On Iran, Liberals Are Enabling Another Disastrous War


Beinart chats with friends in high places: Liberal “hawks” like him played a major role in enabling the Iraq debacle

In 2003, the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, a country that had neither attacked nor threatened it — and we, and the Iraqis, are still living with the consequences. Going to war in Iraq was made possible — easy, even — for the Bush Administration not only by Republican hawks and neocon extremists (the wannabe Army Corps of Social Engineers) baying for blood, but even more importantly, by supposedly sober and moderate liberal voices — the Peter Beinarts, Ken Pollacks, George Packers and the editors of the New York Times — not only failing to challenge the basic logic of the case for war, but providing their own more elegant (although equally brutal when stripped of their high-minded rhetoric) rationalizations for invading Iraq.

It was the liberal “hawks” and the New York Times, by failing to ask the right questions of the case for war, that did more to make the war a “thinkable” option for America than any neocon. They allowed the question to be posed simply as one of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not. And because nobody could give an absolute assurance in the negative, the argument became “better safe than sorry”. The liberals and the New York Times offered no challenge, and asked no questions, of the basic assumption that if Saddam had, in fact, had a couple of warehouses full of VX gas and refrigerator full of anthrax, that necessitated launching a war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of upward of half a million Iraqis (and thousands of Americans) and left America weaker and more vulnerable.

And the bad news is that they’re doing it again on Iran.

By asking the wrong questions on Iran, and failing to ask the right ones, the liberal media establishment and some of its key pundits are mainstreaming what is in essence an extremist foreign policy option.

The latest example comes in today’s Washington Post, where Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon essentially provide a “how-to-bomb Iran” manual for an Administration less inclined to dress its wars up in cowboy clothing than its predecessor was, but by its actions in Afghanistan showing that it’s no less committed to waging those wars.

To their credit, Takeyh and Simon note that there’s no legal basis for attacking Iran, and that the Administration would have a hard time winning U.N. Security Council authorization for such a move.

the United States has obtained a series of U.N. resolutions censuring Iran not because its legal arguments and foreign policy views have wowed the world, but simply because its European partners have feared that Washington might otherwise take matters into its own hands. These anxieties were more acute during the Bush years, but they have hardly dissipated with new occupants in the White House. From Europe’s perspective, the U.N. process is designed not just to pressure Iran but also to enmesh the United States in cumbersome proceedings that limit its choices.

It may be comforting for Washington to blame China and Russia as the key obstacles to more forceful measures against Iran, but Britain and France — where public opinion is already against participation in the war in Afghanistan — also have little appetite for striking… Washington would have to choose between an international coalition pledging rigorous containment of Iran, and the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus.

They recommend that Obama first try further sanctions, and also that he make sure he has the American people behind his decision to launch a war — and also make sure that he had the support of the Gulf Arab regimes. But the most outrageously naive and dangerous bit of logic they offer is this:

As it contemplated the use of force, the administration’s decision-making would be further complicated by the need for a plan to unwind military hostilities and make sure a confrontation did not escalate out of control. The White House would have to signal to Tehran that the U.S. military objective was not to overthrow the clerical regime but to enforce the will of the international community by disabling Iran’s nuclear program. The message would need to make clear that for the United States, hostilities would end with the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but that if Iran retaliated, Washington would press its attacks until Tehran could no longer respond.

The idea that you can bomb a country and then “make sure the confrontation does not escalate out of control” is, quite simply, bizarre. Of course Iran is going to retaliate, painfully, over years and even decades. Bombing will, as sober heads have warned, almost certainly spark a protracted war with potentially devastating consequences for Iran (its government and people, including its opposition), Israel, the United States (which has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Iran’s immediate neighborhood and the wider Middle East. And it’s more likely to make Iran acquire nuclear weapons than to deter it from doing so.

As the Leveretts have noted, the question of bombing Iran is on the table simply because of the fact that Iran is enriching uranium, and the apocalyptic fantasies that Israel and its most passionate backers in Washington attach to that fact. Iran is not believed by US intelligence to be building a nuclear weapon, but to be moving to “breakout capacity”, i.e. the assembly of all the components of a nuclear weapon via a civilian energy program, but not actually building a bomb — what Japan has done, in other words. And it’s not hard to see the appeal for Iran’s leaders of having such capability at hand in a context where three of its key strategic adversaries — the U.S., Israel and Pakistan — are nuclear armed.

The idea that starting a catastrophic war in the Middle East to preserve Israel’s monopoly on nuclear force in the Middle East — which President Obama publicly signed off on during Netanyahu’s recent visit — ought to be unthinkable. But the likes of Simon and Takeyh are making it thinkable. The media war party also seems to accept at face value the claim that the Obama Administration has “tried engagement” with Iran. That’s rubbish. As Gary Sick and others with some understanding of U.S. diplomacy with Iran have noted, no serious and comprehensive attempt to engage Iran in a dialogue on the full gamut of conflicts between the two powers has yet occurred. The U.S. until now has largely confined itself to talking in order to get Iran to heed Western demands on its nuclear program; the only way to stabilize Iran’s relations with the U.S., Israel and the rest of the region will be through a grand bargain that recognizes Iran’s status in the region and regulates its relations with all of its neighbors. Of course Iran’s internal dynamic has made that challenge massively complicated for both sides. But to dodge that challenge and instead launch a war that can only make matters worse seems to be to be criminally insane — insanity enabled by supposedly sober people falsely presenting yet another war of choice as some kind of necessity.

This entry was posted in Situation Report and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to On Iran, Liberals Are Enabling Another Disastrous War

  1. jo6pac says:

    They can’t answer if they are glass. It’s sad that this what Amerika has become, not that we were different in the old days.

  2. Pingback: CFR liberals (again) pushing for another Middle East war? « LobeLog.com

  3. Pingback: Patrick Disney Describes The Day After the US Bombs Iran « LobeLog.com

  4. Alan Richards says:

    I think you are misreading the article. I read it more as a thought-experiment, in which the reader is asked to imagine a number of considerations which the Obama administration will think about. And when one does this, the conclusion seems to be: they will NOT attack Iran. I would take this as the opposite of liberal warmongering. It’s just another take (there are SO MANY!) on why attacking Iran is foolish. (They do not talk about the criminality of an attack, which is certainly also obvious.)

  5. Charles Molesworth says:

    I’m afraid that Tony Karon is a bit too soft on what this article in fact portends. The authors are making war against Iran more thinkable, more do-able, more likely to end in our inevitable and morally justified triumph. Listen to exactly what they say:

    “But to avoid the grim future postulated here, Iran would have to leave behind its peek-a-boo negotiating tactics and sign up for intrusive inspections and tight limits on its uranium enrichment activities. The record on this score is not encouraging, with decades of sanctions impeding but not blocking Iran’s progress to nuclear weapons capability. Thus, the world imagined here may not constitute destiny — but it will be hard to escape.”

    We can tell them what they must do if they want to avoid the “grim future” (they “would have to leave behind…”), but what we decide to do is always right, proper, meet and just.

    The insanity of the USA going to war against Iran can be justified on only two grounds: we are insane, or it is destined to happen. The authors choose the second option. Note how every contingency advanced in the article is met with a “but ” – but it would be to our advantage, but it would be disastrous yet necessary, etc., etc. The argument based on “destiny” – whether imagined (which is a human choice) or known (by which time it is too late) – is almost always a false and ultimately self-serving argument.

    The obvious fact about the article: the authors fail to exercise any analysis on an option that needs to be considered: Iranians have a bomb, but there are ways to induce them not to ever use it. Which would make them just like us – right?

    Charles Molesworth

  6. Pingback: Iran and the Problem with Sanctions « ????? ???

  7. Warren Metzler says:

    Here again we have an insane proposition being given credence by people who live in fantasy land. Everything that every human does is based on a context: a view of how some situation should operate. Each context produces successful outcomes (the result is viable, and the participants enjoyed the process), or is irrational and produces failed outcomes (the result is non-viable, and the participants did not enjoy the process).

    Please, someone tell a single aspect of a rational context that supports it being reasonable for ANY country in the world to tell Iran it can’t have a nuclear weapon?

    Until I hear a single aspect of a rational context that supports sanctions on Iran, I will continue to know that all the people behind this insane, lacking in rationality, and fundamental immorality, move are egotists that live in a fantasy world, quite comfortably playing with the lives of American citizens and the rest of the world, just to satisfy their idiotic notions about world conduct and the role of the US in the world, notions that have NEVER ONCE produced a single US government action that benefited one person, somewhere in the world.

    Why do the American people continue to follow these fools. Someone, please tell me!

  8. OMG I like this site. love.

  9. Uncle B says:

    The American Industrial/military complex owns America and regardless of the party in power, America is entrenched in war and has been since WWII and will be until China stops her! China on the other hand may find this methodology for keeping factories open and money churning good for her also, and start many festering pus-pits with America such that each sustains the other in a mutual and ugly situation!
    Money! Follow the dollar for the answer!

  10. fulldacomp says:

    “The authors are making war against Iran more thinkable, more do-able, more likely to end in our inevitable and morally justified triumph.”
    Can more?

  11. Oh Tony you are in credible Clever.
    On this points i think you are right.

  12. Tony says:

    Who Spam comment this web again I will report your website to google to be Deindex.

    Tony Karon.

  13. The American Industrial/military complex owns America and regardless of the party in power

  14. What else would you expect a Liberal government.

  15. Razor Dirt Rocket MX350 best Product for kid

  16. think you for article best blog

  17. A good website. The abundance of useful information here. I will send it to several friends ans also share in delicious. And, of course, thank you for Exhaustion for you.

  18. Spurs, who were unfortunate to only draw 1-1 with Chelsea last week, found their cutting edge in the second half through Bale.Adebayor, who was a menace to the Norwich defense all game, displayed some impressive close control when surrounded by a cluster of defenders before laying the ball off to Bale, who sidefooted past Ruddy from 10 yards (meters).Adebayor had a goal disallowed for offside in the 66th but Bale made it 2-0 a minute later, running onto a pass from Luka Modric, powering clear of Zak Whitbread before chipping Ruddy.”Winning the title is not impossible – that is all I have ever said,” Redknapp said. “Man United and Man City look so strong but we are up there and we just have to keep picking up points and see where we finish.”

  19. CINCINNATI (AP)Ray Rice had a pair of long touchdown runs Sunday night, steadying Baltimore to a 24-16 victory over the Cincinnati Bengals that gave the Ravens their third AFC North title and the No. 2 seed in the playoffs.See the best Baltimore Ravens action, or check out your favorite NFL team here.Baltimore (12-4) will get a first-round bye followed by a playoff game at home, where the Ravens are 8-0 this season.Despite the loss, the Bengals (9-7) also got into the playoffs, securing the final wild card as the Jets and Broncos also lost.

  20. Nate Solder Jersey says:

    Running back Rashard Mendenhall is nursing sore ribs while linebacker LaMarr Woodley’s strained right hamstring is fatigued but otherwise OK”It’s patience to the hole, we call it, and then speed throughthe hole,” Schottenheimer said OK, we alreadyknew they were bad”When you play in the 3-4, Mike Wallace Jersey they do so Jonathan Vilma Jersey many things to try to hityou from so many different directions,” Shanahan said Through first seven games, he had 1,739 yards passing, 14 TDs and seven interceptions Also, defensive end Charles Johnson has a sore back and safety Charles Godfrey injured his left shoulder that has been bothering him Twice before, the Broncos failed to make the postseasonKey player: Barwin had his fourth sack of the day, a franchiserecord

  21. logo is the pinnacle of creative brilliance and sums up the BIG IDEA for Aflac But have you ever wondered if babies are born with the

  22. It’s who we areC Fructose (specifically high fructose corn syrup) is the #1 sweetener used Their logo is simple, yet exceptionally valuable to their mission as a company

  23. Yajaira Loeb says:

    One’s mind features a way of making itself up without anyone’s knowledge, also it suddenly becomes clear what one methods to do.
    These days nothing goes to be certain, except death and taxes.

  24. Kindle Schweiz | Kindle Switzerland

  25. I liked up to you’ll obtain carried out right here. The cartoon is attractive, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an nervousness over that you would like be handing over the following. sick indisputably come more earlier once more as exactly the similar just about very frequently inside case you shield this increase.

  26. I have learn a few excellent stuff here. Certainly price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you set to create this sort of great informative web site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>