« Some Questions on Wal-Mart in Vallejo | Main | The Budget as a Moral Crisis »
February 13, 2007
And Now Iran
Word in Washington has long had it that the perception within the White House is that the way out of the deepening quagmire in Iraq is a broadened war against Iran. Losing in Iraq? Redefine the problem away. Iraq, the West Wing neo-cons will tell you, is “small ball.” Inside that bubble, the conventional “wisdom” seems to be that the public will soon forget and forgive the “losing game” in Iraq in the “shock and awe” of a “major league” attack on Iran.
Fantasy? How I wish it were so. Unfortunately, the preparations are already well in train. A second aircraft carrier has already been sent to the Persian Gulf, and a third will soon be on its way. In Washington and Baghdad, the ubiquitous “anonymous sources” are already peddling the “evidence” of Iranian involvement in Iraq to many of the same credulous “journalists” who sold us on WMDs…“incontrovertible,” Michael Gordon assures us once again on the front page of the New York Times. And the provocations have begun – Iranian consular offices raided, Iranian officials detained, orders issued to U.S. troops to shoot to kill Iranians engaged in smuggling. We will, we’re told, protect our troops. Need a causus belli? Be patient. We’re constructing one as fast as we can.
Of course Iran has been aiding the Shiite militias – for years, with the collaboration of the current Iraqi government and the Achmed Chalabis of the world – just as the Saudis have been aiding the Sunni militias and we aided the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan, arming them, among other things, with shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that downed over 300 Soviet helicopters. Fact is, Iran, Saudi Arabia…and Syria – Iraq’s next door neighbors have a stake – one just as legitimate as ours – in what happens in Iraq.
Of course the nuclear issue hovers in the background. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful in nature. We and objective observers in the UN and European Union can be excused for having legitimate doubts. But, even if such doubts are warranted, do they justify an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Consider the following: The international scientific consensus is that Iran is at least 3-4 years from having the capability of building a nuclear bomb, much less weaponizing it on the tip of some missile. A far cry from North Korea which has tested a bomb and is reputed to have a stockpile of several weapons. Any way you cut it, Iran’s nuclear program does not constitute an imminent threat.
Then, too, Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood. It is surrounded by nuclear powers, not all of them friendly – Pakistan and India to the East, Russia on its northern border, Israel to the West, and, to the South, the United States with its gathering carriers in the Persian Gulf. We might not like it, but, particularly given the example of North Korea, Iran might see nuclear weapons as a logical deterrent.
And, speaking of North Korea and Libya, both provide examples of successful negotiations to walk countries back from nuclear weapons. To be sure, the ink is still drying on the North Korean agreement signed this week. That agreement, however, further demonstrates the efficacy of multilateral coordination of such negotiations. And this is precisely the sort of multilateral negotiation the Iraq Study Group envisaged vis-à-vis both Iran and Syria. A far cry from the cowboy posturing coming from an increasingly isolated Washington. We are losing our credibility, our allies, and, it must be added, our military leverage on Iran.
Remember four years ago – it seems now an eternity – and the triumphalism that swept Washington where neo-cons fantasized about “pivoting left” into Syria? But that was four years ago. In the nightmare since, the men and women of the U.S. Army and Marines have carried out their assigned mission courageously and suffered grievously – over 3,000 dead and 20,000 seriously wounded. The soldiers have not complained. But many generals have…for their soldiers and for an Army and Marine Corps that has been hollowed out…some would say broken.
How, from a Realpolitik perspective, can we even consider attacking yet another country – this time a regional power with a large, well-armed and motivated military – when we don’t have enough people and equipment to adequately carry out the “mission” – whatever it now is – in Iraq? The plan – “well advanced,” Newsweek tells us is bomb Iran. Another “shock and awe” campaign.
Then what?
Then what, indeed? Whatever happened to notions of legitimate national interests prudently pursued? Whatever happened to moral notions of international law, just wars of self-defense, and, yes, the Nuremburg charge of aggressive war? What have we become? And what will become of us if we do this?
Before we do, please contact your senators and representatives and implore them – even before they finish their non-binding posturing on Iraq – to pass clear, binding legislation that would require the President to obtain advance Congressional approval for any military action against Iran.
And then pray for our beloved nation.
Posted by Vicki at February 13, 2007 09:57 PM