Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

Serious leakage in The New York Times where we learn in a more on-the-record sense than before of a split pitting Condoleezza Rice "against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities." Thus far, Rice continues to have the upper hand, and rightly so.

The one thing I would observe about this is that even if neither President Bush (listening to Rice) nor Supreme Leader Khameini (listening to the Iranian version of Rice) want war, there's still a very dangerous situation. You have a lack of institutionalized diplomatic relations between the two countries, and almost 200,000 American soldiers and unknown numbers of Iranian personnel of various sorts in countries bordering Iran. There's a lot of scope there for provocations, incidents, and incidents and other problems of various sorts. Add in to the mix your Cheneys and your Ahmadenijads trying to push everything toward escalation and there's no telling what could happen.

Photo by Flickr user Koldo used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

You left out the neocon, Israel first, Jews. Lieberman, Wolfowitz and cabal are itching for this war--and they seem to have clout.

Posted by mal | June 16, 2007 12:09 PM

How about we just encourage them all to have team sex? You'd be surprised by that Persian pussy...

Posted by Andrew F. Sullivan | June 16, 2007 12:18 PM

"your Cheneys and your Ahmadenijads trying to push everything toward escalation"

I know that there's evidence that Cheney wants war with Iran, but is there any evidence that Ahmadenijad wants war with the US? I know he wants to do some things which makes some people in the US want to make war on Iran, but is there any evidence that A. wants war?

Posted by otto | June 16, 2007 12:26 PM

Thank you for the Stormfront view mal, but, by any estimation, Iran is a very serious regional threat to the interests of the US and its allies. All foreign policy thinkers have to confront how best to meet the challenge that Iranian strategic dominance would present. Jettisoning all support for Israel would not be a panacea for our Mideast problems.

Posted by VasyaDC | June 16, 2007 12:32 PM

If George Bush does not bomb Iran, then Hillary surely will, or go down in history as the American president who green-lighted today's Hitler's acquisition of Nukes--something she ain't gonna do.
Read it and weep.

And wake up boys and girls--Iran is already at war with America and Great Britain in both Iraq and Iran, and with Lebanon through Hezbollah, and with Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah. My god, otto, don't you ever pick up a newspaper? Or do you prefer to stay ignorant about what's happening in the world
by keeping your snout buried only in left-wing blogs?

Posted by Jose Chung | June 16, 2007 12:40 PM

Of course, nobody actually thinks that bombing Iran will stop them from getting nukes. At best, we can delay it for a couple of years, while substantially raising the likelihood that when one of those nukes is built, it ends up someplace where we don't want it.

And there's also the extreme vulnerability of our occupation forces in Iraq.

But outside of that bombing Iran is a great idea.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 16, 2007 12:55 PM

"You have a lack of institutionalized diplomatic relations between the two countries"

Our Farsi-(and Arabic-)speaking ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, just recently met with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad. You don't think Crocker got the guy's business card during that meeting?

Anyhow, I would think the Iranians would be more likely to start a war with us than vice-versa. After all, previous Iranian actions against the U.S. (taking over our embassy, using Hezbollah to blow up our Marines in Lebanon, using them to blow up our Air Force troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.) haven't resulted in any serious responses from us.

Posted by Fred | June 16, 2007 12:56 PM

"Our Farsi-(and Arabic-)speaking ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, just recently met with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad. You don't think Crocker got the guy's business card during that meeting?"

Still no substitute for regular diplomatic relations. Good luck trying to shine that turd.

It should also be noted that Iran was actually helping us out in Afghanistan before Cheney's office of dickless wonders and fat kids with asthma who think they're tough found out and stopped that contact. Iran would be an easily manageable issue with sensible adults in charge of the US (and Ahmadenijad is nothing more than a figurehead who sometimes makes crackpot speeches at the UN).

Posted by Reality Man | June 16, 2007 1:20 PM

Matt, I think there should be two more "bomb"s in your headline, to make it go along with "Barbara Ann".

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 16, 2007 1:24 PM

I know that there's evidence that Cheney wants war with Iran, but is there any evidence that Ahmadenijad wants war with the US? I know he wants to do some things which makes some people in the US want to make war on Iran, but is there any evidence that A. wants war?

There's been a lot of speculation that Ahmadenijad wants a confrontation with the U.S. for his own domestic political advantage. In the last Iranian election cycle, Ahmadenijad's party too a pretty good beating and his "star," so to speak, seems to be on the decline inside the complex world of Iranian politics.

The thinking is that U.S. airstrikes would cause Iranians to rally around Ahmadenijad while causing only limited damage to Iran's infrastructure and political system. So Ahmadenijad may want war. As Karl Rove might say, war makes good politics.

Now, the comment was made that Ahmadenijad is nothing more than a figure head who makes crackpot speeches at the U.N. There is certainly some truth to this, insofar as Ahmadenijad does not control the military. On the other hand, I think this drastically underestimates the complexity of Iranian politics. Ahmadenijad may not control the military, but he leads a political party and influences constituents throughout the Iranian government and military. He is an elected official with widespread support among rural, conservative Iranians. I'm sure he has people on the Supreme Counsel who share his worldview. He is also extremely clever. He certainly has enough resources and influence to cause something to happen, particularly if that something would be seized upon by Dick Cheney as a casus belli for war.

Posted by owenz | June 16, 2007 2:14 PM

Hah --- nice photo trying to show these are just normal people.

You'll notice everyone has some sort of headgear. You do realize, don't you, that's to hide their horns?

Posted by Maynard Handley | June 16, 2007 2:33 PM

"Thus far, Rice continues to have the upper hand, and rightly so."

Not so sure. Who leaked this, and why? It seems most reasonable that someone in Rice's camp sought to get a some help or encouragement in fighting the hawks. The intelligence in the article says Iran mught achieve a critical production stage by the first of the year, and next year might be "too late":

"Those hard numbers are at the core of the debate within the administration over whether Mr. Bush should warn Iran’s leaders that he will not allow them to get beyond some yet-undefined milestones, leaving the implication that a military strike on the country’s facilities is still an option."

This leads me to think that Bush is leaning toward a strike.

Cheney might be evil, but it is Bush that is a sick diseased fuck, irrational and driven by whim and his Messiah complex. My guess is that they will watch the polls and the probable outcome of the primaries and general, and time the attack for maximum political advantage. An attack might not happen if the Republican looks to be a winner.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 16, 2007 2:49 PM

Who leaked this, and why? It seems most reasonable that someone in Rice's camp sought to get a some help or encouragement in fighting the hawks.

Bob, I too get the feeling that even if Rice has the upper hand, it is with a tenuous grip that is always a single "incident" away from slipping away. Certainly Bush wouldn't hesitate to order strikes against Iran if would provide any kind of advantage to him.

Personally, I'm very curious about SecDef Bob Gates. It seems like he's constantly issuing little statements and sharing opinions that directly contradict the hardliners. If we can get through the remaining Bush years without a war with Iran, Gates may shine through as a kind of unsung hero...doing the dirty work of containing the neocons from the inside. (When I say "hero," I mean as much of a hero as any GOP official can be these days.)

Posted by owenz | June 16, 2007 3:00 PM

Why are we worrying about this now? It's not October 2008.

Posted by lambert strether | June 16, 2007 3:25 PM

. . . today's Hitler's acquisition of Nukes . . .

Ahmadenijad?

It's quite likely Ahmadenijad will no longer be president of Iran by the time Iran has nukes, if it ever does.

Hitler was the dictator of Germany. If Iran is a dictatorship - a point I won't argue here - its dictator would be Ali Khamenei, not Ahmadenijad.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 16, 2007 3:54 PM

Looks like the momentum is building toward a strike against Iran. It was ominous when Pelosi, under pressure from (don't ya know) AIPAC, removed the provision in the funding bill requiring separate Congressional authorization for action against Iran.

The american people don't want another war in the mideast, but the people no longer have any meaningful control over the government. Besides, it won't be the sons and daughters of AIPAC lobbyists and defense contractors that will be sacrificed.

Posted by kafka | June 16, 2007 4:03 PM

If we want to head this one off, we'll have to go beyond blogging and encourage voters, especially those with Republican senators who are up for reelection next year, to speak out loud and clear.

Two weeks ago I described this as "Groundhog Day" for Rice, but this time in the Colin Powell role, and we all know what happened back then:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/condoleeza-rices-groundhog-day.html

Posted by Robert Stein | June 16, 2007 4:08 PM

"I'm sure he [Ahmadenijad] has people on the Supreme Counsel who share his worldview."

If you are referring to the Guardian Council, of course he does -- otherwise they wouldn't have approved Ahmadenijad to run for president in the first place.

Posted by Fred | June 16, 2007 4:28 PM

Mal and Kafka,

Although it is unfortunately true that AIPAC and some other misguided, so-called "supporters" of Israel seem to have a delusional belief that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a good thing for Israel, the anti-war folk who think the current situation is "all about Israel" are missing an important point. If the U.S. does attack Iran before January 2009, it will be because George Bush and Dick Cheney decide to order it. Right? I have not yet seen anyone even attempt to make an argument that either Bush or Cheney really gives a flying fuck about Israel. So unless you think those two men are mere puppets of the bloodthirsty Zionist cabal that secretly rules the most powerful ocuntry on earth, there is, just possibly, a little more to it than you appear prepared to acknowledge....

Posted by Gator90 | June 16, 2007 4:31 PM

Country, not ocuntry. Sigh. Oh well, srcew it.

Posted by Gator90 | June 16, 2007 4:33 PM

Gator90:

I have not yet seen anyone even attempt to make an argument that either Bush or Cheney really gives a flying fuck about Israel.

Bush has been more supportive of Israeli policies than any previous American president.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 16, 2007 4:50 PM

One more point in response to Gartor90.

As I read the comments of Mal and Kafka, there is no basis for inferring that they are not 'prepared to acknowledge' that there is 'more to it' than AIPAC. Kafka specifically mentioned defense contractors.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Vasya, please do explain exactly how Iran is, as you put it, by any estimation, Iran is a very serious regional threat to the interests of the US and its allies.

Especially when in 2003 they sent a letter to us basically giving us all we wanted in exchange for an honest acknowledgement of their real concerns in the area. Iran in a very real sense is not as threat to our interests int he region. They are to Israel's interests, but not ours. And the two, no matter how much the neocons wish it are not identical. Iran cooperated in Afghanistan. They wanted to see Saddam gone as well. In fact, by any estimation the two countries are more likely to be natural allies than opponents. Stop passing off the neocon frame to us. We're not buying.

Posted by Sean-Paul Kelley | June 16, 2007 5:27 PM

David Tomlin: I stand corrected re Kafka's reference to defense contractors. Mal's comment speaks for itself.

Saying that Bush has been supportive of Israel's policies is very different from saying that he has a personal passion for Israel that would cause him to start a war based on a perceived, potential future threat to it. Do you believe the latter to be true?

Posted by Gator90 | June 16, 2007 5:30 PM

"Especially when in 2003 they [Iran] sent a letter to us basically giving us all we wanted in exchange for an honest acknowledgement of their real concerns in the area."

That was when the Iranian leadership was briefly scared straight, after seeing the U.S. take three weeks to topple the government of Iraq -- a country that Iran had fought to a standstill for 8 years. Had Bush met with the Iranians in '03 and negotiated with them from that position of strength, he would look like a genius today.

Iranian leaders are cockier now that they see us bogged down in an unstable Iraq, and see that the American public has lost its taste for war.

Posted by Fred | June 16, 2007 6:59 PM

"If we can get through the remaining Bush years without a war with Iran, Gates may shine through"

Agreed. If Dick, the worst President ever, steps down, my bet is on Gates for the replacement.

If there is to be war with Iran, any responsible official believes it would need to be with bipartisan support, based on truth, and a thorough plan— simply not possible with Bush/Neocon &Co. at this point..

Posted by erict | June 16, 2007 11:29 PM

Sean-Paul Kelley,

Iran's clear intention to proceed down the path to nuclear weaponization, intermediate-range missile program, regional aggressiveness (not just vis-a-vis Israel, but the U.S., Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt) and push for anti-American ideological leadership position the country (if its capabilities keep pace with its aspirations) as a serious strategic competitor in the Middle East. I acknowledge that the United States' interests are not the same as the interests of Israel, and that we should not be in the business of knocking off Israel's strategic competitors when it would harm our regional position. In this case though, our interests roughly coincide.

All of the above does not mean that I am advocating war. I don't believe that the strategic calculus favors targeted strikes against Iran at this time (and full scale invasion would be outright ludicrous). In this sense, the policy outcome I would advocate differs significantly with the "neocon frame" (and against the preferences of many strategic thinkers in Israel), although I would still place my preferences on the hawkish side.

I find Iran policy to be the most difficult foreign policy issue on the American agenda, not the least because of all the linkages involved (Israel, European missile defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, Shi'ite resurgence, et cetera). Though our support of Israel has clear costs, I also think that it's fairly clear that, whatever their public pronouncements, regional governments are more concerned with each other's relative status than with the strong U.S.-Israel partnership. Israel is the linchpin of our regional strategy and, while I'm amenable to much of Mearsheimer and Walt's argument, I believe our support of them (taking into account our interests first) is crucial to our overall regional strength. Say, for the sake of argument, that we chose to shift into a neutral stance towards Israel (replacing them with, perhaps, Egypt), there is absolutely no reason to think that our Iran problem would go away.

If I believed that a military solution was feasible--even under very difficult circumstances and with not completely certain results--I believe I would come down on the side of military action. Just to be completely clear, this is absolutely not the case, as I believe that military intervention in Iran would make Iraq look like a "cakewalk" by comparison. However, the current potpourri "policy" of attempting to both isolate and negotiate with Iran, implement an unproven (and likely impotent) missile defense system despite the deterioration of other strategic relationships, and establish a long-term ring of military bases around Iran is not just unworkable but harmful to long-term U.S. interests. So, while I'm pessimistic with regard to its prospects, I believe that the best option we have left is to enter into a genuine strategic dialog with the Iranian leadership (in the context of some form of working group to include regional and world parties with either interests in the outcome or the stature to requiring that their interests are taken into account).

Posted by VasyaDC | June 17, 2007 12:35 AM

If Iran is such a threat, then why did the neocons decide to give Iraq to them? I mean, the US overthrew Iran's worst enemy, and installed a government composed of Shiite religious parties, most of whose leaders spent their exile years in Iran? Or did they suddenly realize that they screwed up and want to pull a 180?

If the US attacks Iran, Iran can respond by having its allies in Basra province cut off US supply lines. Troops will then have to be fed by airdrops, like the Berlin Airlift, and might have to fight their way out. As bloody as it's been, up to now the majority Shiites mostly haven't been attacking Americans. It could get much worse.

And not only isn't Ahmadinijad Hitler, but he isn't in charge of squat. The Iranian presidency is a weak office, which is why his reformist predecessor couldn't do squat. The clerics are in charge.

Posted by Joe Buck | June 17, 2007 1:12 AM

These are grasses like you who want to fight to with nations all over the globe without thinking about its ends. Are you really human or something like animals with a head faced like men. Shame. Just be shameful.

Posted by Farshid | June 17, 2007 1:25 AM

Andrew: It's better to think about your own things and maybe nothings. "Persian pussy?" You think that Iranian are like you to lose their bodies and possessions for a red cent? No, It will just happens in your house and all those who thinks like you. Don't believe? Just begin your action toward Iran. Everything will emerge soon. Very soon.

Posted by Farshid | June 17, 2007 1:32 AM

There is little reason why the U.S. and Iran need to be enemies. Vasya's post above shows clearly the kind of false logic that captivates our foreign policy "experts". First the U.S. and allies behave aggressively, then other nations' quite natural responses to that aggression are used as justifications for still more aggression. Furthermore, the initial aggression is generally unconnected to the actual defense of the United States. In the end, what we have is a self-perpetuating elite of foreign policy "experts" embroiling us in constant conflicts that are unrelated to actual U.S. security needs. The "threats" are not threats to U.S. security, but only to the web of entangling alliances we have set up with various dictatorships around the region for god-knows-what reason exactly.

To address a few specifics: no proof that Iran has attacked the U.S. at all, even U.S. troops within the mideast, within the last two decades (Iranian involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing is completely unproven). Iranian involvement in Lebanon is a straightforward response to the need to defend their co-religionists in Southern Lebanon against Israeli invasion and occupation.

Iran may be pursuing nukes, but it would frankly be irresponsible for them not to do so given constant threats of U.S. strikes that can be deterred through nukes. In any case, regional U.S. allies Pakistan and Israel have not just pursued by obtained nukes. Israel has more record of aggression against neighboring countries than Iran does, while Pakistan has a more direct connection to Sunni terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Nuclear proliferation is bad, but the combination of U.S. military aggression against non-nuclear powers plus hypocrisy when it comes to nukes obtained by our allies is the worst possible way to end it.

Posted by mq | June 17, 2007 3:40 AM

I fail to see how properly recognizing Iran as the threat that its actions and strategic and diplomatic posture indicate that it is. Though you weren't quite clear on this point, I do agree with you that a large part of the reason we're at this point is because policymakers misidentified Iraq as an unmanageable threat and harbored great illusions about the what military action would accomplish both in Iraq and, as a consequence, across the region (something I strongly opposed at the time). I identified strategic dialog with Iran as likely the best step forward, given the inadvisability of direct military action; In what sense is this either illogical or overly aggressive?

Posted by VasyaDC | June 17, 2007 12:08 PM

Add "...constitutes false logic" to make the first sentence of the above post complete. Apologies.

Posted by VasyaDC | June 17, 2007 12:10 PM

MQ: I second this: "There is little reason why the U.S. and Iran need to be enemies." Unfortunately, the U.S. foreign party establishment still seems not to have understood the obvious lesson of Iraq: the U.S. has less power in the Middle East. In fact, the U.S. has had less power since the end of the Cold War, when the chief motivator for Middle Eastern countries to support the U.S. - communism - disappeared as a threat.

The chance of U.S. going to war with Iran is, I think, pretty slim. Since we are overstretched in Iraq, where the U.S. side is getting thoroughly trounced, and have tried, unsuccessfully, to sluff off the U.S. role in Afghanistan to NATO's troops, and we have done nothing to cease being dependent on oil, seems to me that Iran holds powerful cards. But powerful cards to do what? The most Iranians can hope for is that various Shi'ite parties gain some measure of control in Iraq and Lebanon. In Iraq, the U.S. is doing all it can do to achieve the same goal. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, so far, has done nothing to threaten U.S. interests, while the threat it poses to Israel consists of randomly kidnapping a few soldiers now and then.

The winding down of the Iraq war would make an excellent frame in which to pursue detente with Iran. Unfortunately, the warmongers have successfully made Iran into a stimulus for "are we or are we not going to bomb Iran?" instead of a stimulus for, are we going to recognize Iran finally, the way we recognized the Soviet Union and China? When the warmongers speak of Iranian "tyranny" and other such froth, they fail to explain why that tyranny should be knocked down by external force, rather than undermined by opening Iran up to the world via recognition, economic relations, etc., etc. Alas, the cushy white American male, at the present moment, thinks that he can solve his anger issues by support for mass killing enacted via some mercenary force. But this is neither good foreign policy nor good therapy. The anger issues will remain.

Posted by roger | June 17, 2007 2:51 PM

There must be some reason for U.S. and Iran to be enemies, or we wouldn't be hearing all the chatter about it.

I think we safely ignore the obviously silly explanation that the U.S. has some objection, in principle or otherwise, to tyranny. It has a record going back at least a century that I know of, of not only supporting but installing brutal and bloody dictatorships, including one in Iran.

Iran has not launched an aggressive war in something like 200 years, while the U.S. has scarcely done anything but start wars over the same time period, so I think we can also ignore the 'Persian aggression' meme.

Talk about detering tyranny and aggression is just that, talk. It's useful enough for getting the ignorant mob worked up, but has nothing to do with motives. Think about it. This nonsense is coming from a nation that just lauched a war on Iraq to the tune of outrageous and obvious lies.

Setting aside childish propaganda, I think we can safely say that Iran represents an obstacle to U.S.-Israeli control of the region, with its tremendous energy reserves. Fair enough, that's how the real world works. When power is at stake, violence is the preferred means of settling such issues.

The fact that we haven't seen violence yet (I would have expected it before Iran took delivery of the TOR anti-aircraft system from the Russians, but whatever) means that U.S. policy-makers are divided on the question of whether or not an attack will advance U.S. interests. I doubt very much that they are being held back by any sort of moral compunctions.

The attack on Iraq has demonstrated that America has power to destroy, but it has so far not been able to compel obedience. Israel's assault on Lebanon had the same result. It may be emotionally gratifying to U.S. nazis to do it, but there's no point to destroying Iran if the end result of it is nothing more than staving off the collapse of U.S. influence in the region.

Personally, I think the U.S. was far better off doing nothing and being thought omnipotent than it is now, to have acted and revealed itself to be both bully and coward. Well, whatever. That can't be undone.

Perhaps now we are at last seeing momentum in the U.S. to take policy out of the hands of violent idiots and into the hands of people who at least try to look forward and see consequences before acting. When all else fails, people will still use reason, and that gives me cause to hope.

Posted by RLaing | June 21, 2007 2:18 PM