Rice Losing Internal “War” With Cheney Over Iran Military Action
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reportedly losing the internal Bush administration “war” with Vice President Dick Cheney over whether “diplomacy” or military action is the best way to deal with Iran.
If the report in The Guardian is correct, it’s yet one more sign of Cheney’s enormous influence and clout over Bush administration policy, even at a time when opinion polls show Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq have dwindling political support amid increasing public impatience and even ire:
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
The Guardian piece has a lot of info that will cheer those who firmly believe Iran can only be dealt with by a military action that short-circuits its growing threat, and will reaffirm the belief of those who believe Bush and Cheney believe they don’t have to take into account public, Congressional or even both political parties’ sentiments on further military action.
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And reports do generally confirm that, although experts seem to vary on precisely when Iran would be ready to build an actual weapon.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Note that Gates is considered more of a link to Bush 41 and the kind of diplomacy-driven foreign policy advocated by Colin Powell.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
“Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
And here is the paragraph that should be VERY interesting to Americans of both or no political parties:
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
“The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,” Mr Cronin said. “The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.
So, if it’s true, the President and Vice President believe they are the only ones who can safeguard America.
No Democrats could do it properly, not even any Republicans who might follow them.
So if they opt for military action as this piece suggests, it would be against the advice of Rice and the Secretary of Defense, most likely against the sentiment of the bulk of the Congress, and most likely against public opinion. But there will likely be an increased effort to make public opinion more receptive, so any military strike (no matter when it takes place) won’t come out of the blue.
What can Americans expect? If Iraq is any indicator, a build up of unnamed source articles about the Iranian threat, lots of news items that are also sourced naming the Iranian threat, an increasing drum beat by conservative talk show hosts about the need for military action in Iran as they are influenced by their interview or other contacts by administration sources and blogger conference calls to bloggers who considered friendly who could help get the pro-military-action perspective out.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
70 Responses to “Rice Losing Internal “War” With Cheney Over Iran Military Action”
That may very well be the case. I read and re-read Moonage’s comment and was unable to see how the following assertion made any sense:
What does Moonage mean by which was the main point of going into thouse countries in the first place? Is he arguing that an attack on the US mainland by Al Qaeda was the reason we invaded Iraq? Or is he arguing that fear of an impending attack on the US mainland by Iraq was the reason we invaded Iraq?
If it’s the former, his comment ought to be dismissed right away for attempting to link Iraq to 9/11.
If, on the other hand, it’s the latter, then it bears mentioning that fear of an impending attack on the US mainland by Iraq only came about because the adminsitration provided misleading claims about the existence of WMDs, mobile bioweapons labs, unmanned aerial drones capable of attacking the eastern seaboard, aluminum tubes for centrifuges, and yellowcake from Niger.
Secondly, citing the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 as a way to justify or validate the Iraq War (which seems to be the thrust of Moonage’s argument) makes no sense for the reasons I explained above.
Holly writes:
followed by:
It’s assertions like these that baffle me.
The United States and Israel trade with one another. Israel provides us with certain goods and technologies that Americans would not otherwise have, and America provides Israelis with certain goods and technologies that Israelis would not otherwise have.
1) It’s a mutually beneficial relationship. Life in both countries is improved by trade with the other, but neither nation is “dependent” on the other because of free trade.
2) The fact that the United States obtains goods and technology from Israel is not in any way unique. The United States trades with numerous other countries, our businessman work with businessmen from numerous countries to pioneer new techonologies, and our scientists colloborate with scientists from all around the world.
3) The fact that the United States benefits from trade with Israel is indeed a good reason for maintaining good relations with Israel. But the well being of this country doesn’t depend on Israel any more than it depends on any other nation. And it certainly doesn’t mean that our foreign policy should coincide with Israel’s foreign policy.
Right now, the United States is very much dependent on China for both trade and technology. That doesn’t mean that our foreign policy should coincide with China’s foreign policy.
Is it at all posssible to have a discussion about foreign policy without constantly dragging Israel into the discussion? I realize that the bond between the United States and Israel is very special to you, but I think it gets in the way of having a rational discussion.
The United States and Mexico have a bond between them by virtue of their proximity to each other and the degree to which our cultures influence one another. Some of us trace their roots back to Mexico, and some of us even have family members that spend time abroad in Mexico.
But that doesn’t mean we base our foreign policy views on the foreign policy views of Mexico. Nor do Americans of French ancestry base their foreign policy views on the foreign policy views of France, or Americans of German decent base their foreign policy views on the foren policy views of Germany.
If we can all agree on one thing, it is that the purpose of America’s foreign policy is to ensure the well-being and security of the American people. Right now, I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that our meddling in the Middle East is doing anything to enhance our well-being or security.
Holly, sorry but in almost no way is the US is technologically/scientifically dependent on Israel. As an academic I cna tell you that award goes to the Chinese absolutely and beyond a doubt. Not for the country itself, but for its scientists who come here. (Russian an India to a lessr degree as well) and pretty much power say 30-40% of our publications and patents…
Have you ever looked at recent patents? Do so and this will clear up a big misconception in this regard. The only big thing I can think of to come out of Israel is the replacement for the pentium IV, and its not like that was not based on avanced PIII, so meh. . .
They are a country we have sided with for various reasons, but pragmatically are surely not worth pre-emepitive mid east war over. That mess has long been a case of ‘he said she said’ with both sides doing plenty of bad things. Although, I give the hat tip slightly in favor of the Israeli’s overall in that regard, and certainly even more so from a societal standpoint.
“The US is highly-dependent upon the State of Israel.”
Holly – This statement is ludicrous! The latest statistic I can find is for 2004 where the US imported $14.5 billion in Israeli goods. That is a rounding error in our $12 trillion economy. Israeli imports to the US are lower than 43 other countries in the world, again for full year 2004.
Jason – Thank you for responding to my question on your approach to Iran. I applaud the caution your answer represents and I agree with most of it. Where we disagree involves the nature of Iran’s ultimate intentions. At this point (subject to change based on further information being revealed) I do not see Iran as a real threat to either the US or Israel. I view Iran’s rhetoric as the same as Bush’s “axis of evil”, designed for internal consumption.
Iran is a proud country with thousands of years of history. They are very much aware that a non-conventional weapons attack against either the US or Israel would bring total devastation to their country. Either the US or Israel alone has the arsenal of hydrogen bombs(up to a thousand times more powerful than fission weapons) would leave Iran inhabitable, aside from probably 50 million dead.
I know you see the Iranian leadership as irrational. I don’t see them as any more irrational than the US leadership. Iranian “end times” enthusiasts have no more a total hold decision making than our own Christian “end timers”.
Again, we have to be careful with Iran and monitor developments closely. The situation, for now is only “potentially” dangerous. My attitude may change, but I recommend eatching carefully how the next 5 years emerge.
“How many civilian casualties, and how much global economic disruption, do you consider acceptable in a war with Iran? Assuming you mean non-American civilian deaths, no limit”
Stevesturm – It would be interesting to see you stand before G-d and make the above statement. I consider your attitude immoral. We are talking about human beings, made in G-d’s image. As a fellow Jew, I cannot believe that your attitude is really this cavalier.
Not at all. I always caution my students against the assumption that someone who behaves in ways we don’t like must be “irrational”. I think Ahmedinejad is rational in the sense that he is pursuing his ends by logical means. I just think that the ends he seeks might strongly conflict with U.S. interests.
Whether Iran actually has bad intentions remains to be seen. I have not yet concluded that Iran actually intends to wipe out Israel, but given their statements in that area, I believe it is something that U.S. policymakers have to hedge against. We can’t just hope and pray that it is all “red meat” for domestic political consumption.
As a result, I don’t have a problem with planning for military action (especially when such planning has the side effect of reinforcing diplomatic pressure) but I think much more evidence is necessary before actually executing those plans.
jdledell: I’m an American who happens to be Jewish, not a jew who happens to reside in America. Thus, I place the wellbeing of my fellow Americans, regardless of their religion, ahead of the welfare of non-Americans, whether or not they happen to be Jewish. As for being immoral, if believing my family, friends, neighbors and fellow Americans are ‘worth’ more than everybody else makes me immoral, so be it, that’s a badge I will happily wear. As for your own morality, given a choice between saving your child or a child in Iraq, who do you pick?
“As for your own morality, given a choice between saving your child or a child in Iraq, who do you pick?”
stevestrum – If the choice between my own child and an Iraqi child occured simultaenously, of course I would pick my own child. However, in the situation being discussed, my own child is NOT in danger. Potential danger, yes, but no current danger. I could NOT stand before G-d and say I killed someone else’s child because I thought maybe, perhaps, possibily the other might endanger my child.
It takes a LOT more confidence in my judgement or the judgement of other fallible mortals before I would agree to start killing innocent lives because I thought some day they might commit a crime. Hey, maybe that would be a good theme for a movie.
“As a result, I don’t have a problem with planning for military action”
Jason, I also have no problem with planning and I would hope the US military and civilian agencies have plans for any and all contingencies. However, such planning should be kept, for the most part, behind the scenes.
There is a fine line to walk with using war rhetoric as a boost to diplomacy versus such rhetoric becoming a self fullfilling prophecy. I think in the Iraq situation, the war rhetoric was so strong that Bush backed himself into a corner and would have had to go to war no matter what Saddam did. I am convinced that had Saddam heeded Bush’s call to totally open up the country and prove he had no WMD’s, we still would have gone to war. I don’t want to see the same thing happen in Iran.
George Tenet and Paul O’ Neill claimed in their books that Bush planned to remove Saddam before 9/11 but needed a rationale that the public would buy. On 9/12 Rumsfeld was already talking about invading Iraq, and Richard Clarke claims that he was ordered to redo reports that didn’t connect 9/11 and Saddam.
The PNAC wrote a letter in 1998 urging Clinton to replace Saddam- by force if necessary, but Clinton decided not to. Many of the signatories ended up in key positions in the Bush administration. Invading Iraq became a no-brainer for people like Paul Wolfowitz who had urged it back in Bush 41′s administration and Dick Cheney, who asked about Iraq as soon as the election was over.
jdledell: paraphrasing the old joke, now that we’ve decided that you do value the lives of some people more higher than you value the lives of others, all we’re left discussing is the price.
Stevestrum – Forgeting the paraphrase, if we are both prostitutes, at least I don’t turn tricks for a penny like you.
jdledell: if you’re going to insult me, at least get my named spelled right.
[...] on health care, particularly the “universal” kind; Cheney vs. Rice on Iran, and as Joe Gandelman points out, the article says the President and Vice President “did not trust any potential successors in [...]
I’m in the camp not seeing a problem with planning for militrary action – plans are needed for any and all contingecies.
There is a dilemmma, though/ When we call for action or planning for action, loudly and publically, it validates Iran’s claims atat they are only acting from a position of needing to defentd themselves.
We cite Iran’s threats of genocide.
Iran cites our plans for military action.
It’s this stand-off that needs to broken.
More attention to the language of diplomacy in official USi statements would be one place to start.
The US, under Bush, considers it appropriate to preemptively strike when we perceive a threat to us. Iran has always claimed that their nuclear intentions are for the generation of electricity.
Meanwhile, the US has threatened to strike Iran. By our own new rules, is Iran not fully justified in launching a preemptive strike against us?
Just saying….
greendreams: each country is entitled to do what it deems necessary to protect itself. whether it gets away with doing so is dependent on whether they have the military strength and economy to back it up.
thus, it doesn’t matter that Iran claims nukes are for domestic consumption or to protect them from us. all that matters, from our perspective, is whether we believe them. that is why we (I) don’t have a problem with England having nukes, nor would I have a huge problem if South Korea joined the club, as I don’t believe either would use nukes against us, but I have a big problem with Iran doing so, for I believe they intend to use them… against us and our allies. Accordingly, we are entitled, per the above, to do what we think necessary to keep that from happening… and if it means we, as LeMay would say, bomb them back to the stone age, so be it.
We are not entitled to unprovoked attack on anyone. period. America helped to create the rule of law that condemns nations that attack others. Let us return to being the shining example of that law.
But I know, fear is driving our decisions and this destroys our ability to make rational decisions. Fear trumps ration every time, with disastrous consequences. As Justice Louis Brandeis put it “We feared witches and burnt women.” Edmund Burke: “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” Eisenhower warned “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”
I’m not scared of Iran. The USSR once had enough weapons pointed at us to destroy the entire planet several times over. We survived. North Korea and Pakistan have the bomb, as does China. We cannot win a war against Iran, and attacking that nation would only fuel more hatred and retaliation against us. Even if Iran had a nuke today, it could not strike us, and Israel? Israel can take care of itself. There is NO reason for us to invite the wrath of the world. Please, America. Calm down.
Now, stevesturm, I don’t expect to convince you of anything. But for moderate readers out there, we don’t need these fearmonger warmongers to buy us another bucket of trouble. Iraq was not a serious threat to our security and neither is Iran. Once we tone down the rhetoric of fear and hatred, we can and will find peaceful solutions that will do far more for our security than fomenting more conflict in the Middle East.
By the way, we have spent enough on Iraq to completely eliminate Middle East oil as an energy source. We could have pulled the plug on all the mullahs and oil sheiks and sent the price of oil tumbling, shutting off the spigot that fuels these fanatics. The Republicans, obviously, have no more tools in their toolkit than fear and war. Let’s ditch their failed strategies and their lack of vision, integrity and resourcefulness.
greendreams: trying to get people, whether me or others, to not act based on fear is a pretty tough challenge, especially in times where there is demonstrably much to fear. we buy insurance because we fear loss. we get our kids vaccinated because we fear disease. we build redundancies into our computer systems because of fear of catastrophic failure. we save money to guard against losing our paychecks. harry potter is constantly on guard because he fears voldemort.
so how do you plan to convince America to stop acting like that, to take the big leap of faith that those who say they wish to do us harm don’t mean what they say? How do you convince us that our fears are irrational?
Other, of course, than calling us names if we don’t?
and, by the way, hitting someone you are convinced is going to hit you is not unprovoked.