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?


Comments (129)
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 h