Hyping Iran

It should be kept in mind, of course, that George Bush and Dick Cheney weren't the only ones running around hyping the Iranian nuclear threat all out of proportion to reality. I recall, for example, the March 13, 2007 "New Dem Dispatch" scolding those of us who were too enthusiastic about the idea of diplomacy with Iran:

But let's not get carried away. Iran still poses a major threat to global stability, regional peace, and U.S. interests. Tehran's serial defiance of U.N. mandates to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities is a major challenge to the world's nonproliferation system. And its strong financial and material support for Hezbollah and Hamas makes it the number one state sponsor of Middle East terrorism.

Oh, well. And of course there were Ken Baer's antics over the summer.

Comments

Who woulda thunk it??? The DLC pimping for more war. Color me suprised!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 4, 2007 2:47 PM

Why does it so often seem that the "respectable DC establishments" of both parties basically have the same "employers"...

It's a little like those very bitter personal hatreds which endlessly rage each season between various pro-wrestlers on television.

Posted by RKU | December 4, 2007 2:49 PM

scolding those of us who were too enthusiastic about the idea of diplomacy with Iran

The question at this moment is whether the international diplomatic pressure on Iran will continue in light of the NIE or disintegrate altogether. It seems the scolder has become the scoldee . . .

Posted by southpaw | December 4, 2007 2:52 PM

So an organization that seems to be an amalgam of nee-Dixiecrats and American Likudniks fears Iran and has a preference for military solutions. Who could have guessed?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 4, 2007 2:54 PM

scolding those of us who were too enthusiastic about the idea of diplomacy with Iran

Once again, the DLC is just the stalking horse for the worst elements in American government. Then again, the pro-war left can hitch a ride on the Republican noise machine and not have to do any real work.

Shave the heads of the collaborators and drag them through the streets.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 4, 2007 3:00 PM

And the well-oiled and well-financed machine always at hand to help stoke the fire was the Isrel Lobby.

Posted by Justin X | December 4, 2007 3:02 PM

and let us now name the villains who would have taken us into another war waving the flag all the time: the DLC, Lieberman (who to his credit has just indicated how wrong he was and has finally apologized for being a warmongering Republican ass. What's that... he hasn't? ohh)and let us not forget Hillary adding to the war hysteria.

Posted by della Rovere | December 4, 2007 3:33 PM

And of course when Bush says he wasn't told about the NIE in advance, he's lying.

The opening grafs of The Consortium’s story by Ray McGovern on this read as follows:

With redraft after redraft, it was what the Germans call “eine schwere Geburt”—a difficult birth, ten months in gestation.

I do not know how often Vice President Dick Cheney visited CIA Headquarters during the gestation period, but I am told he voiced his displeasure as soon as he saw the first sonogram/draft very early this year, and is so displeased with what issued that he has refused to be the godfather.

This time Cheney and his neo-con colleagues were unable to abort the process. And after delivery to the press, this child is going to be very hard to explain—the more so since it is legitimate.

In other words, Cheney certainly knew, and we all know that he’s the real Decider. He not only knew, he was actively trying to kill the NIE before it could be released to the public!

Even better: AmericaBlog found this WaPo story showing that Bush was originally briefed months ago:

Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.

So he lied. Again.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | December 4, 2007 3:40 PM

Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between people (like the President and V.P.) who had access to the NIE and decided not to let it get in the way of starting a needless war and other groups and organizations which didn't have access to that NIE?

Posted by washerdreyer | December 4, 2007 3:48 PM

I don't particularly side with either camp in the DLC versus netroots battle. Both sides have their points -- netroots is correct to point out that the DLC (and most of Congress) completely abdicated their responsibilities in the run-up to Iraq and the DLC is correct that there remain a number of challenges to US national security. I think it goes too far to say that every time the DLC makes the latter point (at least without disavowing the possible use of force under any circumstances) that it is the equivalent of the neocons.

The linked piece advocates the grand bargain approach to Iran that I, Matt and most people here support. For what I consider an excellent blog, it seems to me that Matt repeatedly jumps to conclusions about the wrongheadedness of foreign policy elites based on partial quotes and strained criteria. There are a lot of wingnuts out there -- most, though not all, of them at AEI and the like -- these days. It serves little purpose to equate anyone who speaks of the same underlying concerns as those that animate the winguts to the wignuts themselves. (That, btw, is what I believe Krugman is doing with regard to Obama as well).

Posted by Chunche | December 4, 2007 4:14 PM

Matt, what's wrong with saying Iran is a threat for developing nukes back when everyone thought that was true? (Only people with access to the classified NIE report knew what we know now.) You are not being fair.

Also, the "new dem dispatch" line about Hezbollah and Hamas still holds.

Posted by frooid | December 4, 2007 4:53 PM

"(Only people with access to the classified NIE report knew what we know now.)"

Bullshit.

Just like Iraq, if you followed the various articles closely, you'd know the whole Iran line was bullshit from day one.

The NIE itself is questionable. There is little evidence that Iran was actually on a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. Imad Khadduri, an Iraqi nuclear scientist, suggests that Iran did have a dual-purpose program started after Iraq was proven to have a nuclear weapons program that was halted back in 1991. However, he provides little evidence beyond supposition based on Iran's having a heavy water reactor of 40MW rather than 10MW for research purposes.

My presumption is that Iran's MILITARY had a program to learn about nuclear weapons while Iran's leadership had a nuclear energy program that was chosen for its ability to enable them to switch to nuclear weapons if they had to at some point in the future. This is hardly a threatening strategy. Japan and other nations have the capability of producing nuclear weapons as well and undoubtedly chose those paths for precisely the same reasons (Japan especially, since it is faced with potential hostility from China.)

It is still a fact that Iran HAD to have a nuclear energy program in order to preserve their oil revenue in the future. It also remains a fact that Iran's leadership has explicitly stated that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons as they are considered "un-Islamic." The NIE does not address these issues.

The NIE appears to be an attempt by the intelligence agencies to "have it both ways" - that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, but doesn't have one now. And thereby be correct no matter how you read it.

This was a mistake, because the Israelis are already claiming that Iran DID stop its program in 2003 but then resumed it. Now the US agencies will be unable to state definitely that that is not the case. Of course, the question to be asked is: if Israel knows this, why then is this intelligence not covered in the NIE? Obviously because Israel is lying. But try to make that point in the MSM and get accused of being "anti-Semitic".

So we're back to square one. The presumptions that this takes the Iran war off the table are incorrect - because Iran's program was never the point of an Iran war anyway. Oil, hegemony and Israel are the real reasons.

In fact, the NIE report is a very nice way of allowing everybody against the Iran war to let down their guard on the presumption that Bush and Cheney cannot now start one because there is no justification.

As Dick Cheney said about Congressional attempts to prevent an Iran war, "That won't stop us." All the NIE does is provide cover for Cheney to continue war preparations.

Cheney has been trying to get Israel to start the war. Israel has apparently been hesitant. Now, however, the question is being debated as to how Israel will respond to this NIE.

On the one hand, it is said by Israeli officials that the US will not "green light" an Israeli strike on Iran. On the other hand, Israel has repeatedly said they will not ASK for a "green light" if they decide to attack Iran.

What this will end up meaning is that Israel will initiate the attack, drawing the US into the war, but blunt the criticism it receives for doing so by pointing to the Cheney rhetoric as justification and arguing that the NIE report was wrong.

Once the war starts, it will be a fait accompli anyway. Israel will take no damage diplomatically for having started it other than perhaps a UN resolution which Israel will ignore like all the others it has ignored.

The Iran war is still on in my opinion. The NIE is a smokescreen. Whether it was leaked by McConnell or others as "push back" against Cheney is irrelevant. All it does is confuse the issue. The only thing it added to the debate is the notion that Iran had a weapons program and then stopped it. All other debate parameters remain operative.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 5:16 PM

Just like Iraq, if you followed the various articles closely, you'd know the whole Iran line was bullshit from day one.

So what's your independant source of information Mr. Hack? Reading the newspaper? Reading and thinking is indeed a good antidote to lots of what the Bush administration says, but no one could have had an evidence-based opinion on Iran's nukes and been close to certain without seeing the NIE. Just because your opinion is strongly held and opposes Bush doesn't mean you have good reason to believe it.

Posted by frooid | December 4, 2007 5:28 PM

"And its strong financial and material support for Hezbollah and Hamas makes it the number one state sponsor of Middle East terrorism."

This is also incorrect, since Hizballah is not a terrorist organization, but a Lebanese nationalist resistance group. The same applies to Hamas. You don't see Hizballah or Hamas operating out of their territories unless the operations are directed against their prime enemy, Israel, or in the case of Hizballah during the Lebanese civil war, against the US in support of Israel. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is a terrorist group since it operates globally against numerous states including the US.

Conflating Hizballah and Hamas with Al Qaeda and related groups is a classic error: not knowing your enemy.

So the DLC is wrong on that one, too.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 5:34 PM

I could not agree more that the Bush Administration's misrepresentaitons regarding Iran's nuclear program in light of the NIE (info long available to the Administration) only confirms they are unrepentant liars. But the NIE does not indicate that there is no potential concern regarding Iran's nuclear program.

See Ray Takeyh, far from a warmongering crazy person:

"So long as Iran is intent on having an indigenous enrichment capability of significance, there is cause to be concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14953/immediate_threat_reduced.html?breadcrumb=%2Findex

Everyone who has ever spoken of the potentially negative consequences of the Iranian nuclear program (be it secret military or, for now, purely civilian) is not a monster.

Also, re "conflating Hizballah and Hamas with Al Qaeda," the Bush Administration has clearly failed to distinguish between terrorist groups and their potential threat to our national security. (Hizballah and Hamas don't seek to attack the US mainland.) But the DLC didn't do that in the linked piece. They said Iran supports those organizations, which it does and which clearly is against our interests as it undermines stability in a key region.

Posted by Chunche | December 4, 2007 6:13 PM

Hack - It also remains a fact that Iran's leadership has explicitly stated that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons as they are considered "un-Islamic." The NIE does not address these issues.

You mean a fact like the West's Christian leadership called the West building up a nuclear arsenal some 40,000 warheads ago "un-Christian"? Or the early communist denunciations of US nuclear arms as "un-progessive", some 40,000 Commie warheads ago?

Posted by Chris Ford | December 4, 2007 7:24 PM

Matt, what's wrong with saying Iran is a threat for developing nukes back when everyone thought that was true? (Only people with access to the classified NIE report knew what we know now.) You are not being fair.

"Everyone"? Uh, yeah. Right. "Everyone" that didn't read anything coming out of the IAEA, you mean?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 4, 2007 8:05 PM

Ford, don't even bother trying that nonsense. Since were any of those "Christian leaders" running the country? As opposed to the religious leader of Iran, who actually controls the country, and who has issued an explicitly religious fatwa using his religious and political authority denying the country nuclear weapons.

Moron.

Chunche: Wrong. Hizballah and Hamas are not "destabilizing factors". Israel is. Hizballah and Hamas are attempting to confront Israel. This might not be as useful as diplomacy from the US point of view, but it's the only "diplomacy" that has even remotely worked on the Israeli leadership, e.g., kicking their ass out of Lebanon. The problem is that the DLC doesn't comprehend this, being Israel bootlickers. If the DLC were willing to criticize Israel in the same manner as it criticizes Iran, one might have a case. As it stands, no way.

As for Iran's dual capability being a potential problem, that, as I have said repeatedly, is easily dealt with. Disarm Israel of its nuclear arsenal and take regime change off the table in Israel and the US, and Iran will never have a nuclear weapons program. It's that simple.

The problem is that the Dems, just like the Republicans, want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to support regime change in Iran and yet demand that Iran just cave in on their legitimate requirements for nuclear energy. Sorry, but that simply isn't going to happen.

Iran cannot trust any foreign government to provide it with nuclear fuel under any and all circumstances. Nobody would. Therefore indigenous development of the full fuel cycle is a requirement. Therefore Iran must and will continue to enrich uranium. The fact that this allows them to have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon follows from the physics. Tough noogies. That was true of other countries in the NPT, notably Japan. You can't make Iran a distinction just because you don't like the regime.

But if you remove any need for them to have a nuke, you can be reasonably sure they won't develop them. And if they do, you THEN have an argument for imposing some sort of confrontation on them - at least at the point where they have dropped the NPT, produced a nuke, and possibly have threatened to use it.

Until then, there is absolutely no legal or logical reason to demand that Iran suspend enrichment, let alone impose sanctions or threaten military action.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 11:27 PM

Chunche is right about the DLC. Minus these folks we would have had wall-to-wall Republicans since 1968. That said, I think the latest NIE is unqualified good news. In the first place, while I don't doubt many in the Iranian leadership would, and will continue to, desire nuclear weapons, this is pretty good evidence that they're further away from that threshold than was previously "best-guessed".

Second, this makes it even more unlikely than it was (and I think it was already extremely unlikely) for Bush to arrange a strike against Iran in the face of opposition from the Pentagon, the intelligence community, most of Congress, and nearly all of the American people. Such an act would have been an unqualified disaster, and we are now in a much better position politically to begin working on the sort of normalization of relations with Iran which has always been the only practical way forward.

It would be reprehensible to repudiate our alliance with Israel, and is about as likely in the real world as flying pigs, but this won't be a deal-killer with Iran. Ditto our (accurate) identification of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. But as was the case with China in '72, we have bigger fish to fry. Iran is a big, important traditional regional power in a region that's been officially recognized as one of vital national interest since Jimmy Carter. We can't just close our eyes and make it go away--engagement is the only practical course. I think we should start by ramping up the number of visas granted to Iranians to come here to study, and the amount of cultural exchange between us.

Eventually, carefully targeted lifting of economic sanctions will, as in the case of Cuba, be our policy. Finally, the existence of a reasonably pro-Western, Shia-dominated democracy next door in Iraq figures to be a major factor in our favor going forward. Timothy Garton Ash reported from Teheran that many young Iranians jokingly refer to Bush as "the thirteenth Imam" for his support of it, and these people are our best hope for eventual modification of the theocracy.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 5, 2007 5:52 AM

It strikes me as a fairly restricted (and flawed) view of ME history and current dynamics to lay all problems at Israel's feet. There are more than enough destabilizing actors in the ME to cover Israel, Hizballah and Hamas (and the US for that matter).

To the extent that you are criticizing the DLC for not pressuring Israel, that wouldn't surprise me (though I don't really follow all their pronouncements closely enough to know). However, I don't see how the DLC's stance on Israel somehow renders Hizballah and Hamas non-destabilizing forces. And, to get back to what we were discussing earlier, the DLC's piece still did not conflate Hizballah and Hamas with Al Queda as you accused.

Of course I draw a distinction between the Iranian government and the Japanese government in terms of how I assess the implications of dual capacity for US national security. But we are on the same page that taking regime change off the table as part a larger bargain that in which Iran's enrichment capacity is housed elsewhere (Russia) or effectively monitored is the right approach.

Posted by Chunche | December 5, 2007 9:35 AM