| Now, I'm very worried about a possible attack on Iran. In many ways, it's the single most destructive policy choice remaining before the Bush administration, one Democrats are unwilling to stop because of Bush Dogs like Zack Space and power centers like AIPAC. Highly connected foreign policy experts have been warning about the possibility of Cheney consolidating his influence and pushing Bush towards another war. Regardless of whether you think an attack on Iran is a good idea or not, there is a possibility of war at the behest of this White House.
While national security experts I know aren't concerned at this moment, Juan Cole blogged about a PR rollout of an Iran war this fall, and noted some correspondence from a friend talking about what he heard at a right-wing think tank.
They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty.
Right now, the Bush administration is hampered in its policy choices by its ineptitude and lack of support. The only way that we will attack Iran is if Democratic elites offer Bush the legitimacy to do so by agreeing on Iran's innate validity as an evil target for American forces. One of the key factors that will increase Bush's capacity to attack Iran is Democratic leaders such as Obama acknowledging that Iran presents a mortal threat. And that's exactly what he does with the Op-Ed that the Obama supporter was so angry I didn't cite.
Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. Yet the Bush administration and an anonymous senator are blocking a bill with bipartisan support that would ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime. It's time for this obstructionism to stop.
The decision to wage a misguided war in Iraq has substantially strengthened Iran, which now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
If the second paragraph didn't knock the invasion of Iraq, there would be no way to know that this was not authored by a neoconservative itching for war with Iran who is in some ways going to the right of Bush on the use of American power. That Obama is pushing for sanctions and not war is largely irrelevant, since Bush is actually the President and what he needs for an attack on Iran is precisely the legitimacy Obama is affording him. Bush and the whole right-wing infrastructure are going to say, 'as Democrats like Barack Obama have acknowledged, Iran "poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation"', and force is on the table. That's just obvious. With this Op-Ed Obama has just increased the leverage Cheney has in the White House because it's clear that the only thing Obama and Cheney disagree on with respect to Iran is how to put pressure on the regime.
I've also criticized Zack Space, who has similarly participated in the right-wing is PR campaign against Iran, and I will continue to offer criticism against any Democrat who argues that Iran is some sort of existential threat. In these criticisms, I tend to get pushback from those who believe I am glossing over the geopolitical realities of the Middle East. The argument is typically a mixture of bluster, denial, and finally a concession that the commenter believes that Iran needs to be constrained by American might. First is the anger that I am misrepresenting Obama and associating him with Bush. He did not call for an attack on Iran. Then comes an attack on my integrity. You did not cite this mitigating content. And finally comes the commenter's actual opinion. Iran is dangerous, and what Obama or Space are calling for is reasonable. This is not isolated to comments on blogs, but is a hallmark of liberal political dialogue and a way that Democratic base voters excuse our leaders for deeply immoral and illiberal behavior. I've gotten this kind of nonsensical attack from Change to Win's Jason Lefkowitz after criticizing the Teamsters for divesting from Iran. Lefkowitz dishonestly portrayed Jimmy Hoffa as doing this solely for labor violations, leaving out the point I made that Hoffa's rationale included terrorism, Iraq, and Iran being an 'enemy' of the United States. The Teamsters used our right to respond feature and denied affirming an attack on Iran, and that union deserves praise for its retraction. But Lefkowitz's words stand as a marker of dishonesty and reflexive defensiveness, a cultural signal that a substantial part of the Democratic base, in this case Change to Win, is quite willing to lie to themselves about what they really think and smear their friends to sustain their self-deception.
My bottom line, and I think the reason the liberal blogs have a market of readers, is honesty in politics. If you support Obama or Space in their criticism of Iran as a dangerous threat, then you are effectively supporting the use of American military force in Iran. That's not the way I want it. I'd like nuance in our foreign policy discussions, and I sympathize with those who want engagement with Iran backed up by bluster. The problem is, Bush said 'you're either with us or against us', and he meant it. He will use all demonization of Iran as an excuse to attack. That's just his track record, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
In other words, have the courage of your convictions. You do not need to support everything Obama says to support Obama. You can say 'he went over the top here, but I like him anyway'. That would at least acknowledge the fundamental dynamics of the situation. But if you assert that Iran is a dangerous country that poses massive threats to the US in the Middle East or if you support Obama in making that assertion, then you are supporting an attack and making it more likely. If you are critical of this line of rhetoric, then you are against an attack and are making it less likely. I wish there were a third option, but it's just a cheap excuse for irresponsibility to pretend otherwise. Bush doesn't do nuance, and I'm not sure why we haven't all learned this yet. |
STATE BLOGS
