Steve Clemons does more Iran-related thinking in one post than I do all week, so the least you can do is give it a read. This passage surprised Kevin Drum:
Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel who ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to Maretz left thought that the tone of the AIPAC conference had been too shrill and that Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage.
In the past, I’ve been occasionally critical of Israeli influence over U.S. decisionmakers when I felt that American and Israeli national security interests were not as convergent in some respective case as some argued. However, in this instance on Iran, Israel’s national security thinkers and diplomats are on the side of logic — and it is in American national interests to hear the Israeli position and consider the roots of their surprising position.
It might sound strange that US strategic thinkers (insofar as we have any) are scaring Israel with their belligerence, but I don’t see why it should surprise anybody. Before 9/11 the Republicans dismissed diplomacy as effeminate buffoonery. After 9/11 they viewed it as an inconvenient impediment to getting their war on. The common thread that runs through both conservative and Republican thinking these days (those two have increasingly become different things) is a faith in the weakness and general futility of international consensus and diplomacy as a way of solving given problem X.
Any diplomatic solution to the Iran “crisis” won’t be a game for amateurs. Unfortunately when you look at our diplomatic talent pool amateurs is what we have. The career diplomats left Foggy Bottom years ago and left behind a cadre of underage hacks, crony hires, neocons and Condoleeza Rice. As the old adage says (more or less), we have a government convinced that diplomacy doesn’t work and determined to prove it.
The choice is even more obvious for an administration for whom policy always serves politics. Diplomacy takes work, it takes time and it demands significant, sometimes painful compromises. Compromise doesn’t sell. Say that we convince Iran to back down from its enrichment-based power program in return for American aid in building a network of more-modern reactors that don’t risk nuclear proliferation. It would take the talk-radio fuzzboxes five minutes to figure out that we’re paying Iran when we could have just bombed them instead. Even if we had the talent to pull it off the result would be red-state suicide.
Politically-speaking, war sells. The shellshocked GOP of ’06 would love nothing more than to turn the dial back to those glory days in the summer of ’02 when you just had to run a picture of Osama or Saddam next to a picture of Democratic candidate X and everybody immediately got what you were talking about. Candidate X thinks that we shouldn’t attack our enemies. Candidate X thinks that we should just sit back and let the terrorists take Topeka! Candidate X must hate America and want the terrorists to win. Because Candidate X hates war. That stuff was ballot-box magic. It’s hard to blame an elected Republican who wakes up from a long ’02 daydream and wants his war cudgel back. Of course war won’t work, unless by ‘work’ you mean a bloody expulsion from Iraq and the loss of a good portion of our Persian Gulf fleet. But that stuff comes later; before war gets mired in reality the general run-up makes for great politics.
You can color me shocked if our Iran policy amounts to anything more than a half-assed retread of Iraq ’02. The leadership doesn’t have the talent for diplomacy, the general idea offends them, and even if it works they a) risk getting punished for succeeding, and b) give up a chance for partisan gains in 11/06. The only remaining question is whether Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart will play along this time.
Perry Como
Corrected that for you, Tim.
stickler
The only remaining question is whether Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart will play along this time.
What? This is a question? Surely you mean a “rhetorical question.” Those two clowns will cluck and twitter but they’ll fall behind the New War Effort. They always do.
Brian
When I saw the headline of the post, I thought it said “One Prick Tonys”
tBone
What is it with all of the wiener jokes around here today? Did I miss a memo or something?
DougJ
I don’t find it surprising either. After all, Israel has to live with the consequences of failed invasions in a way that the United States doesn’t. They can’t afford to turn their foreign policy over to idealogues and hacks — Wolfowitzes and Rumsfelds.
I think that people misunderstand the connection between Israel and the neocons. Yes, most of the prominent neocons are Jewish and neocons are big supporters of Israel. But that doesn’t mean that they want the same thing that more reasonable members of the Israeli government want. It’s a mistake to think the neocons motivated primarily by interest in Israel. I think that their ideology really comes out of the the fact that their Trotskyism hasn’t been entirely reconstructed. They like the idea of a permanent revolution and the Middle East is a good playground for that, both because it has oil and because Israel is there.
Here’s something that occurred to me the other day: we’ve heard a lot of stories about the Chalabi gang was in bed with Iranian intelligence, which indicates to me that Iran really wanted us to go into Iraq. I haven’t heard stories like this about Israel. I realize that Israel supported the Iraq war, but if they were really gung-ho about it, they would have helped cook up fake intelligence about WMD and the like. The fact they didn’t seems to indicate that they weren’t quite as hawkish about Iraq as some might think.
Sorry for the Al Maviva-like length of this post.
p.lukasiak
what we are likely to see is a retread of the 2002 campaign, with Iran substituting for Iraq in 2006 — but there will be no attack on Iran in 2007.
With the exception of shrub, no one is stupid enough to consider an actual military attack on Iran — threats and sabre rattling for domestic political consumption, sure, but anyone who “war games” an attack on Iran realizes that the US loses the “war”…..
DougJ
Tbone, we’re dealing with a major stud here. In case you didn’t know, Brian had his way with a newspaper route hottie at the young age of 14. Call him the Wilt Chamberlain of the internet.
DougJ
The only remaining question is whether Tom Friedman and Peter Beinart will play along this time.
I guess yes on Beinart and no on Friedman. Don’t get me wrong — I hate Friedman, but I don’t think he’s as fueled by Joementum as Beniart is.
Brian
Does anyone else see the irony in a commenter named tBone asking about weiner jokes? Or do I have a one track mind?
As for Iran, I am nervous about how this is going to play out. Even I have my misgivings about the admin’s ability to defuse this. I think that Iran will rattle sabers for the next couple years until, hopefully, someone less threatening than Bush is occupying the WH.
DougJ
I see irony, Brian.
But, frankly, I thought that irony died on 911. Seems to me you’re stuck in a pre-911 mode of thinking.
tBone
Yes.
But then, you were corrupted by that lacivious route-hottie at an early age, so I guess it’s understandable.
I don’t know. I think you could put Friedman, Beinart and Frist together and still not have enough backbone to hold a jellyfish together.
Skip
John said: “most of the prominent neocons are Jewish and neocons are big supporters of Israel. But that doesn’t mean that they want the same thing that more reasonable members of the Israeli government want.”
And then:
” Israel supported the Iraq war, but if they were really gung-ho about it, they would have helped cook up fake intelligence about WMD and the like. ”
Wow. John not only isn’t right, he isn’t even wrong.First, in the case of the neocons and the “reasonable Israelis,” they did indeed want the same thing: SH’s Iraq in chaos, but NOT a “free, united, democratic Iraq— because that Iraq would still emphatically tell Israel to kiss off (witness the Hamas win).
Second, Israel DID supply a good part of our bad intel, to say nothing of the expert supervision of the interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib. Or are we to believe those rubes from Cumberland, MD cooked up those specific Moslem-targeted humiliations on their own?
gratefulcub
Why are you apologizing for making a complex point instead of a one line snarky joke or spoof?
metalgrid
In the wake of that post, I think this quote from Lew Rockwell boils it down to fewer words:
[quote]
conservatism has always been messianic, militarist, nationalist, bloodthirsty, imperialist, centralist, redistributionist, and in love with the hangman state.
[/quote]
Anderson
Why are you apologizing for making a complex point instead of a one line snarky joke or spoof?
Yeah, DougJ, you were really smart for a minute there. ;)
Par R
Actually, he was channeling a modestly reformed Noam Chomsky.
DougJ
You’re giving it away again, Par. I can’t spoof here anymore so I have to live vicariously.
jg
Well I don’t know about Cumberland, MD but over here in Phoenix, AZ we have access to this thing called the internets and from there its pretty easy to learn enough about islam to properly torture a follower. No help from Israel required.
searp
We won’t attack Iran. Too many bad things could happen. I say that assuming that the government uses at least some logic in formulating policy rather than letting radio talk show hosts tell them what to do.
The interesting battle may be the “who lost Iran?” battle, followed in the distant future by ping-pong or soccer diplomacy.
We are busily creating another Cuba out of Iran, and it won’t work. “Diplomatic isolation” and “economic sanctions” don’t even work for a small island that nobody cares about, these techniques won’t work at all with Iran, a strategically vital country with a lot of oil to sell. We have had a brain dead policy in this area for almost a generation, and I don’t expect it to change soon. Stalemated by our own stupidity.
KC
I got in a conversation with a friend at work about attacking Iran yesterday. Like a lot of people, I told him attacking Iran was an impossibility, that we’d have to be nuts or stupid to do it, especially with all the troops we have in Iraq. He then looked at me and asked, “Did I ever say that sane and intelligent people were in charge right now?”
Pb
Remember folks, Iran is Bush’s exit strategy–he’s going to withdraw the troops from Iraq… and into Iran. And then we’ll unite their peoples, and create the new Democratic state of Iranq. And for an encore, we’ll convert them all to Christianity. Man am I ever glad that Bush can’t get re-elected. Ugh.
ppGaz
Look! Cynthia McKinney has spinach in her teeth!
Steve
I think there is virtually no chance that we will invade Iran. Call me naive if you like.
ppGaz
Naive? Well, it’s a reality based opinion … we don’t really have the forces readily available to tackle an invasion of Iran. Iran is not going to be a cakewalk like Iraq was. It would be a real war, an ugly war, a bloodbath, IMO.
Zifnab
So here’s a fun hypothetical. Let’s say that on the eve of January ’07, right before the House or Senate can potentially change hands, Bush decides to up and invade Iran for our own safety. WMDs! Al Queda! We’re really super sure we found Osama bin Laden this time! Whateva.
So we plunge head first into another trillion dollar war right before the Democrats take office. What do the Democrats do?
Can they pull out of an invasion the country literally just put its foot into? Can they rebuke the President if a Republican minority decides to shut down Congress while our troops flounder in the Middle East?
What I’m invisioning is scary. It’s disgusting and vile, from a patriots perspective. But is it possible to play the US Military like a sacrifical pawn, toss us head first into a war the Republicans know we can’t win, and then pass the hot potatoe to the Democrats while they hide behind their Right Wing Spin Machine as the shit hits the fan? Or am I just being paranoid?
Par R
Zifnab says:
I do believe it is at least possible. It could be that YOU are channeling Cynthia McKinney, however.
KC
What if we just bomb Iran? I mean, I do find it unlikely we’ll invade. However, I see it as entirely possible that we drop a few big ones on wherever the administration claims their nuclear facilities are.
Krista
You should be. You’re deviating from your usual M.O.
Poor scs will have to start analyzing all of your posts from scratch.
The Other Steve
I believe the word you’re looking for is “Military Coup”.
Seriously, I can’t see anybody agreeing to that, unless Iran were to launch an attack.
If the Democrats want to regain the mantle of security, they need to start pointing out that Republicans cause more problems than they solve. That is, they may sound tough, but really it’s because they speak from a position cowardice and their rhetoric is their attempt to overcome that feeling.
RonB
Most military folks I know say yes, Iran is next, but they’re no more in the know than any of us here. My opinion is we are not going. You know what the boss says…fool me once…you can’t fool me again. Sabers will rattle, but we will just talk, as we do with NK.
lard lad
Suicidal, KC. Iran keeps their nuclear facilities in heavily populated areas, so bombing would take out thousands — maybe tens of thousands — of civilians. At that point, the Shiites in Iraq (and elsewhere, of course) would go absolutely nuts, exploding in a wave of anti-US violence that would make the insurgency we’ve suffered thus far look like an ice cream social. Cutting and running from a major bloodbath would be the only option left to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
BushCo wants Iran’s scalp, to be sure… but they’ll never sacrifice Iraq to get it. Expect lots of saber-rattling and tough talk (until the November elections, anyhow), but precious little follow-through.
sebrendan
I certainly hope we don’t invade/attack Iran. I don’t think the Bush administration will do it either.
But then again, I thought we wouldn’t invade Iraq. It seemed like too obvious a chance to recreate the Yugoslavia situation…
Llelldorin
DougJ, if you start issuing clever, complex posts along with the artistic pseudotrolling, pretty soon every comment on this site will be attributed to you.
“OK, game’s up—that post was long and clever, like DougJ in discourse mode. You’re really DougJ!”
All that remains is for you to create a bunch of fake usernames to accuse other people of being DougJ, and we can all go off and drink coffee for awhile.
Llelldorin
What exactly would we invade Iran with? Postal inspectors? Americorps? Crack USGS strike teams who will spread throughout the country and send back 5m DEMs?
The bombing option is the one I’m most worried about, because if lard lad is correct, it has all the hallmarks of the sort of plan this administration LOVES. Loud, dramatic, deeply stupid: check, check, and check.
Pb
Llelldorin,
Illegal immigrants?
For more details on how exactly we should invade Iran, and why it’s so deeply necessary that we do so, check out Red State, they’re crazy about it over there.
Crazy.
OCSteve
Tim:
Why the scare quotes on Iran “crisis”? That would indicate to me that you don’t believe there is in fact any crisis…
And exactly who is being belligerent lately? Who is it rattling sabers (and torpedoes and missiles) this week?
American aide? Buy them off? That worked so well with NoKo…
Diplomacy doesn’t work and determined to prove it – exactly what has been going on for the last year? Did I miss where we imposed sanctions or bombed them? You are slamming US diplomacy while it has been international diplomacy failing miserably over the last year. For the most part we have tried to stay out of it and let the international community (thought so highly of by the left) handle it. Bang up job they have done. We should not resort to war, that would be unilateral and irresponsible and nothing but a political ploy – yet somehow the diplomacy is now our responsibility, even though we have tried to leave it up to others.
Exactly what diplomacy would pass muster with you? Diplomacy will be oh so much easier after their first nuke test…
Nobody seriously wants another front in this war – but I don’t even know what point you are trying make here. US diplomatic efforts suck even though we have mostly left it up to others so it’s a foregone conclusion we are going to war to score political points for 06. Even though I generally disagree with you I normally understand where you are coming from but you lost me this time.
Tim F.
As Clemons notes, the AIPAC conference accurately reflects current thinking in the Executive branch. So the answer is both us and them.
If you seriously believe that then I can understand why my post would make little sense to you. Don’t make the mistake of projecting your reasonable pragmatism on the people whom you elected.
Bob In Pacifica
Is “Iran” a “crisis”? I thought that “illegal immigration” was the “crisis” this week.
When is the NFL draft? This is a “crisis draft” for the Niners this year.
Mr Furious
A great post, Tim. Lots to ponder in there.
fwiffo
It’s a bit off-topic, but the comments in that thread remind me of what sort of lengths some wingers will go to hate Bill Clinton, even going as far as to side with Slobodan Milosevic and nod approvingly at his acts of genocide. I mean, I never even liked Clinton that much myself, but sentiments like that either represent an profound ignorance of the Balkins or pure unadulterated insanity.
I plainly hate George W. Bush and his policies. But I’m not gonna say “those Kurds had it coming when Hussein gassed ’em.”
Pb
fwiffo,
Definitely insanity, resulting in–amongst other things–willful ignorance.
Of course, the specifics of that whole encounter were in dispute, seeing as how it took place during the Iran-Iraq war:
The Other Steve
I’m not certain you can make a valid argument there considering we never followed through with our side of the “buying off”.
On the other hand you look at Libya. Well, ok, so he tried to have the Saudi’s assassinated… but other than that, he did drop his belligerance in return for us buying his oil.
Anderson
Don’t make the mistake of projecting your reasonable pragmatism on the people whom you elected.
Well said, Tim F. “These guys CAN’T be that dumb … because I *voted* for them … so what would that make *me*?…”
LITBMueller
Well, there will be one major difference: this time, Bush won’t seek any sort of Congressional resolution/authorization. It will just happen, and the Administration will respond to any outcry with their now battled-tested “inherent authority” and “it was already authorized by the AUMF” arguments. The Congressional Republican majority (even if it is 2007 – DIEBOLD!) will just say “Well, OK, then, George…whatever you want!”
DougJ: your discussion of the Neocon motive is spot on. What they want is hegemony, pure and simple. That’s a fancy word for “empire.”
DougJ
Isn’t that the sad truth.
tbrosz
You kind of missed OCSteve’s main point, which is that the U.N. and international community have been trying diplomacy with Iran until they’re blue in the face. How’s that been working? Or is it your contention that the U.N. and international community don’t have any decent diplomats either?
Who would you send from the Democratic bench to talk to Iran? What would they tell them?