Beers on Iran

Here's a portion of an email that went out from Rand Beers:

Military action against Iran is unwise

There is widespread agreement that although some within the administration may be pushing for war, a strike on Iran would run significantly counter to U.S. interests in the current environment. Military action would spark even greater anti-US violence in Iraq. Iran might also escalate violence in the wider region and attack American targets using its own agents or Hezbollah. There would almost certainly be a negative public reaction from the Islamic world, and that reaction would circumscribe the ability of Arab governments to work with us on issues of common interest such as Iraq or the Middle East peace process. Further, we cannot guarantee that an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would effectively set back the nuclear program. Based on the current state of that program, even a successful military operation sustained over many days might only set back the program by as little as two to four years.

Tough, no-nonsense diplomacy with Iran is working

This administration’s choices have often been more about posturing and rhetoric than effective engagement. Sadly, these actions are also inadvertently or consciously escalatory, possibly pushing America down a path toward a conflict that we neither want nor need. Following Ahmedinejad’s humiliating defeat in the Iranian elections in December, he was ferociously attacked (including in newspapers associated with Supreme Leader Khamenei) for having brought down sanctions on Iran. There is now a vigorous debate in Tehran over whether Iran’s nuclear program is worth the risk of additional international opprobrium. The diplomatic “carrots and sticks” seem to be working. Unfortunately, the administration’s ham-handed military posturing and rhetoric risk torpedoing these efforts and offering Ahmedinejad a reprieve. We should be fostering this debate with a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, not undermining it.

Beers, we'll recall, has worked on the National Security Council under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Nevertheless, Ken Baer keeps assuring me that there are no experts out there who think airstrikes should be off the table.

Comments

Where is Beers saying that airstrikes should be "off the table"?

As far as I can tell, he's saying airstrikes would currently be unwise. Claiming that this is identical with him saying they should be off the table is exhibit #317 in the perils of monomania...

Posted by Petey | February 15, 2007 10:08 AM

Beers: "Unfortunately, the administration’s ham-handed military posturing and rhetoric risk torpedoing these efforts and offering Ahmedinejad a reprieve."

If you're both against air strikes and against "military posturing and rhetoric" then it seems to me that you're against repeating the mantra that "all options are on the table."

The issue is the origin of this particular line in Democratic Party speeches. Ken Baer asserts it derives from the thinking of experts. As you can see, however, virtually no experts actually express themselves in these terms and most, like Beers, have views whose implications push in the other direction.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 15, 2007 10:11 AM

"If you're both against air strikes and against "military posturing and rhetoric" then it seems to me that you're against repeating the mantra that "all options are on the table."

I just don't follow your logic here.

One can quite easily be against airstrikes and also against removing the threat of force from the table. I assume that is precisely Beers' position, though I don't know that for sure.

Posted by Petey | February 15, 2007 10:18 AM

What the situation around Iran points out is that there's really no debating paranoia used as a whip. A cynical leader who is willing to fan paranoia can always do what he wants and the only recourse is Time.

Democracy, at times, is a joke.

Reason, at times, is a toothless old woman.

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

Here endeth today's lesson.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 15, 2007 10:30 AM

Petey, the logic isn't difficult to follow.

Repeating the mantra that "all options are on the table" is pretty much the textbook example of "military posturing and rhetoric." Beers is clearly and unambiguously stating that such posturing is counterproductive.

Granted, when we're talking about an administration that invented the phrase "Axis of Evil" for shits and giggles, I can see how one might forget that military posturing is traditionally subtle. But saying that you are "refusing to rule out" invading a country is not exactly what I would call a goodwill gesture.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 15, 2007 10:40 AM

"Repeating the mantra that "all options are on the table" is pretty much the textbook example of "military posturing and rhetoric." Beers is clearly and unambiguously stating that such posturing is counterproductive."

Again, while I don't know this for sure, I would be astounded if Beers were opposed to the "all options are on the table" formulation.

I think it's a fundamental misreading to see that as a radical, rather than a mainstream, formulation.

And let's be clear, Matthew is not inveighing against the WH's possible use of that phrase in their sabre rattling. He is inveighing against that phrase appearing in Democratic candidate position papers.

Posted by Petey | February 15, 2007 10:49 AM

Given the bold headings of the paragraphs, and the emphasis of the first paragraph, Petey's misread is understandable. But in the second paragraph, it's not merely the strikes themselves that would be harmful, but the rhetoric and posturing over the strikes that is harmful--such posturing helps Ahmadinejad even if (especially if) we never actually launch such a strike.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 15, 2007 10:51 AM

Petey, I think the fact that you consider such a formulation to be "mainstream" rather than an aggressive provocation is just an indication of how insane our nation's foreign policy has become.

Beers is favoring the use of diplomatic carrots and sticks (the sticks being a threat of sanctions) over military sticks (the threat of airstrikes.) This is the very clear point of the second paragraph.

Just imagine, for a minute, that Ahmedinejad announced that "all options are on the table" in regard to the "zionist entity." Would this be construed as mainstream, run-of-the-mill political rhetoric? And unlike Iran, the US has a massive nuclear arsenal, overwhelming air and sea superiority in the Persian Gulf region, and a demonstrated willingness to launch insane unprovoked invasions. The rhetoric of US Presidential candidates carries a bit more force than the bluster of the President of Iran, who doesn't even have much power over his own nation's foreign policy.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 15, 2007 11:10 AM

Clear Rand Beers is not a serious person, much less a seasoned deeply serious person.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 15, 2007 12:06 PM

"Sadly, these actions are also inadvertently or consciously escalatory, possibly pushing America down a path toward a conflict that we neither want nor need."

maybe he doesnt want an enemy, but he doesnt realize enemies are incredible fun to have.

Posted by . | February 15, 2007 12:25 PM

Petey is right. "All options are on the table" has a specific meaning. "Military strikes against Iran are unwise/do not work" has another, different specific meaning. Simply not the same.

Just imagine, for a minute, that Ahmedinejad announced that "all options are on the table" in regard to the "zionist entity." Would this be construed as mainstream, run-of-the-mill political rhetoric?

Yes? I mean, it's not like he hasn't said that, and it's not like that didn't play well domestically.

Let's unpack this a little bit. Let's suppose Israel is preparing to do X highly provactive action. Iran then announces that, in response to hypothetical X highly provactive action, that "all options are on the table." Now it may or may not actually be in Iran's interest to produce such a statement. That's a specific normative question, though.

In the case of the U.S., the question is whether it is or is not in the interest of the U.S. to tell Iran that "all options are on the table." I think it is, but you could disagree. However, that has little to do with how "aggressive" such a statement sounds--of course it sounds aggressive! That's the point!

Now I also obviously favor "diplomatic sticks and carrots" over "military sticks" in terms of dealing with Iran. But again, that doesn't mean that all options are off the table, at all.

Posted by Korha | February 15, 2007 1:22 PM

http://www.matthewyglesias.com = "whaa?"

Posted by sp | February 17, 2007 12:19 AM