More Neocon Cleverness on Iran

"The report warns that the next administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It explores such strategies as blockading Iran’s gasoline imports, but it also says that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”

Its authors include Dennis Ross, top Mideast adviser to Mr. Obama, and former Senator Dan Coats, a McCain adviser.

Ashton Carter, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, wrote a paper for the Center for a New American Security, a prestigious bipartisan think tank, that asserts military action must be seen as only one component of a comprehensive strategy, “but it is an element of any true option.”

At a conference in September in Virginia sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “surrogates” for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama insisted America must focus on preventing Iran from developing a bomb, not on allowing Iran to produce one and then deterring its use.

“John McCain won’t wait until after the fact,” declared the columnist Max Boot, from the McCain team. The Arizona senator has previously said risking military action may be better than living with an Iranian nuclear weapon (and to his regret jokingly sang a song about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran)."  NY Times

-------------------------------------------------------------

What does this "new thing" amount to?

The Jacobin neocons have developed a more sophisticated "bi-partisan" approach to moving the United States to war against Iran.

Dennis Ross is a principle figure in an Israeli think-tank dedicated in its mission statement to the advancement of the interests of the Jewish People.  When he took that position he was asked if it was seemly for a former US Ambassador who more or less ran the Peace Process as a guarantor of US neutrality to accept such a role.  His reply was that he thought it was.  After all, he said "they are my people."  I suppose Palestinians could be forgiven for doubting that he was ever neutral.

Max Boot?  This is a joke.  This guy has built a career on saying and writing things like the Times quote above.  I was on a panel with him once and remember all too well the extremity of his opinions.

The "Washington Institute for Near East Policy"  is AIPAC's wholly owned subsidiary.  It exists to serve what it sees as Israel's interests.  It is one of a galaxy of AIPAC satellites in Washington.  JINSA, BENS, AEI.  The list is long.

Let us be clear.  It is ISRAEL.  ISRAEL.  ISRAEL that would be threatened by Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon and delivery means.  It is ISRAEL that does not believe in nuclear deterrence.  You know, MAD (mutual assured destruction).  MAD is the deterrent strategy that allowed the world to survive the Cold War, but it is not good enough for Israel.  An Iranian nuclear threat to Europe or the US is so far away in time that it is not even a cloud seen on a far horizon.

The Israeli military knows that unless it uses nuclear weapons, it can not successfully attack Iran without US assistance.  That is why the neocons are now trying to propagandize the American political parties and the American people into supporting a US war against Iran.

Iran is a state.  Iran has "state Interests."  Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces.  Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces.

It is my considered opinion that Iran would not yield to a US air campaign.  Such a campaign would be merely the "first round" in a long war, eventually involving a ground war in that huge country, but that would probably be a desired outcome for the neocons.

How many of you think that the US can not deal with Iran without war?  How many?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03mon4.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Comments

[J.R. Bradford]

Col. Lang,

I'm a little curious how much any of this really has to do with "dealing with Iran".

It seems to me that the views of this group have long since ceased to pursue such (relatively) rational goals as geopolitical power balancing.

Who stands to gain from having American Forces engaged in a war (air or otherwise) with Iran. Is this gain dependent on an actual military victory?

[Brett]

Iran is case-in-point of a situation that defies simplification - and any simplistic (final) solutions sought will likely lead to egg on the US' face.

[Bill W, NH, USA]

Laughing here, I'm still trying to figure out how the Iraq War was in the best interest, or even the smallest interest, for the United States.

Start a dialogue, open respective embassies, resume trade not just with Iran but with Cuba and all the rest of the "rogue" states.

[Dave of Maryland]

How many of you think that the US can not deal with Iran without war? How many?

Since you ask, I think American diplomacy is absurd. The easiest thing to do is negotiate. Easiest thing in the world, in fact. Anybody who cannot talk his way into a mutually satisfactory agreement with the Iranians is unfit to serve in Washington. That's what we've got mouths for. That's what we've got brains for.

Would a US-Iranian agreement be tricky? Sure, it would be tricky. Would it be hard? Sure, it would be hard. That's why we have - or should have - trained, inspired diplomatic professionals. This isn't a job for amateurs, but it is a job that can be done. Without question.

Why do we even consider absurd military options? What mother will give her son to die because of diplomatic stupidity?

Surely our host remembers the days when US college campuses were riddled with SAVAK agents. Iran isn't the tiger it used to be.

The tricky part, the hard part, has nothing to do with the Iranians. The tricky part is selling the result to American Jacobins. That's where I throw up my hands.

So here's a question for you: How do we deal with our own warmongers? Must we pacify them with blood? Or will we be forced to "declare war" & suppress them outright? By less than democratic means? Where are the diplomats to negotiate with them? With what promise of success? And will they abide by any agreement anyway?

[lina]

President Obama will go to Iran. He will deliver a speech at a major university, he will walk the streets and shop in the markets in Tehran, and he will speak directly to the Iranian people.

[Jackie Shaw]

I'm with Bill and Dave. The U.S. position since the late 70's regarding Iran reminds me of our stance regarding Cuba since the late 50's.

Here is the thing that has puzzled me, is Iran really after a bomb or nuclear power for electricity? If it is just nuclear power, why conflate that with a bomb?

[zanzibar]

At the threshhold of a historical election at least in metaphorical terms the question of how the Obama administration will act if they sweep into power lingers on. We know so little.

Dennis Ross, exClintonista - now clearly a neocon as the Middle East advisor. Is this a fig leaf to AIPAC from Obama or the real deal? What about Mark Lippert? Is he another neocon or of the common sense school? Who else has Obama's ear?

I suppose we will know in a few weeks who the key players in the next administration will be. That should tell us a lot.

I just can't believe there are some who would contemplate another Middle East war considering we are trying to extricate ourselves from another. No matter the evidence I truly will be surprised if the American people and Congress will be suckered another time.

[Will]

the Persicos sells Petroleum to the Franks. It is in their best interests to maintain stable trade.

Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad does not go around saying Judae Delandi Est (Israel MUST be destroyed). The prhaseology he uses echoes a saying of the Ayatollah Khomeini about the Soviet Union vanishing from the pages of history through the passage of time.

Signs of Change: Even Olmeret recognizes that the occupation of the West Bank cannot continue. Encouraging was Colin Powell's support of American Mulims on Meet the Press. The Washington Post editorial mockery of McCain's American-Palestinian Professor baiting (The Idiot Wind).

Of course the Obama Baby is a secret Muslim-Palestinian sympathizer. He has to dissemble and mute his voice to get elected. But wait and see. He will knock some heads together when he gets elected.

Returning to a previous thread, who was the most successful crusader? A model for negotiation in the Middle East. Frederick II, Stupendo Mundi- the wonder of the world, who won Jerusalem w/o an arrow strung or a swordblow, thru parley and simpatico, all the while during his excommunication. From the wiki:

"Even with the military orders on board, Frederick's force was a mere shadow of the army that had amassed when the crusade had originally been called. He realised that his only hope of success in the Holy Land was to negotiate for the surrender of Jerusalem as he lacked the manpower to engage the Ayyubid empire in battle. Frederick hoped that a token show of force, a threatening march down the coast, would be enough to convince al-Kamil, the sultan of Egypt, to honor a proposed agreement that had been negotiated some years earlier, prior to the death of al-Muazzam, the governor of Damascus. The Egyptian sultan, occupied with the suppression of rebellious forces in Syria, agreed to cede Jerusalem to the Franks, along with a narrow corridor to the coast.
In addition, Frederick received Nazareth, Sidon, Jaffa and Bethlehem. Other lordships may have been returned to Christian control, but sources disagree. It was, however, a treaty of compromise. The Muslims retained control over the Temple Mount area of Jerusalem, the al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock. The Transjordan castles stayed in Ayyubid hands, and Arab sources suggest that Frederick was not permitted to restore Jerusalem's fortifications. The treaty, completed on February 18, 1229, safeguarded a truce of ten years." [The Turks subsequently took Jerusalem therafter]

[Binh]

It is my considered opinion that Iran would not yield to a US air campaign. Such a campaign would be merely the "first round" in a long war, eventually involving a ground war in that huge country, but that would probably be a desired outcome for the neocons.

I always found it strange that the neocons view war as the end and not the means to an end. That is part of the reason why there was no post-war planning in Iraq - the war was the end, not the means.

I suppose the war-as-the-end thinking has a lot to do with the fact that these neocons tend to be academics fighting for their point of view within the government bureaucracy or on the pages of their journals, not veterans or professionals with real world experience. Academics often get lost in the abstractions they create, whereas the rest of us live in the real world and think practical, concrete terms.

Petraues' request to talk to Syria was turned down by the White House in large part because refusing to talk is the end, not the means to an end.

[Ormolov]

Colonel,

It appears you have a failure of imagination on this issue. Allow me to put it into language you can understand:

Let's say the situation was reversed. Iran, a major military power, wanted to keep the USA from developing nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Toward this end, they send long-range bombers into our airspace and take out our command and control facilities at NORAD, throughout Colorado, the Dakotas, Georgia, and other targets primarily in the Midwest.

It is a natural reaction that the oppressed peoples of these regions will have so much love and gratitude for Iran that they will immediately pour from their homes waving the beautiful flags of Iran, proclaiming allegiance to Ahmedinejad, and taking up the ancient and honorable traditions of Iran, such as conservative Shia Islam.

What part of this do you NOT understand?

[Leila Abu-Saba]

I was just in Syria October 6-11. Every man I met in the souk in Damascus had a story about John Kerry's visit of several years ago. According to my informants, he bought a bottle of olive oil and some soap, and asked to tour the cobbler shops & try out some of their shoemaking tools. They remember John Kerry better than we do. He was in Damascus for a day, I think...

Whatever American bombs to do to people, they still want to meet Americans, they still want to touch Americans, they still want to believe in our better nature. The people of Damascus are still starry eyed because *John Kerry* paid them a visit.

[dan]

Heh.

On the face of it, there's nothing to "stop" the US from dealing diplomatically with Iran, normalising relations and working out some kind of non-dysfunctional relationship.....

Ali Ansari came up with a neat formulation: Iran is a bi-partisan trauma for the US polity. Whilst this has never been sufficient to get a war on, it has been more than adequate to prevent any serious diplomatic demarches. The Iranians have their own "issues" to deal with, but currently, all the political factions agree on the principle of improving relations with the US ( altho' they may well disagree on the "terms").

For the Dems, the Iranians "killed" Carter, and are at the root of their domestic electoral National security disadvantage.

For the Repubs, Iran-Contra came damned close to bringing the Reagan administration into utter disrepute.

No other foreign "power" has had such intrusive, negative impacts on the US polity.

DoM

I don't think that the American Jacobins can be "sold" on this - they're effectively representing an Israeli policy that has been in place since the end of the 1991 war, which aims to induce the US into reprising Desert Storm over Iran.

[Cold War Zoomie]

From the article...

Mr. Ross, who was top Mideast negotiator for the first President George Bush and for President Bill Clinton, said that in the prelude to Iraq, nearly all of the talk focused on military action. He says this time experts are taking a harder, more systematic look at all options — including force — because diplomatic efforts have failed to slow Iran’s rush to master nuclear technology.

Weren't there a couple of articles a few months ago about the Bush Admin starting to talk with Iran even just a little? My impression is that Bush didn't get serious about the diplomatic efforts until then. So to say that the diplomatic efforts have failed thus far really isn't saying much since Bush didn't try that hard in the first place.

I think we'll see this settle down next year if Obama wins tomorrow although this Ross guy worries me.

[johnf]

How much has AIPAC and its ability to buy the votes of politicians in Washington been affected by the recent meltdowns on Wall St?

[Byron Raum]

I must somewhat disagree with you, Binh, in that the reason the war is the end, as opposed to a means is not due to fuzzy thinking. It's quite simply due to a perceived need on the proponent's part of destroying the military and economic viability of the country in question. Once the country has been essentially destroyed, all goals have been fulfilled. What happens to the people who have the misfortune of inhabiting the country is mostly irrelevant.

[mo]

Is Ormolov's post serious, irony or sarcasm? I can't tell but its been published so it can't be serious

[praxis]

How many of you think that the US can not deal with Iran without war?

I do. the Iranians want, mostly, to change their relationship with us. We hold the cards, we can name our conditions. We just need to be willing to give a bit of something back in return. Something that neither Cheney, nor Bush (but he is really relevant at this point), nor McCain seem willing to do.

I really don't see why we shouldn't engage on those terms. And I absolutely do not see the wisdom of going after them military, which will be extraordinarily costly on us for a very unclear benefit, if at all...

[Andy]

I'm going to disagree with you just a little bit here, Col. Lang.

I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would not represent a threat to the US, but I think it's clear it would represent a threat to US and regional interests. While I'm not convinced Iran intends to obtain a weapons capability at this point (prior to 2003, I'm certain they were attempting to), there are many reasons to oppose Iran in any such endeavor that are not about support to Israel. Therefore, I think the goal of preventing/dissuading Iran from attaining nuclear weapons is worthy provided the means are sound.

What I remain unsure about is whether a credible threat of an attack is a deterrent to Iran or perhaps the opposite. I think it could be a deterrent, but only as part of a more comprehensive and intelligent policy on Iran - something sorely lacking in recent years.

It is my considered opinion that Iran would not yield to a US air campaign.

I agree, but I don't think that is the neocon's purpose in supporting a strike against Iran. The neocons seem to subscribe to the Israeli strategic doctrine (outdated, IMO) that only an enemy's capabilities, and not its motivations, can be influenced by Israel or the US. Therefore, the purpose of airstrikes would be about affecting Iran's capabilities since in the neocon world, deterrence and dissuasion are impossible. And here, I think, is the biggest non-policy argument against a strike: That it is not likely to achieve the stated objective. At best, Iranian capabilities would be set back by some small number of years. We only have to look next door for an example, where Saddam Hussein's commitment to building nuclear weapons never wavered. If not for the intervention of Desert Storm, Iraq would have achieved that goal despite the Osirak attack ten years earlier.

[Margaret Steinfels]

There's a story in today's Ha'aretz (November 3), http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1033597.html reporting Martin Indyk's endorsement of Obama in Israel. Indyk is former Ambassador (like Ross), member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (like Ross), and ardent Israel supporter (like Ross). How long before they're weaving their magic in an Obama Administration?

[PhilDS]

Dear Col Lang,

My first posting here.
(I'm from Belgium, thus a surender monkey liberal by birth so that might color my views.)

There is this thing that I have been wondering for a while.
Wouldn't Iran, even under the current regime, be the natural ally for the West in that region?

I understand there is bad blood since the revolution which causes us and them to fight proxy battles, but shouldn't a similar deal be made with them as with Kadaffi so that a fresh start can be made and bygones be bygones?
I think both sides would benefit. Iran would be better off economically due to open trade, and the cultural interaction between the West and Iran would be a boon for the pro-west side of its society (which exists) so that it would gain in influence.
For the West not having one of the major regional powers as an adversary would be a good thing, not to mention having Iran as counter balance against Saudi Arabia both politically and as a suplier of energy.

Or am I completely wrong and is there really an ingrained incompatibility between the West and Iran.

[FDChief]

To assume that war is the answer assumes that the question is "How does the U.S. completely eliminate ANY potential challenge to a southwest Asian Pax Americana?" And this question flows from an assumption: that a powerful U.S. sphere of influence in the Gulf region is critical to U.S. international relations and national security.

So, if the last statement is true, and if what you're looking for is a fairly overwhelming U.S. sphere of influence in that region, Iran is the only real potential regional power. You HAVE to take down the regional power regardless of the cost; in fact, the cost is immaterial to the result.

If the original statement is wrong - if the region is NOT critical to U.S. security and international standing, then you risk falling into the "Netherlands Trap" - you expend a nationally impoverishing quantity of treasure in pursuit of a marginal gain, as 16th and 17th Century Spain did in the Low Countries. By the time you realize that you can't get what you want from your efforts you've expended so much national prestige and national treasure that you've weakened yourself to a point where your truly existential rivals (which, fortunately, the U.S. is lacking at the moment) begin to eye your foreign possessions and even your home country with appraising eyes.

We're the Great Power: stability and predictability benefit us more than chaos and the potential for destabilizing and failing a state, especially one as regionally significant as Iran. The potential downside of a war gone seriously off the predicted track seems much greater then the upside from an optimistically short and productive attack. Carrot and stick seems more likely to produce a workable result than all stick...

So, can we deal with Iran short of war?

Sure.

My question would be to put it the other way: would we gain enough FROM war to make a protracted war with Iran (assuming, as I do, that airstrikes would merely widen into a low-intensity, probably proxy, war fought with U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and naval forces in the Gulf) worth the expected increased risk of geopolitical and military stalemate and entrapment in the politics of the Middle East?

I can't see how. Short of occupying the country (a risky, probably impossible and certainly insanely costly and difficult task) the substitution of the rule of the mullahs with a friendly regime seems unlikely, or chancy at best. And as we found out in Iraq, rolling the iron dice risks coming up snake eyes as much or more than it promises a natural.

[J]

Colonel,

IRAN IS NO THREAT TO WE THE U.S.! Let Israel's government chickenhawks go and stuff their warmongering heads in a toilet. I'm sick of seeing Americans dying/risking life & limb for a greedy, hateful, and obnoxious Israeli government.

Israel's government has the blood of slain USS Liberty crew members, and 241 U.S. Marines who died in Beirut dripping from their Israeli hands, since both could have been avoided if Israel had not intentionally targeted the Liberty, and Mossad's head had 'shared' with the U.S. the critical intel the Mossad head weenies were in possession of regarding the Beirut Barracks bombing.

Israel has American blood on their hands.

[Dimbulb]

Why is it that no matter what course is proposed - forceful action, diplomacy, or both - that as part of the deal we do not ask for Israel to agree to give up it's nuclear weapons, and allow for IAEA inspections?

[Margaret Steinfels]

I just read the Times piece by Carol Giacomo, which includes this: "

What is significant is that inside Washington’s policy circles these days — in studies, commentaries, meetings, Congressional hearings and conferences — reasonable people from both parties are seriously examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.

One of the most thorough discussions is in a report by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center, founded by four former senators — the Republicans Robert Dole and Howard Baker and Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchell — to devise policy solutions both parties might embrace."

Will we ever come to grips with the fact that in the case of Israel bipartisan means there is no disagreement (they wouldn't dare!) and therefore, no real examination of alternatives.

[Peter Warren]

Col.
If the air-intensive campaign that Seymour Hersh talked of last year is what we're referencing, it would presumably result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of Iranian Shiites, both civilian and military. I would also assume that the images of the dead and their wailing relatives would quickly be disseminated throughout the Islamic world and would have particular impact upon the population of a neighboring Shiite-majority country whose name also begins with "I". How would any "pro-American"(for lack of a more accurate term)Shiite leader or faction be able to function or survive after such events? And wouldn't this pose a credible risk of completely unwinding the US position in Iraq such as it is? And if an air campaign fails, how do we possibly sustain a third ground war in the Middle East in a country the size of Iran? McCain's consistent enthusiasm for such a venture is the main reason why I consider him unqualified to be president.