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.
70 Responses to “Rice Losing Internal “War” With Cheney Over Iran Military Action”
It looks like Cheney is determined to do as much damage as he can before leaving office.
I sincerely hope that we don’t use our military against Iran. The human costs, the economic costs and the moral costs would be devastating.
It sounds like their nuclear program is decentralized and fortified, meaning that it’d probably take a lot of ordinance to set the program back in any significant way. And that means lots of Iranian casualties. This would likely breed a lot more terrorism around the world.
Attacking Iran would most likely mean a disruption of their oil production, which could send the price of crude soaring. We might be looking at a depression if energy prices rise significantly.
And what friends would we have left in the world? Just Israel as far as I can tell. The British don’t seem like they are going to follow Bush’s lead anymore. We’d become, in effect, a pariah nation. Attacking and destroying two nations that did threaten us or attack us. We’d be like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, or like the Germans invading Poland.
Chris – for once, I am with you.
Military action against Iran would be the worst thing we could do right now, for many different reasons, some you stated, others more ‘realpolitik’ oriented.
On a completely separate note, have others been having problems connection to TMV? At least 4 or 5 times a week, I cannot connect, getting WordPress errors at times, and just time-outs at others. I haven’t seen any comments from the moderators or others about this.
All I can do is sincerely hope that this report is wrong, or that Condi, quite a formidable person herself, can impose her will. The very thought of the effect on America of a war with Iran, while still fighting in Iraq… Those members of the population who can’t locate the UK on a map (apparently a majority) would be well advised to look up Iran on the map as well; it’s much bigger than Iraq, has a much larger population, a better armed forces and lacks the deep internal divisions of Iraq, which would allow Iranians to freely (and understandably) hate Americans without the inconvenience of hating eachother. It would be a nightmare, and we’d be alone to do it, too.
A part of the article I found iluminating:
Notice in what terms the president is spoken of, they aren’t very different from how we speak of unstable nations like Iran itself. We must be “concerned” that the president might happily march us to disaster, as if WE didn’t count at all in that decision, which of course we don’t. Since when do we have to helplessly look at our ruler, hoping against hope he doesn’t lose his mind and do something terrible? Isn’t that the sort of thing democracy is meant to avoid?
AustinRoth it’s happened to me as well, mostly wordpress errors and a few timeouts.
AR – The system administrator must be having problems. The new “bells and whistles” come with a price.
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
decisivelycompetently.These fools can’t trust the next administration, what about their record of incompetence. Jason has a post about us losing Afghanistan. Cheney and Bush may lose both wars, now they want another front?
Yes, it’s simply amazing. Our version of democracy has been so twisted and corrupted that a President with a sub-30% approval rating could march us right into total disaster. What’s even more amazing is that he takes advice from someone who appears to have been wrong about every single issue I can remember in the last 7 years.
Just curious, rather than just trashing Bush/Cheney because they are Bush/Cheney, has anyone here spent two seconds looking at who the potential next administration is? Of all the candidates running, as far as I can tell, Giuliani is the only one that has even hinted that he might do what’s necessary. The others, Republican and Democrat have buried themselves in such an anti-war corner they’d be crucified if they tried. Talking nice with Iran hasn’t worked very well now has it? And although people are quick to assert we’ve lost Afghanistan and Iraq just to prove their point fail to make the more important connections in that the US mainland hasn’t been attacked in six years, which was the main point of going into those countries in the first place. They are also totally ignoring today’s buried headline of the day in that North Korea shut down their nuclear capabilities. So, there is reason to conclude that getting a LOT tougher with Iraq, as we did with North Korea, can work. So, needless to say, I don’t agree with the tone of this post and subsequent comments at all. Rice has tried for several years to diplomatically deal with the Iran nuclear buildup. It has n’t worked. Meanwhile, keeping military options on the table in North Korea, and getting China to play along, did. So, I’m with Cheney’s game plan at this point. And, I do agree to a point that I don’t think most of the candidates for office have the balls to play that game. Hillary might, but she’s pandered to the anti’s too hard to have any political out to do it. That pretty much only leaves John McCain, who’s campaign is toast, and Rudy Giuliani, who’s a hard sell because he’s so, well, moderate.
Which is what?
Was that before or after we put them in the “axis of evil,” and refused to negotiate openly with them?
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. What does that have to do with Iraq or Iran?
This Giuliani?
HANNITY: Have the Democrats become the party of surrender in the war?
GIULIANI: Sure.
We were attacked domestically- by weapons-grade anthrax. Bush/Cheney have used this argument to justify catastrophic foreign policy decisions- we are somehow supposed to believe that if we had not made the idiotic decision to remove Saddam that we would have al queda at our doorstep. Al queda has become a world-wide organization with cells in many Western countries. They have proven that they are quite capable of directing operations in those countries and fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while maintaining the 9/11 level strength of the organization.
Al queda is a Sunni group that is highly unlikely to allign with Iran, who initially made overtures to the US to help in the effort to eradicate them as a mutual threat. The rise of Iran as a nuclear power is a totally separate issue, and one that threatens Israel much more than it threatens us.
We should actually be much more concerned with Pakistan, which is now a haven for al queda and OSB, and which is already a nuclear power. Cheney, as usual, is dead wrong.
They are conflating the two problems and counting on the fact that most Americans don’t know the difference.
I hope like heck this is not true. We are losing two fronts right now, and opening an third is just as pragmatically stupid as it gets.
If Iran gets the bomb, then they do. it snot godo long term at all, but we can only do so much militarily. We are already over extended and need to focus on leaving Iraq and shoring up Afghanistan to save _something_….
So we attack Iran?
1) Run a real risk of losing a good portion of 130,000k+ troops due to Shia uprising in the south when their fuel/ammo supply are cut to a trickle.
2) Heaven knows what in regards to economics
3) Risk world opinion running so low that sanction are imposed on _us_ for once. Especially if they use nukes, tactical or otherwise… IMHO Nothing short of impeachment and trial for war crimes is going to head that off i fnukes are used.
4) Hand the leadership over to China, India and the EU wheather they are ready for it or not (likey). Because US name = dirt at that point and rightly so.
That does not even cover the immediate morale or economic costs let alone pretty much kissing our troops in Iraq good bye when the Shia south rises up as one and cuts our supply lines….
Gaaaah, lose the last paragraph above, no edit on this thing? Ooops.
Damn … just … damn.
Here’s a question. If the administration launched air strikes on Iran what should congress do in response?
Invoke the War Powers Act? That still gives them 90 days to continue the strikes. It requires the administration “consult” with congress prior to launching a military offensive, but it doesn’t require aproval.
As I see it, the only way to prevent such an attack would be for congress to approve legislation making it illegal to do so in this specific case without congressional approval.
Could they get enough GOP support to override the inevitable veto?
Davebo,
Given the rhetoric coming out of the Dem front-runners for President, I don’t even think they have the guts to try to prevent a war with Iran.
Just listen to what they say about Iraq. Except for Gravel and Kucinich, they have no problem exercising the U.S. military preemptively. Their beef with the Iraq war is how it was carried out, not with strategic concerns or morality.
At which point Bush launches the strikes anyways and everyone just stares.
There is no enforcement available other than impeachment, and as of yet people just aren’t that scared. They truly do not fear the damage he can inflict.
[...] Efron Link to Article george w bush Rice Losing Internal “War†With Cheney Over Iran Military Action [...]
Egrubs,
I’d agree that would be possible. But wouldn’t such a blatant illegal act support the idea that impeachment is the only answer?
Especially considering the highly predictable results such a move would have on the situation in Iraq.
I can’t imagine impeachment. Just not gonna happen. I don’t want it to happen. Impeachment for bad policy is a bad, bad idea.
Egrubs,
In this case it wouldn’t be impeachment for bad policy. It would be impeachment for blatantly violating federal law.
At what point does impeachment become a good idea? Murder, child rape on the white house lawn?
Which we all know he is already doing with regards to wiretaps.
Congressional authority over a president is limited (and incompletely defined).
Murder and child rape on the white house lawn is different than going against a bill that Congress passes to limit presidential powers.
Even if the Supreme Court were to get involved (in such a short timeframe) and rule for Congress (unlikely), then the president could always ignore the Supreme Court (a la Andrew Jackson).
I don’t like the possibility, but … I am less than fond of increasing the frequency of impeachments. I believe there is legitimate cause to impeach Bush. I believe Gore might have legitimately won the 2000 election. I did not approve of Gore going legal. And I don’t like the idea of impeaching Bush for bad policy.
Only in the sense that the president can veto any legilsation offered by congress.
If that veto is overridden, the question is answered. It’s the law, and he is sworn to uphold it whether he likes it or not. If he ignores it, there has to be a price to pay.
I too abhor the idea of impeachment, but believe that Congress can’t shrink from using it if the circumstances call for it. If Bush/Cheney know Pelosi doesn’t have the guts to push for it, won’t they continue to rule in an imperial way? IMO, the founders put impeachment in the Constitution in case an executive acted to ignore constitutional limits in such a manner. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, so ignoring its checks and balances could be considered high crimes and misdemeanors- you wouldn’t have to have murder or rape.
Except as it has never made it to SCOTUS, there is still lingering questions as to whether the War Powers Act itself would survive that challenge. And it was specifically written to increase the chances of surviving a direct challenge, as almost all Congressman know enough about the Constitution that they cannot directly tell the President what he can do within his role of CIC.
They are limited to the Declaration of War, and the control of the budget. They could not pass a ‘law’ directing the President not to initiate military actions against a specific threat.
That said, it seems that for some time Presidents have been ‘allowed’ to effectively wage war without true declarations of war by Congress, or in response to an immediate attack by a foreign government’s forces.
Holly- we have to put our national interest ahead of Israel’s. Israel can act first to take the missiles out, or she can clearly convey to Iran the consequences of firing any of them at her citizens. We are already overcommitted.
Here is an Israelis news site which goes into greater detail than Holly’s source.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122979
The majority of the missiles are Scuds, which proved ineffective in Gulf War I. Israel now has Arrow and improved Patriot missile defense systems to counter the Iranian missiles. With all the threats from the US and Israel, is the Iranian missile story really a surprise? I doubt if the Iranians have any defense for Israelis Popeye cruise missile or the IAF.
With the wars in the ME going bad, why start a third front against a pending threat. Let Chris Hill talk instead of the Bolton wing bluster us into another mess.
Holly,
I wonder how much nuclear material the U.S. and Israel have pointed at Iran.
Pointing missiles or rockets is not some great crime. Hell, we have battlegroup right off Iran’s coast, how provocative is that?
Holly, you point out a threat to Israel. That’s fine, but I really missed the day Israel became the 51st state.
How far does the US have to go for Israel? To economic and military ruin? Why is it our obligation to keep that country safe? If Iran were to attack Israel we could justifiably, and with the help of allies, defend it. Frankly the interests of the US should be held WAY above the interests of Israel and no, they don’t always coincide. Israel causes no end of headaches and diverted blame to the US. We could have a very long discussion about whether this is fair or not, but that’s not my point. My point is that threat to Israel cannot be used as a justification for attacking Iran with US forces. War with Iraq has stressed the US economically and militarily, war with Iran might break it, and therefore must only be considered when ABSOLUTELY necessary, that is, if the threat is to the US, and imminent.
I don’t agree to seeing Israel as just another country, with no deep significance for the US.
Given the history of the persecution of Jews throughout the world, the survival of Israel should have deep meaning for all the Western world.
We should be looking for ways to stand by Israel without endangering either the US or Israel. A pre-emptive strike against Iran would have the worst possible consequences for Israel, as well as the US. Syria and the rest of the ME would not sit by in awe of either US or Israeli power. There would be a reaction of the worst kind. The reaction could well turn out to be a much greater threat to Israel’s survival than anything present today, and that’s bad enough. The last thing anyone should want to do is make it worse.
The word ‘pre-emptive’ to describe strikes at Iran is a misnomer at his point. It would be, instead, the
match that ignites a fatal conflagration The threats Israel endures today would look like child’s play by comparison, IMO>
think Israeli-US relations should remain at high priority.
Moonage,
Our military was in Vietnam for more than ten years, and during that time, the Communists didn’t carry out a single attack on American soil.
Perhaps, in your view, the this fact proves that the Vietnam War was a worthwhile endeavor?
The fact that the US mainland hasn’t been attacked in the last six years has nothing to do with going to war with Iraq. It’s a silly argument. I could point to dozens of six year periods in American history during which the US mainland hadn’t been attacked, but that none of those instances would justify American foreign policy at the time.
Apparently you have never heard of the Weathermen.
I can’t say I’d heard of the Weathermen either, so this was an interesting read. I’m sure it’s not comprehensive, but leftist does not equal communist.
No, but in this case it does. The Weathermen had explicitly embraced communist ideology and identity by the time they entered their “direct action” phase. Their statements from that time indicate clearly that they saw their cause as linked directly to the communist effort in Vietnam. Their biggest controversy was whether to embrace Leninist or Maoist variations.
My bad for failing to distinguish between foreign attacks on American soil and attacks made by left-wing anarchists.
The Vietnamese never attacked the US mainland during the Vietnam War.
The Koreans never attacked the US mainland during the Korean War.
The Spanish never attacked the US mainland during the Spanish-American War.
Moonage’s line of thinking (the US mainland hasn’t been attacked in six years, which was the main point of going into those countries in the first place) would imply that these wars were either justified or successful based on the fact that we didn’t suffer from a foreign attack.
Moreover, the very fact that Moonage lumps Iraq together with Afghanistan and cites an attack on the US mainland as being the main point of going to war with both countries makes me wonder if he’s one of the 40% of Americans who continues to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
Then again, perhaps I’m just reading too much into his comment.
Are you arguing that the only legitimate justification for the use of armed force is in response to a direct attack on the U.S. mainland?
Jason – Why don’t you enlighten us on your position on Iran. I know you have recommended diplomacy with the military option in reserve. Hypothetically, lets say it’s December, 2008 and Iran has successfully processed enriched uranium with no halt diplomatically in sight.
At that point, do you take military action? Air action only? Conventional or nuclear bunker busters? Do you seek UN authorization?
Actually, I’m arguing against Moonage’s argument that the fact that the US hasn’t been attacked in six years somehow legitimates the War in Iraq.
If not being attacked is the standard by which Moonage believes we ought to judge the Iraq War, then one has to wonder what to make of those countries that joined the “Coalition of the Willing” and were attacked.
The United Kingdom and Spain have both suffered terrorist attacks at the hands of Muslim terrorists since they joined the United States in invading Iraq. So the idea that invading Iraq has somehow contributed to our not being attacked doesn’t make any sense.
Consider Moonage’s line of reasoning:
- The U.S. government went to war with A.
- Since then, the U.S. mainland has not been re-attacked by B.
- Therefore, going to war with A was justified.
Resorting to such logic, I could make the follow argument:
- The U.S. government went to war with Korea.
- Since then, the U.S. mainland has not been re-attacked by Japan.
- Therefore, going to war with Korea was justified.
It’s a ridiculous argument. But that hasn’t stopped proponents of the war from making it these last four years.
yeah, chris it’s all bush’s fault. had he said Iran was a problem, the mad mullahs would have fallen all over themselves making nice to us. Tis a shame you’re so consumed by Bush hatred that you can’t see the complete and utter silliness of much of what you write.
it actually makes a lot of sense that Bush would sour on Rice’s diplomacy push. She, along with her predecessor, has accomplished nothing. No effective sanctions, no international coalition dedicated to making sure Iran doesn’t get nukes, nothing, just two years of allowing Iran to continue its work.
Of course, many of you argue that a failure to accomplish what you want through diplomacy is evidence that you haven’t offered enough concessions. To you, there’s no limit to how far you’re willing to bend over in the hopes that the other side will finally say ‘OK’ (btw, I love to find guys (gals) like you on the other side of the negotiating table). But for a whole lot of others (those who are both sane and realistic), diplomacy is not an end in of itself, nor is American foreign policy conducted ( as Chris seems to suggest) to win us friends. if the price of having friends is having nukes go off in NYC and DC, I’m not going to lose any sleep worrying about the lack of friends I have (unlike Chris, who thinks having tens of thousands of crispy fried Americans is a small price to pay for having other countries like us, right Chris?)
Kim: I agree that Iran is a different issue altogether from Al Qaeda. Will you agree that Bush’s incompetence ought to be separate from any rational discussion of what/how we should respond to Iran? And while I’m not willing to have Americans die to save Israel (self-hating Jew that I am), I don’t believe that Israel is the only target the Mad Mullahs have. And, given our history of backing Israel, failing to do so now would certainly be taken as yet another sign of weakness by those who don’t like us very much.
Now, on to the issue of using military force. The reason I think it appropriate is that (1) I think Iran is dead set on getting and using nukes (against not only Israel but also us) and (2) nothing short of pre-emptive military action will deter that from happening. I believe there are no sanctions or pressure or threat of retaliation that will deter the Mad Mullahs and, even if there were, our so-called allies would never agree to implement and enforce them. I understand military action is (1) dirty, (2) unlikely to totally eradicate the problem and (3) likely to have ramifications, economic and otherwise… but all of this pales to the fallout from Iran using the nukes I am convinced they are going to get and use.
Having said that, I have no confidence in Bush to get any of this right.
And please spare me the ’15 of 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia’ and ‘what does Iran have to do with 9/11′ and ‘Bush lied’. While Iran’s actions have been influenced by 9/11 and its aftermath (had Bush not botched Iraq, Iran might have been more willing to bend to pressure), I propose going after Iran because Iran pursuit of nukes is a threat to us. Is it a ‘slam dunk’? No, and it doesn’t matter. It’s up to the Iranians to prove to us that they’re no threat. And unlike a certain unnamed party, I’m more interested in protecting Americans than I am worried about poor Iranians getting caught in the crossfire.
Nick: I don’t claim to speak for him, but you may have misread his claim.
I read his argument as actions taken in one sphere can have ramifications elsewhere… and I don’t think that is unreasonable. For example, given how badly Bush has botched Iraq and the extent of the anti-Bush/anti-war sentiment at home may very well have encouraged the Iranians to take a more aggressive position. and hypothetically, if Bush were to order nuclear strikes on Pakistan’s military and research facilities, is it unreasonable to think the Iranians might be a bit hesitant to tout their progress in building nukes?
Having said that, I don’t see how our being in Iraq has kept Al Qaeda from attacking us. It’s possible that our military being in Iraq has been, as Bush once said, served as ‘flypaper’ and has attracted all of the terrorists that would otherwise come here, but I think that a long shot. I think the Al Qaeda in Iraq are opportunists taking advantage of the closeness and home court advantage to go after us and that they wouldn’t have come to the US. Now, as to why other Al Qaeda cells haven’t been able to pull off an encore, I have no real idea, but I thank God every night that they haven’t.
I would say the KKK were more violent than a bunch of misguided rich white kids from the midwest and Columbia. The Europeans elect Socialists and Communists, enough of the Horowitz crap.
Strum how are the Iranians going to make “thousands of crispy fried Americans”? A Little Boy or Fatman strapped to a Scud with duct tape? Israel has both minaturized nukes and delivery systems, both cruise missiles and ICBM. Iarn has nothing close.
You may notice that I posted a news item – not an opinion. Here’s the opinion:
1) Threats from Iran need to be taken very, very seriously. Don’t be an ostrich.
2) The US is highly-dependent upon the State of Israel.
3) Missile attacks on Israel might kill thousands of US citizens and thousands of European nationals.
1) Not being an ostrich does not equate to being Bam-Bam from the Flinstones.
2) Uh….no.
3) Missile attacks on Israel would be a very bad thing, but going around blasting everyone who threatens Israel with annihilation didn’t seem to be necessary during its first 55 years.
Proponents of military action against Iran have never answered a few basic questions:
1. Are we absolutely, positively sure we know where Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities are?
2. Are we absolutely, positively sure those facilities (assuming they exist) are not in civilian population centers?
3. Are we absolutely, positively sure that Iran won’t respond to an attack by attacking our troops in Iraq?
4. Are we absolutely, positively sure that Iran won’t respond to an attack by blockading the Hormuz Strait?
5. Are we absolutely, positively sure that the rest of the Arab world won’t respond to an attack on Iran by attacking us?
a. Pakistan has nukes, BTW.
b. And Mushareff is hanging onto power by a thread.
6. Are we absolutely, positively sure that an aerial assault on Iran won’t need to be followed up by ground forces?
a. If not, where will we get those ground forces?
7. Considering what a FUBAR Bush-Cheney have made of Iraq and Afghanistan, why do you think they’ll do any better in Iran?
8. How many civilian casualties, and how much global economic disruption, do you consider acceptable in a war with Iran?
9. What are you prepared to do if:
a. It turns out Iran was not, in fact, anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon (“anywhere near” to be defined as “not within the next 5 years”).
b. Attacking Iran leads to a bloodbath throughout the entire Mid-East.
c. Attacking Iran leads to numerous terrorist attacks on US soil.
d. Attacking Iran results in over one million deaths and a global recession.
e. Some other country – Pakistan, or China, or even N Korea – responds to attacks on Iran by declaring war on the US?
When sane people devise war scenarios, they don’t just assume that Plan A will work without a hitch every time; they also look at the result of Plan A not working at all. That’s how sane people decide whether going to war is worth it.
“Worth it” doesn’t mean getting your ya-yas out. It doesn’t mean kicking a lot of Arab butt. It doesn’t mean doubling down to recoup the losses your incompetence have already cost you.
“Worth it” means you have specific outcomes in mind – that is, specific outcomes that are positive, that make your country and the world safer or better than it was – that your tactics and strategy can actually achieve.
“Actually achieve” means your strategy and tactics make sense in and of themselves, and don’t rely on wishful thinking.
Proponents of war against Iran refuse to answer those questions, or abide by those definitions of terms, because they know they can’t. Proponents of war against Iran assume that Iran will just fold up and cower in a corner after an attack, or that a few million dead and a global economic meltdown are acceptable prices to pay (to get rid of a nuclear menace that doesn’t exist) without any thought of what those things mean.
Proponents of war against Iran seem to want Gotterdammerung, purely for its own sake. There’s a word for that: nihilism.
Holly Since you brought this up, the Jerusalem Post has an article about the response to an act on Iran. These experts venture to say that may, if not more death would result outside of Israel due to terrorism, like in Argentina.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459203248&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
My reading of the article doesn’t give me an impression that Israel is in danger of imminent attack by Iran. But such an attack might set the ME ablaze and terror attacks outside of Israel. The implication of this is that more Jews and others would die outside of Israel than the number of victims in Israel. Does this justify an attack on Iran for WMD’s that don’t even exist at this time?
The chance that Iran could process uranium to weapons grade (which is WAY higher than the fuel grade that they are currently struggling with) in that period of time is quite low.
The distinction between weapons grade purification and fuel grade purification will also be useful to differentiate Iran’s intentions. If it stops at the fuel grade purification level, then Iran’s claims of peaceful intent with its nuclear program will be much more credible. If it moves on towards weapons grade purification, I think concerns about Iran’s building nuclear weapons will be legitimate.
Because of the risks involved, I don’t support military action against Iran except as a true last resort. Unless there is evidence not only of weapons grade uranium, but also of the ability to match it to a delivery system, I don’t think an attack is justified. IF Iran met those conditions AND if Iran continued to threaten genocide against Israel, however, a military attack may be justified by the resulting confluence of capabilities and intentions. Remember, capabilities + intentions = threat.
But we aren’t even close to that yet and we won’t be before the end of Bush’s term. Unless there suddenly emerges a mass of credible evidence (i.e. a multinational consensus among intelligence agencies — not just U.S. sources) that Iran is far, far more advanced than current evidence has them being, there are no conditions under which I would support a military attack on Iran in the near term future.
If President Bush pressed forward with an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization (which I don’t think is coming no matter how much “ground-laying” might be attempted), I would join the ranks of those calling for impeachment.
Casey:
1. Are we absolutely, positively sure we know where Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities are? No, and it doesn’t matter where all of their facilities are. It’s not necessary to get everything, just enough to disrupt production. The analogy is crippling down GM doesn’t require blasting every factory.
2. Are we absolutely, positively sure those facilities (assuming they exist) are not in civilian population centers? No, and I don’t care. I’m not having my and my fellow Americans safety held hostage to where the Iranians have placed their nuclear facilities.
3. Are we absolutely, positively sure that Iran won’t respond to an attack by attacking our troops in Iraq?
4. Are we absolutely, positively sure that Iran won’t respond to an attack by blockading the Hormuz Strait? No, and again, I don’t care. Actually, I do, but the costs associated with a temporary loss of oil is much smaller than if Iran had and used nukes.
5. Are we absolutely, positively sure that the rest of the Arab world won’t respond to an attack on Iran by attacking us? No, and while I think attacking Iran might make it less likely others will attack us, like the Iranians closing the straits, the costs of them attacking us are far smaller than Iran having and using nukes. Besides, the Arabs haven’t been able to get rid of Israel, you really think they’re going to come after us?
a. Pakistan has nukes, BTW. So? They hate India more than they hate us, attack on Iran or not, and they haven’t used them against India.
b. And Mushareff is hanging onto power by a thread.
6. Are we absolutely, positively sure that an aerial assault on Iran won’t need to be followed up by ground forces? Actually, I figure we’d probably need to send in ground troops, but not, as in Iraq, to occupy the country, but rather, as I would have done in Iraq, only for the purpose of investigating and destroying suspicious facilties.
a. If not, where will we get those ground forces? from Iraq.
7. Considering what a FUBAR Bush-Cheney have made of Iraq and Afghanistan, why do you think they’ll do any better in Iran? I don’t. however, they can probably be counted on to let the military handle the attacks. It is the aftermath Bush has screwed up.
8. 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. As for the economics, again, the costs are likely to be less than the alternatives.
9. What are you prepared to do if:
a. It turns out Iran was not, in fact, anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon (â€anywhere near†to be defined as “not within the next 5 yearsâ€). I’d look at it as Iran’s own fault. They have the ability (as did Hussein) to prove to our satisfaction that they’re not doing anything we can/should interpret as hostile. Their failure to destroy their program and allow us unfettered access to each and every site we wish is what led to their problems, so they can clean their own mess up. No Powell-ish ‘breaking it, fixing it’ here.
b. Attacking Iran leads to a bloodbath throughout the entire Mid-East. no problem, as I consider that to be an unfortunate, but entirely acceptable consequence of making sure America stays free from attack.
c. Attacking Iran leads to numerous terrorist attacks on US soil. aside from the obligatory swipe by saying that Iran is already killing Americans, the two are not connected, since terrorists are not refraining out of attacking America because they don’t have a good reason. The only reason we haven’t been attacked, is for whatever reason, they haven’t been able to pull it off…. not because they don’t want to. BTW, think about that the next time you blast the so-called illegal wiretaps, the extraordinary interrogation techniques and the thousands of detainees held in Cuba and elsewhere
d. Attacking Iran results in over one million deaths and a global recession. heck, as long as they’re not American deaths, que sera, que sera. And, repeating myself, the economic impact of a nuclear strike in Israel, Europe and/or the US would be far worse.
e. Some other country – Pakistan, or China, or even N Korea – responds to attacks on Iran by declaring war on the US? The idea of someone coming after the US is too ludicrous to imagine. As I sort of said in an earlier comment, the last thing some other country is going to do is pick a fight with us after we’ve shown a willingness – and ruthlessness – to go after those we think intend us harm.
How’s that?
sorry, forgot to answer #3. They’re already attacking us in Iraq. Were they to do so openly, that would be stupid on their part, and I suspect, would lead to a rapid degradation of their combat capabilities. Given the social pressure they face at home, I doubt they’d be willing to risk their base for maintaining power.
Ahem – there have already been numerous terror attacks on Jews outside of Israel. Look around!
The US is technologically and scientifically dependent upon the State of Israel.
According to Reuters in September 2004, an estimated 250,000 U.S. citizens live in Israel (America’s fifth-largest community abroad).
Many other Israelis hold Canadian or European citizenship.
In addition, many more Westerners are studying, working or visiting in Israel at any given time.
One young lady from my synagogue made aliyah last year and is now serving in the IDF. Another one makes aliyah in 3 weeks.