Misfiring on Iran
While President Bush is trying to make the case that Iran is arming factions in Iraq, elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran.
I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.
The reason why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all refusing to take the military option off the table is because there is no credible expert on Iran, nonproliferation, or any combination of the two who would advise them to do so.
Now, before someone charges that the Beltway establishment is a bunch of no-nothing warmongers, let me be clear: they are receiving this advice from a wide array of experts, with differing views on the region (I can assume this with some degree of confidence having sat through some of these same briefings – given by people who advise the entire field -- with other candidates).
Also, in the very same breath that they are undoubtedly getting this advice, they are also being told in no uncertain terms that a military strike against Tehran, much less total war, would be long, nasty, costly, and unwise. But precisely because these Democrats want to avoid war with Iran that they must offer the now familiar formulation: no nukes for Iran, no options off the table. Hillary Clinton stated this today, Barack Obama gave a version of it two years ago, and John Edwards said it last month. If I had the time to Google, one would find this same formula parroted by dozens of Democrats.
Does this mean that we should not be skeptical of the Bush Administration’s attempt to “sell” an Iran adventure? No. Does this mean that Congress should not have oversight over any such potential action (as Senator Clinton said today)? No.
What it means is that the keyboard commentariat needs to come to grips with the realities of diplomacy. It would hurt America’s interests right now if Iran felt that they could proliferate without ultimately facing a military response. It is the most important stick we have, and as we use other ways to pressure the Iranians and also look into what carrots may be employed to walk them back from going nuclear, it would undermine our position if we unilaterally said that this move was off the table.
Now, there are some who are generally pacifist and believe that the US should always take the military option off the table; I am sure there are others who actually believe that Iran doesn’t mean what its leaders say or don’t see that regime having the bomb as a threat; and still others may question this strategic rationale of keeping the military option on the table.
Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.
And as for those who doubt the strategy of no nukes, no options off the table, my only question is: what is that based on? Again, is there any person with real experience with the Iranians, diplomacy, or nonproliferation who has argued that? If so, let’s hear it. But – to my mind – rightly, the major candidates are listening to seasoned experts on this issue, and are thus sticking with the above formulation of no nuclear Iran, no options off the table.
So, let’s cut our candidates some slack and do away with this self-defeating Iran litmus test. What we should be asking our candidates are questions like: how do you perceive the Iranian threat? How does Iran and its designs intersect with the stability and future of the region – and our country’s interests? And how would you handle Iran if you were president?


Mr. Baer, I hardly ever agree with anything you say and this is not very different. However I agree that it is not necessary for candidates to foreswear military action against Iran. What IS a requirement for any Democrat to get my vote is an attack on the Bush attempt to trump up a case for war following (just to make it easy to follow) the precise same script that he used in Iraq). Now if you, or Hillary, or Edwards or Obama are too tied to AIPAC to speak out forcefully against another phony war then our differences are clear. Otherwise it is absolutely essential that Bush's march to war with Iran right now be opposed without ambiguity by any serious candidate. So the bottom line is not foreswearing military action, it is making clear pre-emptive war is completely off the table.
February 14, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we all hear what we want to hear. I hear many, many voices, including 'authorities', saying that such a continued militaristic attitude will only lead to what amounts to an asymmetrical WWIII (or IV, if one counts the cold war as III).
I also read and hear voices all over the world challenging such a 'preemptive' position. The US, being the only true superpower now (eventhough a fast-fading one in my humble opinion), has every reason to conduct itself above reproach in international affairs, something it has sunken to new depths at in recent years. If we have learned anything from history and current events, it is that violence ONLY breeds more of the same: what you do will come back to you - a fundamental law of nature.
I personally see absolutely no reason why Iran should first, not have nuclear energy (and you can check my blog here about this), and secondly, so what if they have a weapon. Do you really believe they would ever use it, first? If you say 'yes', all I can do is shake my head at the fear that you have absorbed from Zionist and Bushite propaganda. Personally, I have two fears myself: that Israel would use its nuclear bombs first(the ones it doesn't have...lol), thinking someone else is about to get the draw on them, because they just can't let the holocaust be history....even though African-Americans have had no choice but to let their own much worst and continuing Middle Passage go; and, second, that all of the focus on Iraq and Iran have totally distracted us from real terrorists (not the kind that dropped 4-million cluster bombs in the last two days on Lebanon)securing nuclear material to blow the shit out of us here in this country, or other US interests; I doubt they are any threat to Israel since its borders are much more secure than ours ever could be.
February 14, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if you'd laid out what these "serious repercussions" were, your post would have some substance. You didn't; it doesn't.
February 14, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then please give us some names? Which 'think-tank' advisors and experts? Next, as you have sat through some of these briefings, whose responsibility is it to filter that expert advice that arrives at our candidates table?
Also, I'm still trying to get my head around Clinton and others giving nuclear technology to India, "particularly since India, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty." Isn't trying to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan also in America's national interest rather than possibly starting a arms race? Does this mean we are going to have Democratic candidate that has no interest in working towards Nonproliferation of nuclear technology and weapons, just doesn't want Iran to have them - hypocritical maybe?
What do you mean... economic interests or military? That's seems to be the GUT of the issue... And if we are talking about serious economic "repercussions" then no I'm not naive... Nor are many of us that have noticed that China has a far chunk of our DEBT and is also after Iranian energy and oil... So, that's why I think our candidates should come clean -- who is advising them?
I'm not a pacifist, but I totally disagree with using tactical nukes and US kids to fight for corporate interests. If the US has to adjust to the crazy policies of our Free Traders (with zippo regulations) then let's have that debate.
February 14, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Baer
Thank you for bringing some sense to this issue. Giving Iran an out by waiting for the next Democratic President does not seem to sensible.
The Democratic Party has an enormous advantage going into 2008 having George Bush as the sitting President. However, how do Democrats convince that rest of the country that the Party does not stand for defeatism and unilateral surrender and stil cope with the blogsphere?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 14, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that just plain goes without saying is that all nations reserve the right to use force of appropriate scale, when it is in their interest. So overtly referencing force is not simply announcing the obvious, it is a pointed reminder that force is not that far down the priority list.
I guess we have gone far beyond the confidence of TR who thought it best to speak softly. We have a plenty big stick--only wimps need to wave sticks for attention.
February 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason Bush is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran is that he is an idiot who is still listening to Cheney and other morons who sold him a bill of goods on Iran. Oppose the heated up rhetoric and encourage rational foreign policy decisions.
Tom
February 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll address Baer's question--how would I handle Iran if I were Pres? Assuming I had not made promises about force in order to get elected I would simply do nothing about their nuclear program. I would, however, open negotiations on a security plan for the region, since they are an important player and could be an anchor.
The paradox is that in the campaign there might not be room to maneuver on Iran.
I note that Baer is assuming Iran is "proliferating". Iran is for now only enriching uranium, overtly. I would think that if Iran was planning a covert weapons program they would not advertise enrichment. They would have to be incredibly stupid to think they could hypnotize us with a peaceful enrichment operation, and then achieve breakout capability while we were lulled into complacency. Since exactly the opposite has happened, with a rudimentary enrichment operation instigating talk of bunkerbusters and the like, if that was the goal it has failed.
Could it perhaps be that the obvious is also the truth? There is enrichment, barely, and it is a national-pride endeavor, because it requires top-quality machines and engineers. With the West's history of sabotaging Iran, why should they trust anybody to provide them with fuel when some dispute arises? I sure would argue against it if I lived there. Would we really prefer they simply pump carbon to stay warm in winter?
If we go down this road of shooting first at folks that just act funny we'll become even more Roman.
February 14, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, perhaps with some realistic perspective to deal with fearmongering? It's hard to be defeatist with respect to Iran when Iran is presenting no significant threat other than a loudmouthed politician without much authority, although something of a flair for public relations.
As far as perspective, a good start would be pointing out that a goal is reducing terrorism worldwide, and that operations in Iraq are only one part of a whole. Many nations have had eventual victory when they recognized unworkable situations and reallocated resources, as with the British at Gallipoli and Dunkirk, or the US at Chosin Reservoir.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 14, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Imagining Bush briefing]
"Well, yes. Why not help Indiana's economy with nuclear technology? It would make Dan Quayle happy. Maybe they'll let me start the Indy 500 this year.
"What? Not Indiana? Oh...well, next thing on the agenda...the bunker busters on the nucular facilities under Des Moines.
"Not Des Moines? I thought the threat was in a place starting with I, four letters, and not Iraq...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 14, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are no credible experts left in the country. Donald Rumsfled once said on national television: “they were all wrong”; he was referring to CIA intelligence on Iraq. He only said that because it became obvious that there was no Weapon of Mass Destruction but Weapon of Mass Deception. He has to blame someone and CIA is the scapegoat. What a shame, a $30 billion organization can make such a BIG mistake. Now, whatever “experts” America may have, there is no credibility anymore.
It is interesting to see how this Cowboy President is able to balance the budget now that it is obvious America is sending more money out of the country than bringing in. It is a disgrace for the Harvard University, the world number one, to accept and produce a substandard student and to allow him to manage a country of 300 million people with no proper project plan. He has no project management training and cultural and linguistic abilities to understand foreign countries and dignitaries, all he has is a bunch of cowboy enthusiasm and “bring it on” attitude,
The consequence of a war with Iran would be:
1. More money spends outside the country which could have otherwise spent on health care and education and infrastructure and wealth creation within the country.
2. more casualties suffered on both sides
3. more hatred towards America around the world
4. the military is already stretched too thin and soldiers would become insane
5. more countries would seek nuke to protect their own interest against American imperialism
6. More American children would be left behind without proper education and as a result there will be more social problems in the years ahead.
7. More allies would be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and distance away from America and America would ultimately bare the full cost of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In other words, the American economy would collapse in order to micromanage a few other countries. The cost could run up to many trillion dollars.
May God has mercy on the soul of this cowboy president and ask him to repent and show kindness and mercy to others. It is enough of accusing others of wrong doing and takes a step back to reflect how much damage he has done to others. It is ironic that America has the best universities to produce the best students in the world and yet it has turned out a bunch of liars and aggressors to tell everyone in the world what is right and wrong. It is also ironic that America is teaching the world about democracy and human rights and America is doing the exact opposite by terrorizing, intimidating and bribing weaker nations and justifies torturing of other nations. This is not democracy, it is called hypocrisy.
February 14, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Baer,
How do you respond to Duncan Black's analysis of this process?
February 14, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the spillover effect from the antics of this administration. Only quiet time with a more rational adminstration will solve it.
February 14, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran. Kenneth Baer
Sounds like a strawman to me. See, Garance Franke-Ruta, here.
February 14, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT TOTAL & UTTER BALONEY STINKING TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!!!!
So there are no "credible expert on Iran" who would advise taking the "war-crime" option off the table, huh?
Here's a start: In this list, you'll find pretty much the who's-who of Iran experts in the US and around the world (people who have dedicated their entire lives to the issue and not made for TV insta-experts pushing the agenda du jour) in addition to Nobel Laureates, US ambassadors, and other distinguished persons.
February 14, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to explain the provenance of this list? Since we can assume you didn't interview them, it is from where? Especially given the unwieldy size.
Not that I doubt these are all opposed to pressuring Iran with force threats. It's just not persuasive without more info. (I need no persuading--it's others that might.)
February 14, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others can click on the goddamn link provided.
Here it is again, just to make it clearer: AntiWarPetition.com
Funny, this guy who claims there are "no credible Iran experts" is himself hardly qualified to judge other people's credibility on the issue & has probably never set foot in Iran himself but he feels free to opine about Iran-this and Iran-that.
Where does TPM get these guys?
February 14, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
America has used satellite images and evidences obtained from torturing to justify a war against Iraq and it is proven all wrong and many people are dead, America has lost its credibility among the world community. It does not matter how many signatories that you have obtained, it is just not credible anymore. Your list is questionable and suspicious. America is no more the voices of the truth. Any moron can manufacture a list like yours, just like the list used against Saddam Hussein. The world does not trust the cowboy president, what makes you think the world can trust you or your list.
February 14, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah hass, you fail to understand the unimpeachable logic of these things. Since the experts on your list are strongly opposing and warning against the military option in Iran, they are a fortiori "not credible". Only experts who refrain from warning politicians and the public about the dangers of attacking Iran qualify as credible.
Your failure to grasp this simple rule of US foreign policy management hereby qualifies you as a non-credible blog commentator.
Don't you know the consensus for keeping all the Iran options on the table is incredibly broad? It stretches all the way from one end of the Council on Foreign Relations to the other.
February 14, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find no link in the list post, but the one here explains fine. Thanks.
February 14, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.
Well, you know Mr. Baer, I would like to be able to assure our esteemed candidates that I will not use a firm anti-war, pro-talks Iran position as a litmus test of their candidacy, but as a mere voter without a lot of leverage to bring to bear on moving candidates toward my prefered position, I feel it is important to keep all my options on the table.
I think you need to come to grips with the realities of democracy. It is not in the public interest if rascally politicians are convinced that they can proliferate noxious political gas on Iran, without facing the possibility of a firm electoral response. So I will refrain from taking the "no antiwar litmus test" pledge at this time. Consider my position one of "strategic ambiguity."
By the way, why have you "tried to stay out of this debate in this venue"? Some might think it's actually an important debate. Perhaps it is the terror felt by that "wide range of experts in Washington" of participating in debate on Iran outside of the constricted circle of approv