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Americans don't care all that much about what international courts. They do care about what the Constitution says. You say "the conservatives say that the provision in the Constitution which states that the Congress has the power to declare war is an anachronism", but we can find dozens of quotes from Republicans from the 1990s that make it perfectly clear that this "anachronism" was firmly believed to be a power of Congress as recently as the Clinton administration.
I am curious, however, at what point does clear text of the Constitution became an "anachronism"? Is this some branch of constitutional law I'm unaware of?
Let's not give the Yoo school of the unitary Executive branch even one inch. This "legal theory" is the intellectual equivalent to a coup d'etat. We need to be perfectly clear about this issue.
February 15, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did respect for and adherence to international rule of law get taken off the table?
I don't like the idea of Iran possessing nuclear weapons at all. But did we attack/invade India, Pakistan or Israel when those countries built nuclear weapons? Hell Pakistan is theoretically much more unstable than Iran and not one person in US politics is talking about attacking/invading Pakistan. When did Israel's best interests trump our country's? Seriously. That is the only reason that military action is being contemplated by the US government in this case. We negotiated with N. Korea and we can't negotiate with Iran? What gives?
February 15, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a delicate line. No general staff worthy of the name doesn't have contingency plans for attacking a wide range of countries, say X. Planning, however, is not intention, and the plans could perfectly well be invoked only after an attack from country X.
There would be plans to defend directly, but it may be rational and proportionate self-defense to destroy the war-making capability of that country, the bases from which the attack originated as well as the command posts that directed it, as well as the forces in the field.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 15, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, you see, American Presidents never, ever take the country to war.
They defend it -- from pirates (Gulf of Tonkin); from black savages intent upon raping and killing innocent medical students (Grenada); from drug kingpins who are killing our youth in the suburbs of Los Angeles (Panama); from a madman about to launch drones filled with horrible pathogens bent on overwhelming us (Iraq).
Our Presidents and the legions they command never go to war; they only Serve and Protect.
February 15, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only invasion and occupation would stop a determined effort, and that only until we left. All types of attack only buy time.
HCB has suggested we would do best (assuming the unthinkable) by disrupting electrical power to the centrifuge cascade while it is running. The mechanical failure would be catastrophic, but after some time new centrifuges would be running.
It's really a hopeless goal, not to mention unjustified by the evidence, not to mention hard to justify even with hard evidence, not to mention beyond our capabilities to follow through on.
For a while I hoped our Iraq buildup was a "crazy-man" move to get Saddam's attention. Maybe this time it is. I would hate to again feel that sinking sensation as it dawned on me we were going in.
Seems to me an anti-nuke strike would be about as effective as putting a bullet through a hornet's nest. Even if you get lucky and hit the queen, don't wait around to see.
Hey, I like that metaphor. Let's use it to counter the "defeatist" meme. As in "Only an idiot would shoot a hornet's nest." Hmm, there is that guy that liked to blow up frogs.
February 15, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an unfortunate fact that if you consistently break little laws, you soon see little wrong with breaking much bigger laws, and quite possibly you can rationalize breaking really big laws. That describes our nation at this time.
Ten years ago I doubt that more than 30% of Americans would agree that preemptive wars can be justified, or that an attack against a country which may at some distant time make a nuclear weapon is ever justified. But, after swallowing our torture policies, our illegal invasion of Iraq, our refusal to leave Iraq, our invasion of Panama, our invasion of Grenada, etc. it has become very easy for Mr. average American to rationalize attacking Iran with no justification at all.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 15, 2007 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you of course but nevertheless, this is a legal view that is being mainstreamed. It is part of the ever-growing "Inherent Executive Power" thing. When was the last time that a war was officially declared? In fact the same conservative commentators point out that declaring wars is in fact contrary to international law anyway, since use of force is only allowed in self-defense. (they don't address the contradiction in their argument: self-defense is defined by the same international law as NOT including "pre-emptive" wars)
February 15, 2007 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another irrelevant point. We are not talking about self defense against attacks, are we. We're talking about launching a war of aggression, unprovoked, and not in self-defense; an "optional" war.
February 15, 2007 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink