When the hell did 'pacifist' become a dirty word?

I have to admit that there might be circumstances in which war with Iran is our last and only option -- but we are far, far away from that situation.

Our last and only option for what? To prevent them from annihilating America with their Muslim hordes? To prevent the smoking gun from becoming a mushroom cloud? How are the Iranians, natural enemies to the people who actually did attack us on 9/11, an existential threat to the U.S.? Perhaps, it is because they are a "fake democracy" (read Islamic state)?

Well, at least it's not in Israel's interest. Unfortunately with Iraq, we had to go through a catastrophic invasion and occupation before it was understood that it wasn't in Israel's interest. But now, thank God, we don't have to bomb and invade another sovereign country and kill untold thousands and spend $billions because it arguably would not be in Israel's interest.

I'm not a pacifist. I have to admit that there might be circumstances in which war with Iran is our last and only option -- but we are far, far away from that situation.

I have no idea why this comment is in this post. I think it actually adds legitimacy of those you're arguing against.

How did this idea that it is okay to attack any country, any time, anywhere ever become SOP for America, beacon of freedom and independence?

and where exactly did steve come anywhere close to even suggesting that?

michael ledeen is stupid. no two ways about it. he's a lot of other things as well. but first and foremost he is stupid.

Steve Clemons,

I'm particularly worried that there are bad guys in Iran who so desperately want to consolidate their political positions inside Iran that they see a hot conflict with the U.S. and/or Israel as "helpful".

Thanks.  We seldom approach international trash-talk from this angle.  On the one hand, Ledeen & Co. are certainly shameless in their cynical elevation of Ahmadinejad's leadership position.  On the other hand, who is really certain about the state of Supreme Leader Khomenei's health, let alone his leadership.  Cynicism and mindless aggression are among the darker components of human nature, and not uniquely neocon qualities.  And no, I am not advocating attacking Iran -- as much as it is unfortunately necessary here to disclaim.

This passage that you quote from Ledeen strikes me as particularly revealing:

"Washington diplomats have steadfastly refused to see the Iranian regime for what it is: a relentless enemy that seeks to dominate or destroy us. This blindness afflicted the first American negotiators shortly after the 1979 revolution, and has been chronic ever since, even though Iran declared war on us in that year and has waged it ever since."

I guess it's good to know that our "Washington diplomats" aren't crazy and paranoid--but it isn't reassuring to know that a crazy paranoid like Ledeen is actually taken seriously by many influential people. That Iran wants "to dominate or destroy us" is absurd. The goal of the war they "declared" on us in 1979 wasn't to dominate us, but to liberate themselves from our domination of them, which we had accomplished through the installation and support of a brutal (but pro-American/British) dictator, the Shah.

Leeden and his compatriots have a grand strategy for the Middle East, which is simply to overthrow anyone they believe is a threat to Israel. Their goal is to draw the US into this cause, using American military might, treasure, and blood to make Israel more secure. Their strategy, however, will in the long run be costly both to the US and to Israel, since it will create an even more hostile Middle Eastern world. Those who have true American (and I believe Israeli) interests at heart must expose this insanity and do everything possible to prevent it from becoming American policy.

Do you think it's really all about Israel? Because when I read the NeoCons, I always get the sense that even Israel is one prize on the path toward whatever it is that they're really trying to do.

Oh, and maybe I'm just cranky today, but Steve Clemons, please refrain from referring to opposing poliiticians or officials as "bad guys." They may or may not be "bad" but please remember to be specific about what makes them "bad" or us "good." To do otherwise is to be sucked in to the "diplomacy by people who despise diplomacy" side of things.....

zkosmo:

I don't know whether John is at this point in his life a pacifist. But, if he is, he has more grounds to be one than 90 plus percent of the folks you and I correspond with on the internet.

John is one of the few representatives from the Greatest Generation on the TPMCafe. He served our country in WWII as a young man in Europe as part of the 82nd Airborne. John has seen what war means in real, human terms.

I know you didn't know that but I think you should know that in light of your question. I once did not know that about John either.

Bruce

>> Iran wants to dominate or destroy us

Michael Latreen has me all confused now. Reagan convinced me that the country that wanted to dominate or destroy the United States was... Nicaragua.

Would Iran and Nicaragua please have a playoff match to decide who's the designated dominatrix/destroyer?

Meanwhile, Michael, do me a favor: go flush yourself!

Valdron:

I agree completely with your first point. I also agree that Michael Ledeen is someone who is likely to be influenced by how he believes that a war with Iran will somehow benefit Israel.

But my question to Clemons was an attempt to have him address this notion (that I believe many are pushing at least implicitly) that if we go to war with Iran it will because the U.S. has acted at the direction of Israel and its hard-line supporters in this country.

Bruce

"We MUST be able to talk about what is and is not a threat to the United States. Americans have a right to that discussion."

That is precisely what we are discussing, and this American is participating in it.

Bruce,

I'll try to say it more simply. The oil and power and war profiteering interests of the guys like Cheney are having one heck of a success using pro-war Jews in their game to get us into war. Far from a shadowy Jewish conspiracy, the neocon Jews are being USED as the front men for this effort to get us into war. They're being setup to be the scapegoats. If we can't talk about this, the Cheney forces are going to be successful.

Sadly, what is lost I think is your point that Iran is not a natural enemy of the United States and that there are reasons to believe that, at some point, if we play our cards correctly, Iran and the United States can have a productive and friendly bilateral relationship.

This, in my view, is the prospect that most terrifies Ledeen and other neoconservatives, Bruce. They are not really so much concerned about the prospect that Iran might "dominate or destroy" the US, as they are concerned about the possibility that the United States will eventually resolve its security concerns with Iran, and achieve good relations with the country. It is essential to their strategic plans that the United States and Iran remain enemies.

This is my terror Bluebell.

The universal assumption in the United States is that the Iranians can't put anything up in the air that could stop an American air attack.

We have this assumption that we are perfectly at liberty to bomb anywhere in the third world with impunity.

And the truth is that is mostly true. In 12 years of bombing, Saddam Hussein never put a scratch on the American air force. US air missions in Bosnia, against Libya, against Sudan and Afghanistan were carried out without risk or consequence.

Iran's air force is numerically inferior and technologically several generations behind the American air force. The prevailing wisdom is that they will not pose a challenge, and that the United States could sustain air operations over or on Iran indefinitely without risk.

But just supposing that the Russians, say, decide to weigh in. Supposing that American fighter pilots suddenly find themselves facing swarms of 'Iranian' fighter jets far more numerous, far more technologically advanced, and with far more experienced and aggressive pilots. Supposing that the Iranians 'suddenly' have missiles far more accurate and lethal.

What happens then? What happens if and when America's 'cost free' air raids suddenly have a cost? When lives are getting lost in numbers? When American aircraft are being shot down? When 'Iranian' defenses are such that the exercise becomes very expensive, or even fails outright?

Does America just pull back and go home?

Or does America point the finger at Russia?

And if that finger points, then what happens in the subsequent confrontation?

And if the finger doesn't point, well, what happens with that new Iranian/Russian alliance. What happens in Pakistan, or China, or Syria or half the countries in the third world when the word gets out that Russia's prepared to face off against the Big Blue Machine once again.

Certainly it has flaws. Given the state of satellite surveillance and intelligence, I just don't believe that the Russians could move sufficient numbers of missiles or aircraft into Iran to make a significant difference without being detected.

On the other hand, I can imagine situations where this is detected and the White House has to take some calculated risks.

Another scenario might be where the Iranians invite the Russian air force in for joint exercises. That would be very overt, and it would clearlyl have a deterrent intent.

On the other hand, what if there is a scenario where after an American raid begins, or before it commences, the Russians simply overtly or covertly enter.

I take your point with respect to Iranian antipathy to Russia. On the other hand, the current Russia is neither the Imperial Russian state of the Tsars, or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Rather, it's a state that has seen the liberation, and is trying to build a functioning relationship with its former Islamic territories. I think the Iranians are prepared to recognize that.

And more to the point, politics makes strange bedfellows. Sure the Iranians hate the Russians. But the American government has publicly announced the intention and goal of regime change, has funded and supported terrorist operations from Kurdish and Baluchi territories, sits in Afghanistan the gateway for Iran's heroin problem and in the event of air raids, they will face a potentially major and enduring attack which will claim hundreds, perhaps thousands, even tens of thousands of lives.

Facing all that, it strikes me that if the Iranians can get the Russians involved on they're side, they'll take it.

So the questions are very real. In the event of an American air raid, or even in the event of a threat, would Russia intervene, and how would they intervene. Is Bush ready for an accidental superpower confrontation? It's the accidental ones that are scariest, since no one has a clue what to do. Anything can happen.

Iran is a fake democracy -- but there are elements of democracy and popular will being expressed through elections there.

I think it is extreme to label Iran a "fake" democracy. It is certainly true that Iran is a very limited democracy, and that the Guardian Council is able to limit the range of choices available to Iranian citizens. But that doesn't mean that these citizens have no choices at all or no effective representation. Iran is governed locally by city and village councils that are elected by the people they govern, and the Iranian Majlis passes real legislation that is responsible for the general governance of the country. Again it is true that the Guardians are empowered to proscribe certain parties and candidates, and they have exercised this power, sometimes very aggressively, as in 2004, sometimes not so aggressively. But even as they do exercise this power, members of the reformist coalition do continue to win at least some seats. It is not the case that the holders of elected offices are simply appointed from the top.

It is also the case that there are over 200 sanctioned political parties in Iran, many of them part of the reformist coalition. Even when the leadership has worked to limit the electoral viability of these parties, they continue to operate, meet and run websites with government sanction.

I don't want to discount the very real and serious limitations of Iranian democracy, and various kinds of government oppression of dissident and reformist voices. But I think there is little doubt that the Iran is the most democratic country in the region. The Iranian revolution was brought about through a combination of Islamist and Republican forces, and the Iranian constitution and system of government continues to reflect the significance of both elements.

Valdron:

You don't have to be polite to me; advocate as you wish.

I didn't bring up Israel in this thread; others did. I responded and tried to crystallize issues that had been raised on the thread.

My comments and those of others speak for themselves.

If you want to judge me and suggest that all I want to do is talk about Israel then go ahead. I am happy to talk about what I do besides posting about Israel and I am happy to identify who I am and where I live and what I do for a living. My life is not just talking about Israel.

What's your life all about Valdron, besides insulting people (even when you say you're not you can't help yourself for heavens sake).

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

Howard,

they might mount a D-DAY type operation. How would you like to wake up some morning to see 5,000 ships off our Miami coast and 2 Airborne divisions dropping on the Florida Peninsula and assaulting Ste Mere Augstine?

Insulting people? Yep, that's about it. It's a necessary public service, little appreciated (particularly by the most deserving). It's a fact of life that unpleasant things need to be said, in order to remind people of the important things. Turns out I'm good at it.

All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

According to Aviation Leak, Russia has been selling its (n-1)th generation SAMs to Iran for at least 10 years. Exactly what capabilities these export versions have compared to the hometeam versions, and what kind of Trojan horses might be embedded in them that the US knows about, are of course known unknowns. But personally I think it would be foolish to assume that Iran is going to lie back and take any punishment that another sovereign nation chooses to dish out.

sPh

~

Bluebell:

Please don't miss the above link . . . It fits right in with your point.

Shake, rattle and roll . . .

~OGD~

Well, I am a pacifist.

I don't believe in war as an option. I don't believe in war as a legitimate foreign policy tool.

I believe in a legitimate right of self defence for myself and on behalf of others. Pacifism is not synonymous with suicide.

There are always choices to make. All too often those who preserve their theoretical moral entitlement to violence, whatever they profess, merely preserve the option to actual immoral application.

I once listened to a 'liberal' announce that he did not believe in torture, while acknowledging that this was a subject on which 'reasonable people could disagree.' He was dead wrong. There is no 'reasonable' pro-torture viewpoint, any more than there's a 'reasonable' pro-pedophile stance. Some things are simply wrong.

Claiming to be opposed to war in 'this instance' but arguing that there is a reasonable 'pro-war' view is sophist nonsense. Conceding that war is an option, is conceding the foundation, it's like that old joke about the woman who agrees to sleep with a man for a million dollars and establishes what she is, it's just a matter of arguing for the price after that.

Bruce, I'll jump in here because (as I implied in my earlier post) I do believe that a war with Iran would be very unlikely if it were not for certain hard-line supporters of Israel. As you've probably seen, a 1994 interview with Cheney has been circulating on TV recently in which Cheney lists all the reasons the first Bush administration decided not to overturn Saddam Hussein. By 1998 (long before September 11), with the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," regime change in Iraq had become US policy. How did this rather dramatic change of heart occur? I think a lot of the credit goes to the lobbying effort of people associated with Bill Kristol's Project for the New American Century (PNAC), most significantly Richard Perle. As far as I can tell, the earliest call for regime change in Iraq after 1994 came in 1996, and the author was Perle. In a position paper written to advise incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm), Perle (along with others later advising the second Bush administration, including Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) called for regime change in Iraq:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. . . . Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq . . . . Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite . . . King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. . . ."

I quote Perle et al at length because I think the passage paints a clear picture of the overall strategy of these neocon supporters of Israel, which starts with the remaking of Iraq and moves on to address Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran.

Now, I do not want to make the claim that PNAC wanted regime change in Iraq only because of a desire to promote Israeli security. The PNAC group included folks who, while they may support Israel, really are motivated by other interests. These folks include militeristic cold warriors with a hawkish view of foreign policy, oil men, and others who are enamored with using force to accomplish various "strategic" or even idealistic ends. Cheney and Rumsfeld fall into this group. I believe that the pro-Israeli folks were the first to suggest regime change in Iraq, but the suggestion found a sympathetic ear among the cold warriors and oil men. And without the support of those cold warriors and oil men, the Iraq war would not have happened, regardless of what Richard Perle may have wanted. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser, however, understood the support they would need from these other Americans as this additional quote from "Clean Break" shows:

"To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996."

Perle et al. were actively involved in manipulating US officials by presenting "cold war" arguments attractive to those officials while in reality pursuing their ultimate goal of promoting Israeli security. I think the fact that a future American assistant secretary of defense (Feith) signed a letter advising the prime minister of a foreign country about the need to manipulate the opinions of American officials is worth looking into further. More important, though, is the fact that this paragraph gives us reason to distrust the stated arguments of some of these hardliners about America's reasons to pursue war. Their real motives for war may be different than their stated motives and may have little to do with American interests.

So what does this all say about Iran? After the disaster of Iraq, I don't see much strong support among Americans for another war in the Middle East. The strategic reasons (from an American perspective) to attack Iran are also weak. Oil is not as big an issue in Iran as it was in Iraq, and while the Iranian nuclear program may be a potential future problem, it is not a current threat. Iran's alleged support of Iraqi insurgents and its growing influence in the Middle East should first be addressed with diplomacy. And even if America had stronger strategic reasons for war with Iran, we need to question whether we have the resources to engage in another conflict in the Middle East given the strain and cost of the Iraq war.

For all these reasons, I cannot imagine the US going to war against Iran. Yet, we know there are people like Ledeen pushing for it. Why? The only reason I can think of is because these folks are still committed to the vision of Perle, Feith, and Wurmser. They still want to march from Baghdad to Damascus and Tehran. They want war with Hizbollah and Hamas. They are obsessed with "securing the realm" through force--and they are working hard to influence American officials to commit additional American blood and treasure to their cause. Caveat emptor.

Hmmm...I have friends in some parts of Florida, but others might do better after invasion.

Seriously, let me comment on a Normandy-style invasion, a smaller version of which was planned for Cuba during the 1962 crisis. It was, IIRC, in 1990, at a historical symposium, when fUSSR papers were produced showing the Soviet commander in Cuba had around six tactical nuclear weapons, and the authority to use them against an amphibious invasion.

Today, nuclear weapons might not be needed, given that amphibious force would have been tracked for days prior to invasion. Strong air units, equipped with precision-guided missiles could be in place, as well as submarines.

This really isn't a bad example, not specifically for Iran, but worst-casing threats and seeing how credible they may be. There is no accident that the US Marines long ago abandoned the idea of landing on defended beaches, in preference to going around or over them.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

J. McCutchen

Americans need to ask themselves - why has our media featured Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy experience when the likes of

Norman Poderhoretz and Rudy Giuliani are allowed to roam free of straighjackets?

Maybe the question is never asked because the answer is too real, too true, too disturbing.

And where exactly did I say that Steve suggested that? I'm suggesting it. When I say it is SOP, obviously, I mean it is the attitude of those running things, the people in charge. The PNAC preventive war seems to be the guiding principle of the administration and I think it should be fought tooth and nails by critics. The doctrine of "pre-emptive war" without an imminent existential threat is illegal.

A preventive war against Iraq went forward because we acquiesced to this doctrine. Remember that was portrayed as a last option, too. I started with Steve's quote because it has become a common attitude of FP experts on all sides that we have to approach these evil rogue nations with everything on the table.

The fact that Steve is a liberal critic of the administration but feels obligated to keep a potential preventive invasion on the table represents a change in general U.S. FP for the worst. I'm not singling him out here, but it seems the first option when discussing Iran is whether we bomb them or not. We start discussions with an assumed hostility against Iran and the idea that we have the right, as last resort of course, to bomb them into submission.

Iran is our enemy in the WOT because we proclaimed them our enemy. We have thwarted any good faith negotiations Iran has signaled and trumped up false allegations of attacks by them against us. We are about to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a sovereign nation's military force, a terrorist group.

They are not and show no inclination and do not have the ability to capably attack America, which is the only thing that should trigger our last option. I cannot see how we could even go to war with Iran, but Ledeen and his cohorts are not just talking crap. They want to start another war and I think people need to speak out strongly against it, even as a last resort.

Iran has a sizable Jewish population which has resisted Israeli bribery to emigrate. In recent months, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Israeli officials and some American Jewish communal leaders have urged Iranian Jews to leave. But so far, despite generally being allowed to travel to Israel and emigrate abroad, Iranian Jews have stayed put.

According to the statistics compiled by HIAS, 152 out of 25,000 [some estimate 40,000] Jews left Iran between October 2005 and September 2006 — down from 297 during the same period the previous year, and 183 the year before. Sources said that the majority of those who have left in recent years cited economic and family reasons as their main incentive for leaving, rather than political concerns.

The situation for Jews improved in the years after the revolution, and Judaism is one of the recognized minority religions in Iran. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians have rights enshrined in the Islamic constitution, and they each elect their own member of parliament and are entitled to worship freely but not to proselytize. The result is the only Jewish community living under an avowedly Islamic regime. In Tehran, where the majority of the community lives, there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. In addition, there is the Jewish hospital, which has a Jewish director and is funded by donations from the Diaspora, though the vast majority of its staff and patients are Muslim. Children attend Jewish schools where they are taught Hebrew and receive religious training. All principals are Muslim, the schools do not close on the Sabbath and the curriculum is supervised by the government.

With all respect to the Resistance, one wonders why some of the collaborators didn't put Hollandaise on the asparagus.

Seriously, I'd like some of those that are convinced of an immediate Iranian threat to describe how it would work. Alternatively, have independent experts do their best to describe the scenario, as was done with a hypothetical Israeli strike against Iran.

Of course, given a number of the weapons involved, this is rocket science, so talk radio pundits need not apply.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"I do want to say that I think Israeli worries about an Iranian nuclear weapons program are realistic, given Israel's small size and position just a few hundred miles from Iran. Because of those circumstances, Israel would be vulnerable to an Iranian first nuclear strike. Even its own large number of nuclear missiles might not be an adequate deterrent, because an Iranian first strike could literally destroy all of Israel, and might be able to do so with almost no warning and before a counterstrike could be launched."

True.  But Iran is a theocracy and one of their holiest sites is in Jerusalem -- the Dome of the Rock.  It is hard to imagine how they could ever justify a first strike to the Muslim community including their own population.

Sometimes I wish somone would just dump some of those oil-eating microbes in all the oil wells they could find in the Middle East.  Maybe that would stop this madness.

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business" Echoed recently by Jonah Goldberg and "the only way to achieve peace is through total war" "The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people"

No 1933 German Nazi pig could have said it better. Jackboots on a Jewish person are particularly unattractive. Jackbooted thugs no matter the ethnicity of the booted just make me so damned mad I want do what my uncle did to several SS guards of a death camp he helped liberate as a platoon Sgt. in WWII. After seeing what had been happening in the camp he marched several of them into the woods outside the camp and converted the bastards to fertilizer.

Hey Val, cut it out -- you're stealing my shtick after I stole it fair and square.

"Seriously, I'd like some of those that are convinced of an immediate Iranian threat to describe how it would work.........

Of course, given a number of the weapons involved, this is rocket science, so talk radio pundits need not apply."

Howard, so what you're saying is, the mile wide half inch deep crowd are excluded.

Check!

Bruce,

nah, I'm not a pacifist, I simply need a more convincing reason to go to war than most others.

Refer to newer post, near top of page.

The NY Times is playing along with the Bomb Iran crowd, as usuall too:

In disingeniously dismissing criticism of Michael Gordon's articles linking EFPs to Iran, Clark Hoyt, the NY Times Public Editor claims that Gordon's previous articles had already provided "strong evidence" of the Iranian origin of the EFPs... but the New York Times itself reported the discovery of EFP factories in Iraq back on April 7...

Since Herman Goering's explanation of how you have to call them traitors to start a war properly.