Seriously

Ezra Klein gets serious about liberal hawks and Iran:

Insofar as Iran is a serious foreign policy issue -- and it is! -- those who pride themselves on their seriousness in such matters should be honest in offering their answers. The "dovish" view is that a military campaign against Iran would be a seriously bad idea. It is a view shared by many generals, most foreign policy experts, and, according to some reports, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Liberal hawks seem to dispute that conclusion, but won't quite say why. The danger of Iraq, it turns out, is not that too many liberals overlearned its lessons, but that too many liberals didn't learn them at all -- and instead have merely become more circumspect in their saber-rattling.

One point I was discussing with a few other people the other day is that we need to understand one of the costs of the continuing US military presence in Iraq as constantly posing a small-but-real risk of war with Iran. It's one thing to have such chilly relations with a country on the other side of the world, and another thing entirely to have the kind of poor relationship we have with Iran while simultaneously maintaining a huge military presence right next door. It creates a situation where screwups or confusion on the part of relatively low-level members of either nation's military and intelligence apparatus could easily lead to an "incident" that hot-heads in either government would exploit.

Comments

Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 14, 2007 10:24 AM

Speaking of Ezra, are either of you going to reply to any of the (overwhelmingly critical) responses to your "I'd be overjoyed if Bush pardoned Scooter Libby" posts?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 14, 2007 10:30 AM

It creates a situation where screwups or confusion on the part of relatively low-level members of either nation's military and intelligence apparatus could easily lead to an "incident" that hot-heads in either government would exploit.

Perhaps worse, it creates a situation where men at the very top of the respective governments - men like Dick Cheney and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - can take advantage of the hostilities in Iraq to intentionally crank up the tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

Iraq allows Cheney and Ahmadinejad to rely on their allies in their respective militaries to create trumped up charges of "spying," leading to the detention and imprisonment of diplomats, private citizens, etc. from the other nation. And this is only the bluntest and most obvious approach.

Arguably, war between the U.S. and Iran would help both men. And Iraq allows them to inch closer and closer, since the proximity of U.S. military forces to Iran erases the "buffer zone" of cooler heads, diplomats, the State Department, etc. It gives Cheney and Ahmadinejad access to the other side, which is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 11:05 AM

I suspect that one thing keeping Bush from attacking Iran is that there doesn't seem to be any way to use an attack on Iran for domestic political advantage. Unlike, e.g., attacking Iraq.

Posted by MattF | June 14, 2007 11:08 AM

The logic of your argument would extend to all U.S. Forces and bases in the Persian Gulf and the U.S. Fleet in those waters (where a record of conflict with Iran in the late 1980s already exists). From what I have been reading of you, that is probably what you think we should do. I wonder if such an action in its own way (ending our role as the security guarantor to the Arab Gulf states) would not be just as big and utopian leap into the dark as the Neocon invasion of Iraq was; a panacea to solve our dilemnas in the Mid-East by removing the U.S. from it. As long as we put gasoline in our cars I don't know if that is possible.

I agree that we need to completely withdraw from non-Kurdish Iraq as our forces will continue to be a magnet for attacks while only slowing down the on-going civil war. I do wonder what duty you think we owe the Kurds, or that we owe Turkey for tolerating the Kurds autonomy in Iraq, and finally to those Iraqis who worked with us during this benighted adventure?

If we did withdraw completely from Iraq, and the new power who finally seizes Iraq decides on a final solution for the Kurdish problem, would you feel the need to intervene or should we just blame the Kurds as morally compromised by their association with the United States?

Posted by Rick Kane | June 14, 2007 11:25 AM

Just to make clear where I stand, I think with Wesley Clark that the idea of us attacking Iran is madness, and frankly could result in a a military disaster for our men and women in Iraq. It would certainly be a political and moral disaster. I agree pretty much with Owenz's post about how hawks in both Iran and U.S. seem anxious to bring about the war. As to MattF's post, I do believe that Rove/Cheney/Neocons believe that a war with Iran would provide them a domestic political advantage in part because they are irrationaly optimistic about the results of such a war and simply "can't imagine" the negative consequences. It would be bad enough if they just decieved us, but what makes these folks really dangerous is their ability to decieve themselves and maintain that deception in the face of the evidence. It was significant that Lieberman was their front man last Sunday.

Posted by Rick Kane | June 14, 2007 11:46 AM

I'm worried that there's so much enabling of a military option going on that it's creating a fertile opportunity for an Israeli strike, even an only half-way effective one. Even if lots of people don't want to advocate that, the fact that no one of any position in US politics is willing to be straight out opposed offers a great opportunity for the Israeli right (of all parties).

Posted by otto | June 14, 2007 11:50 AM

Will ANY of the leading Democratic primary candidates take a clear stand that military action against Iran would be wrong? ANY of them?

Insisting that they do should be the #1 priority of the blogsphere.

Posted by mq | June 14, 2007 11:54 AM

As to MattF's post, I do believe that Rove/Cheney/Neocons believe that a war with Iran would provide them a domestic political advantage in part because they are irrationaly optimistic about the results of such a war and simply "can't imagine" the negative consequences.

In the short term, a war with Iran would provide the the White House with the advantage of stifling (or at least distracting from) dissent and allowing the military to again be the sole provider of "official information." Unlike Iraq, which has slowed to a crawl with the messy business of managing a civil war, attacking Iran would allow the military to again do what it does best: swoop in and dramatically destroy infrastructure against a defenseless enemy. It would make good tv and many Democrats would be afraid to criticize too loudly in the midst of an active attack.

In short, a war with Iran would provide a temporary destraction for an Administration hellbent on running out the clock on its time in office. The long and even midterm implications would be disasterous, but they could probably milk some advantage over the shortrun.

It would also excite the hell out of "the base", which seems prepared to abandon the Administration right now...

Posted by owenz | June 14, 2007 12:13 PM

I can only guess-- but I'd guess that the White House Resident Genius has done polling and has discovered that a major attack on Iran would be a domestic political catastrophe. Now, I agree that Chaney would not be deterred by this... but I think Bush would be. In any case, one can hope so.

Posted by MattF | June 14, 2007 12:45 PM

MattF said, "Now, I agree that Chaney would not be deterred by this... but I think Bush would be. In any case, one can hope so."

Steve Clemons has warned about Cheney and his minions working behind the scenes domestically to narrow Bush's options so that a war with Iran is Bush's only real option. Here's the URL:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

This does seem like Cheney's MO. The question becomes whether or not he still has the juice to pull it off. An "incident" would certainly make Cheney's tactics more likely to succeed.

Posted by Kurzleg | June 14, 2007 1:43 PM

"Will ANY of the leading Democratic primary candidates take a clear stand that military action against Iran would be wrong? ANY of them?

Insisting that they do should be the #1 priority of the blogsphere."

Why? I'm as opposed to military action in Iran as the next guy, but often creating a credible threat of force is an important part of diplomacy (assuming leadership with moderately good judgment). For example, the build up to war in Iraq caused Saddam to reverse himself and allow the inspectors back in, giving the U.S. an opportunity to declare victory without going through with the disastrous war. Unfortunately, Bush squandered that opportunity. By taking the use of hard power "off the table" you greatly weaken your soft power. Why would we want to force the Democratic president to deal with Iran with one hand tied behind his or her back?

Posted by Led | June 14, 2007 6:03 PM

I hate to say it but what the hell, it's not a bug it's a feature. We're right there, let's kick some ass.

If we just bombed the hell out of Iran after significantly withdrawing from Iraq we wouldn't suffer any casualties, except for maybe a lucky early engagement shoot down and then latter the occasional accident. If we bomb Iran and attacks mount on our forces in Iraq we can blame Iran for them. Put a face on the enemy and drum up support for continued kicking of their asses, or to be a little less cute, to kill Iranians in ever greater numbers.

I know it's a crazy idea but please try this out from time to time when trying understand our strategy and tactics in the Gulf region, and really everywhere. These guys, the Cheney/Bush ites and their camp followers, love death, love destrurction, love pain and chaos.

Posted by rapier | June 14, 2007 6:48 PM

"Will ANY of the leading Democratic primary candidates take a clear stand that military action against Iran would be wrong? ANY of them?"

Ask AIPAC. But then again, don't bother as you already know the answer.

Posted by kafka | June 15, 2007 12:11 AM

"Will ANY of the leading Democratic primary candidates take a clear stand that military action against Iran would be wrong? ANY of them?"

When no politician, not even those from your own party, don't agree with you...how mainstream are your views anyway? This should serve as a mirror to let you see where you really stand in relation to the mainstream.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 15, 2007 10:06 AM