Why Bomb Iran?

Josh Marshall is, if anything, being significantly too generous to the attack Iran brigades in his answer to his third question "Would successful aggressive action against Iran materially improve our current situation in Iraq?" It's obvious, I think, that aggressive action against Iran would make our situation in Iraq much, much worse. We can debate how much of what we see in Iraq today Iran is responsible for; I think it's clear the administration is seriously exaggerating this, but it sort of doesn't matter. What can't be debated is that much more could be done. Shiite groups could be spending more time killing American troops. What's more, Iran could be giving such groups much better weapons than they have today. As I've pointed out before, just look at Hezbollah, whose weaponry is vastly more sophisticated than anything we've seen in Iraq. If we start bombing Iran, Iran has at its disposal cheap, effective means of retaliating against US forces in Iraq.

Bombing Iran in response to alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq won't help anything in Iraq in part, I think, because it isn't designed to. Rather, the Bush administration thinks it can't sell a second counterproliferation war against a Gulf country beginning with "Ira" because it's just too absurd. Hence, it would be nice to gin up a casus belli with Iran that's only tangentially related to the nuclear program. Not that bombing will help us with that problem either, but it's at least widely believed that it will. I don't think even the Bush administration is dumb enough to think that attacking Iran will help stabilize things in Iraq; the Iran-Iraq nexus is just a red herring designed to make it politically difficult to oppose what they're doing.

Comments

"I don't think even the Bush administration is dumb enough to think that attacking Iran will help stabilize things in Iraq..."

Well, when your foreign policy was/is partially informed by the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth, nothing is impossible... so long as you can imagineer it! (rainbows)

Posted by norbizness | February 12, 2007 12:14 PM

OK, here are some questions: What percentage of US casualties in Iraq are caused by Shia agents - Iranian or otherwise - or Shia militias? What percentage of these casualties are caused by Sunni insurgents? We can ask the same question about the proportions of Iraqi causualties. Exactly who is killing whom, and in what numbers?

Isn't there something wildly discordant about the proportion of public and government attention given recently to the relatively small problem of Shia attacks on our soldiers, especially given that almost all of these Shia are affiliated with the Iraqi government we support and are aminly engaged in fighting our enemies there, and the lack of public attention given to the much larger question of ... you know ... the other side in the war we are fighting.

Perhaps we will get some press conferences amnd briefings soon on (i) how insurgent truck bombers, snipers, etc. are acquiring their explosives, rockets and bullets and (ii) which countries in the region are the homes of most of the foreign fighters in Iraq - the ones actually killing US soldiers. (Hint: these countries are not Iran.) Until then, perhaps our media could do their own part in staying focussed on the real war, instead of the phony war Bush is trying to conjure into existence.

I know Bush is dumb. But can't he even remember which side of the war he is on? Or have Bush and Cheney just cynically decided to stab our guys in the back to pursue their crackpot agenda in Iran?

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 12, 2007 12:16 PM

Where I think Josh is far too generous is his choice of analysis, where he simply accepts at face value the proposition that fighting Iran would be intended to solve an Iraq problem. These people want to start a war with Iran before they lose the opportunity, and their actual reasons for wanting this have exactly nothing to do with Iraq.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 12, 2007 12:25 PM

1.) Most Iraqi weapons and munitions are simply an inheritance from Saddam. The man accumulated vast stockpiles, and the Rumsfeld plan did not include enough men on the ground to secure and destroy those stockpiles. They were looted.

2.) The factions in Iraq most hostile to the U.S. are the Baathist and Sunni groups, which have no ties to Iran. Some of these groups do have ties to Saudi Arabia, which is now actively engaged in supplying finance and weapons. Unfortunately of the U.S., Bush and Cheney also have ties to Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | February 12, 2007 12:40 PM

We're killing Sunni insurgents in Iraq. That has so enraged the Shiites in Iran that they're ...

I can't go on with this. This White House is beyond ridiculous. We need to get some torches, peasants, and pitchforks to drive the monster from our midst.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 12, 2007 12:44 PM

MY wrote: "I don't think even the Bush administration is dumb enough to think that attacking Iran will help stabilize things in Iraq; the Iran-Iraq nexus is just a red herring designed to make it politically difficult to oppose what they're doing."

Precisely.

They will wave the bloody shirt someday, when some American soldiers are killed by what is attributed to be Farsi-stenciled weapons "provided by Iran to attack our soldiers," and then it'll be raw vengeance that will drive the US domestic politics.

They killed our soldiers? Don't we HAVE to kill them?

Something along those lines, anyway.

Posted by blatherskite | February 12, 2007 12:49 PM

One missile attack by Iran against the Kuwaiti fuel facilities supplying the U.S. in Iraq and the army will need armored Segways to get around. There are probably a hundred ways Iran can screw the U.S. in Iraq without half trying.

Posted by Tim | February 12, 2007 12:56 PM

I don't see how we can justify bombing Iran on grounds that it has interfered in supporting a Shiite insurgency in Iraq when our government has basically been supporting the Shiites through Maliki and his appeasement of the Al-Sadr gang.

Furthermore, why aren't we planning to bomb Pakistan, when we know significant members of their military are aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents that are attacking US and NATO soldiers and when many US military officials have testified about the high level of Pakistan's support for these groups?

Seems like Bushies are just picking Iran as a target and hoping to come up with the reasons after the fact, much like they did with Iraq.

Posted by advokat | February 12, 2007 12:56 PM

"I don't think even the Bush administration is dumb enough to think that attacking Iran will help stabilize things in Iraq; the Iran-Iraq nexus is just a red herring designed to make it politically difficult to oppose what they're doing."

That's the heart of the matter right there. And it's important to emphasize that this desire to further destabilize the Gulf region indicates that the neocon lunatics are still running the asylum after nearly 4 years of uninterrupted foreign policy disaster.

Matt's been taking a lot of heat for his Paul Revere shtick, but with each passing day it becomes more apparent to me that he's right. The bastards really are trying to manufacture an excuse to attack Iran, and we need to forcefully oppose them every step of the way.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 12, 2007 12:57 PM

Could you give us an idea of the mix of people who actually consider bombing Iran to be goo policy to those who think it would be a good way to kick the Worst President Ever declarations further down the road?

Posted by theCoach | February 12, 2007 1:04 PM

Excellent points Matt. The odd thing is we'll have to end up arguing the charade and the reality, just out of due diligence. People who are educated on the issue know damn well that Iran has been in the neoconservative crosshairs for years now, yet at the same time the war pushers aren't likely to own up to these real reasons and instead push manufactured ones for public consumption. It's important to battle on both fronts while always returning to the reality of the situation, in hopes others start catching on and get past the surface. In the end, most Americans may never go beyond the surface, as a function of time and desire, so the absurdist two-front approach on this must continue.

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:09 PM

By the way, Lt. Gen. Odom has given perhaps the clearest statements I've seen yet that cut through the BS (though not necessarily the way any of us here frame it).

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 1:12 PM

Just the other day, Gates said that they do not plan to attack Iran. It still seems to me that the most likely interpretation is that he's telling the truth, and the rhetoric and "evidence" about Iran is not the prelude to an actual attack, but just hard-line rhetoric meant to keep Iran on the defensive.

I think attacking Iran is such a crazy idea, that even Bush won't do it.

Posted by Jim W | February 12, 2007 1:16 PM

Instead of our government spending more money on another invasion/war, we should look towards more important issues such as global poverty in order to combat the real problems at the source. According to the Borgen Project, it costs $19 billion a year to combat real poverty. We should let our representatives know that we would like to see a change in the direction of our foreign affairs.

Posted by marie2 | February 12, 2007 1:16 PM

Just the other day, [Rumsfeld] said that they do not plan to attack [Iraq]. It still seems to me that the most likely interpretation is that he's telling the truth, and the rhetoric and "evidence" about [Iraq] is not the prelude to an actual attack, but just hard-line rhetoric meant to keep [Iraq] on the defensive.

Nice historical quotation, there, Jim W, but I had to fix a couple of typos for you.

Posted by mds | February 12, 2007 1:59 PM

mds,

Come to think of it, I think that's exactly what I said back in early 2003. How did you know?

Posted by Jim W | February 12, 2007 2:04 PM

Just the other day, Gates said that they do not plan to attack Iran. It still seems to me that the most likely interpretation is that he's telling the truth, and the rhetoric and "evidence" about Iran is not the prelude to an actual attack, but just hard-line rhetoric meant to keep Iran on the defensive.

That's possible Jim W. But another possibility is that military plans drawn up for Iran just haven't yet moved out of the bureaucratic box labelled "contingency plans" or "plans that have been developed but not put into the execution phase" to "things that are in the preliminary stages of execution and thus officially qualify as things we planning to do". Until such plans are put into execution, Gates can continue denying that we are planning to attack Iran.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 12, 2007 2:05 PM

Oil was and is the cause of Bush wars. Gas will be $6/gal. and Exxon will make $300 billion.

Posted by mal | February 12, 2007 2:25 PM

I think I need to make it clear why Yglesias isn't persuasive to those who are more hawkish (such as myself).

The problem with Iran, of course, is not a few guns in Iraq, it is the Iranian nuclear program. In numerous blog entries, Yglesias has skipped over the hard questions:

1) Does he find it acceptable that Iran will have nuclear weapons for the next 50 to 100 years? 2) When the Ayatollah said it was 'ok to destroy Iran, if Islam is globally triumphant', knock the idea of deterrence on it's head? 3) Isn't he frightened of nuclear weapons in the hands of suicide bombers? 4) Does he really think that the holocaust-denying government of Iran is a normal trustworthy part of the world system? 5) Isn't the purpose of holocaust-denial to justify the destruction of the Zionist State? 6) Can we tolerate the Ayatollah's dominance of the entire mideast oil supply and the consequent blackmail of Europe and the US?

Sure, bombing Iran would be some sort of geopolitical disaster. But until Yglesias directly addresses the disaster of a nuclear-armed Iran he's simply not communicating.

Posted by Warren | February 12, 2007 4:39 PM

Goodness, Warren, Matt has addressed all those things many, many times--although perhaps his conclusions were not to yourliking.

Posted by rea | February 12, 2007 4:54 PM

If I've missed Matt's posts on these topics, could someone supply a link? I really haven't seen anything right on the topics that takes nuclear war seriously...

Posted by Warren | February 12, 2007 5:21 PM

Your hard kwestins are based upon half-truths, speculation and fallcy, Warren. Do you work for the White House?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2007 5:40 PM

Warren, if you want to bomb Iran to forestall it's potential nuclear program, then that should be the public merits upon which it is considered, not a pack of lies and by fraud.

Posted by Jimm | February 12, 2007 6:20 PM

Unlike Apartheid Israel and the U.S....Iran has attacked no one, dropped cluster bombs on no one, is currently subjugating and persecuting no one, perpetrating slow-genocide against no one. The only thing Iran is guilty of is not wanting to be an inviting target for a despicable regime.

Posted by Trevor | February 12, 2007 6:32 PM

I hope that President Bush approves air strikes against Iran, for then the democrats will reap what 7 years of the most heinous political rhetoric has sown.

We've been in a de facto war against Iran for almost 20 years, and what will be said if they're finally attacked now? Will they call the President a Nazi, a monster, the greatest danger to the free world or a new and different childish insult? By completely excepting themselves from the political process the democrat party has given the President permission to do whatever he wants.

Posted by Scott | February 12, 2007 6:47 PM

Attacking Iran because they are (allegedly) supplying munitions to Iraqi insurgents would be analogous to the USSR attacking the US in 1985 because we were supplying munitions to Afghan insurgents.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 12, 2007 9:14 PM

Warren, the burden of proof is very much on hawks to demonstrate:

1) That Iran is doing anything at all noteworthy in regards to its nuclear development. The CIA thinks that given the desire to develop them (something that's not beyond dispute), Iran is ten years from making a nuke. Ten years is a long time! Nukes are hard to make.

2) That a nuclear armed Iran threatens American interests. I don't think you can make a case that this is so, but I'd be open to one.

3) That war would be better for American interests than not waging war, given the above two propositions are so— which I don't think they are.

When hawks provide any concrete proof of above, then we can have a debate. Until it's forthcoming, there can't be one. For fuck's sakes, people need to stop being such hysterical pussies. The Ayatollah isn't about to kill all the Jews or occupy California. People need to get a hold of themselves.

Posted by guy | February 12, 2007 9:29 PM

Scott, what in the name of God are you talking about? In a sane world we'd be allied with Iran, which is a few reforms away from being a full blown democracy (and isn't structurally all that far off from England) and shares our interest in fighting Salafist terrorism. We've been at war with them for 20 years in much the same sense we've been at war with England since the 18th century.

Posted by guy | February 12, 2007 9:35 PM

Attacking Iran because they are (allegedly) supplying munitions to Iraqi insurgents would be analogous to the USSR attacking the US in 1985 because we were supplying munitions to Afghan insurgents.

Well, yes, except for the fact that we clearly were providing (or facilitating the provision of) arms in abundance to the Afghans. Yet it is singularly implausible that the Iranian government is providing arms in any numbers to the very people who are fighting against the Iran-allied or Iran-friendly forces that make up the Iraqi government, a government which the Iranians are clearly attempting to stabilize to prevent the return of Sunni rule (whether of the Baathist or Islamist variety) in Iraq. The Bush administration is counting on the media and public to be sufficiently confused or doltish as not to be able to keep track of the different sides in the war.

Yet I can hear hawks like Bill Kristol, pretending to be such dolts themselves and pretending to really believe this latest crap, saying to you, "You are precisely right about the analogy between US support for Afghan insurgents and Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents; the only difference is that (i) we are the good guys and (ii) we possessed a huge nuclear arsenal during the Afghan war, so the USSR couldn't attack us. But Iran doesn't possess a nuclear arsenal, so we can attack them."

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 12, 2007 10:33 PM

A better analogy might be to accuse Ryder Truck Rental of killing Americans because we have the serial numbers of the trucks used in the 1993 attack on the WTC and the OK City bombing.

Posted by Just Karl | February 12, 2007 11:15 PM

5) Isn't the purpose of holocaust-denial to justify the destruction of the Zionist State?

Wow!

We have finally reached the intellectual nadir of the snipe hunt for the New Anti-semitism.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 12, 2007 11:27 PM

(i) we are the good guys and (ii) we possessed a huge nuclear arsenal during the Afghan war, so the USSR couldn't attack us. But Iran doesn't possess a nuclear arsenal, so we can attack them."

Dan, I guess I can see them arguing this. But I think the logical response is to accuse them of strategic stupidity. Does one want to pick a fight with one's big, scary, resource-rich antagonist because he is discretely aiding one's puny but irritating enemy? China had no significant nuclear arsenal in 1965, and no way of getting its bombs to the US; but that's not the reason why we didn't attack them to punish them for aiding North Vietnam (and by extension the VC). We didn't attack them because a direct attack on China would have legitimized the direct entry of Chinese forces into the war, and that would have necessitated a colossal escalation of American forces -- this was a lesson we learned in Korea, long before China got nukes.

Dragging Iran into the war would just be dumb. It's a strategic mistake, whether or not they're providing shaped charges to Iraqi militias. Any general with brains is doing his damnedest now to figure out how to keep Iran out of this war, not looking for excuses to bring them into it. Politicians ought to display a talent for maximizing the number of their friends and neutrals and minimizing and isolating the number of enemies, rather than the opposite.

Posted by mattsteinglass | February 13, 2007 12:25 AM

For fuck's sakes, people need to stop being such hysterical pussies.

Indeed...wingnuts?

Oh, and someone forward this to John Kerry as guy's job application.

Posted by Jimm | February 13, 2007 1:27 AM

Please.

Posted by Jimm | February 13, 2007 1:28 AM

I think the left needs to appropriate some of that tough guy rhetoric to the ends of not needlessly killing people who are our natural allies and friends at ruinous expense.

So, if you're actually so petrified of fucking Iran of all places that you think we need to bomb it, I say outright that you need to get the sand out of your vagina, because you're a simpering coward.

Posted by guy | February 13, 2007 1:54 AM

I think that there should also be some attention to the many ways that Iran could retaliate against American interests, especially in the immediate neighborhood. I am no expert on the Middle east, BUT- simply look at a map- What would it take to close the Straights of Hormuz, for example? There may be MANY other ways that Iran could strike back if we make some air strikes. Does the name Pearl harbor ring a bell?; after all it was also a "pre-emptave" air strike, from carriers, no less!

Posted by M. Carey | February 13, 2007 2:23 AM

pseudonymous
I don't work for the US or any government, I was just asking.

guy
1) Nukes aren't that hard to make when you have your own Uranium, as Iran does. Take two pieces of uranium and smash them together explosively. Believing the 10-year guess is just dangerous. The CIA missed Indian nuclear development and Iraqi nuclear development by miles.

2) Of course it's against US interests, they call the US the Great Satan and Israel a 1-bomb state. They arm Hamas and Hezbollah and keep on chanting "Death to America". Their explicit goal is world domination.

Iran is deliberately heading to war, see this article.

3) A nuclear war in the middle east is obviously against US interests, at the very least there would be disruption in world oil supplies and the world economy. Why do you even need to ask?

The Iran threat is so serious that other middle eastern governments have announced they too are starting nuclear programs "For peaceful purposes", of course. See this Tribune article.

Ed Marshall
What could be the purpose of a nation adopting holocaust denial as a national policy except to propagandize against Israel? Do you think the Iranians are actually passionate about "Correcting" the historical record of another country and people in a way that makes them a laughingstock? Or is it a tool of their foreign policy?

Posted by Warren | February 13, 2007 4:27 AM

Warren— On the off chance you're serious,

1) You obviously have literally no idea what you're talking about. You need thousands of incredibly intricate machines working together in absolutely perfect order to enrich that uranium in order to make a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are hard to make. The CIA bit is retarded. By this logic we should be invading Egypt or Argentina.

2) How is it against US interests? Our only national interest in the Middle East is ensuring energy supplies. Who gives a fuck what people in mosques chant? They can chant whatever they want. Who cares? I don't want to bomb them over it. Are you going to bomb Dinesh D'Souza or Michael Moore? For Christ's sake.

3) A nuclear war is obviously against US interests. Iran having a weapon is not.

That Post article is pretty God damn weak beer. The fact that someone with an agenda can cobble together a legalistic case for a war doesn't mean you should wage one.

Give a real argument at least, this is absolutely pitiful.

Posted by guy | February 13, 2007 8:16 AM

Have any of the warmongers actually sat down and figured out HOW an attack on Iran would play out? None of this roses-and-chocolates "oh they'll love us for liberating them and everything will go magically OK." Haven't you guys ever heard of the term "blowback"? Any VC who was offered an equivalent lack of planning in any business plan presented to them would laugh the perpetuators out of the room in a nano-second.

In short, given the total FUBAR that this load of idiots has managed to make of Iraq, how do you possibly think that they're going to do any better with Iran, given that we have fewer soldiers, an economy that's on the verge of turning turtle, and Iran has a big friend called China that can dig a shiv into our back simply by refusing to buy up the next round of gov't bonds that we put out to fund our deficit?

God, I remember when Republicans were considered the hard-headed business types. What happened?

Posted by grumpy realist | February 13, 2007 2:10 PM

Posted by lolo | February 23, 2007 10:55 AM