Dems' Me-Too Iran Talk
This article linked from: antiwar.com
(as are many posts seen in this NG)
http://www.tompaine.com/print/dems_metoo_iran_talk.php
Gareth Porter February 26, 2007
Gareth Porter is a historian and national security
policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance:
Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was
published in June 2005.
As the Bush administration ratchets up its military
threat to Iran, the leadership of the Democratic party
is providing a free pass to continue on that
potentially disastrous course. Congressional leaders
have tacitly or explicitly accepted the necessity of
keeping the "military option"-meaning a massive,
unprovoked air attack on Iran-"on the table," as have
all three of the leading candidates for the party's
presidential nomination.
The Democratic leadership in Congress has defined the
Iran issue only in terms of c ongressional prerogatives
to declare war; none have seen fit to say that
threatening Iran with an unprovoked attack is an
unacceptable option.
Leading Democrats refuse to reject the option of
aggressive war against Iran because they have bought
into one of the central myths of the U.S. national
security elite: that the U.S. must use its unchallenged
military dominance to coerce Iran on uranium
enrichment.
The three leading candidates in the race for the
Democratic presidential nomination have all stated
their support for continuing to consider the option of
military attack. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told the
AIPAC annual convention at the end of January, "In
dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken
off the table." Former senator John Edwards was even
more vehement in a speech on Iran last month at the
Herzliya Conference in Israel. "To ensure that Iran
never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options
on the table," he said, and then repeated the point for
emphasis. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., appearing on "60
Minutes" recently, declared, "I think we should keep
all options on the table."
These Democrats act as though their support for keeping
the military option alive-as opposed to supporting an
actual attack on Iran-carries no risk, but that notion
represents a profound misunderstanding of what it means
to threaten aggressive war against Iran. In fact,
keeping that threat "on the table" carries three very
serious risks.
A war with Iran could be triggered by accidental or
deliberate U.S. military provocation. To make the
threat to Iran credible, the administration is
deploying carrier task forces to the Persian Gulf,
which inherently increases the likelihood that some
U.S. naval commander will fire unnecessarily on an
Iranian ship or plane. That is exactly what happened
in 1988 when the cruiser USS Vincennes-apparently
thanks to the aggressive tactics of its commander-shot
down Iran Air Flight 655. That danger is especially
acute given the provocative nature of the Bush
administration's policy toward Iran.
Alternately, the administration may pursue a carefully
calibrated strategy of combining a military buildup
with increasingly warlike rhetoric, only to find that
it has made Iran less, not more, willing to compromise.
Even assuming that the White House has made no decision
to attack Iran now, such a decision becomes far more
likely once coercive diplomacy has been pursued and
has failed.
Even if we are fortunate enough to dodge both of those
bullets, coercive diplomacy carries the risk of tilting
the political balance within Iran toward the actual
manufacture of nuclear weapons. Contrary to the
official Bush administration line, U.S. intelligence
has long held that Iran's policy toward the pursuit of
nuclear weapons is significantly influenced by the
U.S.'s policy toward Iran's security concerns.
There are many indications of disagreement within the
Iranian regime regarding whether to simply keep the
nuclear option open or to move to production of nuclear
weapons. The more imminent an attack by the U.S.
appears, the more advocates of weapons production are
likely to prevail.
The belief, in the face of all these risks, that
keeping the military option open is sacrosanct is no
political accident. It is one of the effects of U.S.
military dominance over the rest of the world. The
national debate is sharply tilted in the direction of
those who want to exploit that advantage. Anyone
calling for the renunciation of aggressive war can be
accused of giving up the advantage of Iranian
uncertainty.
Policymakers and political leaders tend to be seduced
by the allure of dominance into believing that they
can force weaker uncooperative states to do U.S.
bidding. That was the fatal error of the Kennedy and
Johnson administrations, who believed U.S. military
dominance over the Soviet Union and China could be
used to successfully coerce North Vietnam regarding
the guerrilla war in the South.
Similarly, the Bush administration expected that, once
it had removed Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and
established its regional military dominance, it would
be able to coerce Iran and Syria. The debacle in Iraq
set back its project in coercive diplomacy seriously,
but has not shaken its belief that the Iranians will
ultimately buckle under to the threat of war with the
United States, combined with economic pressure from
European and Japanese banks refusal to deal with
Iranian clients.
Efforts to use U.S. military power as a coercive
instrument have failed time and again and have had
disastrous consequences, yet the notion that this
strategy is advantageous remains a dominant political
myth. The Democratic leadership has joined the Bush
administration in succumbing to that myth. They need
a crash course in the realities beneath the shiny
allure of coercive diplomacy before it is too late.
This article linked from: antiwar.com
(as are many posts seen in this NG)
http://www.tompaine.com/print/dems_metoo_iran_talk.php
--
Recent legislation sponsored by the
"American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran.
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
***************
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 105
H R 282 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Apr-2006
BILL TITLE: To hold the current regime in Iran
accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran
YEAS 397
Too numerous to list but include Democrats Jack Murtha,
John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee,
and Lynn Woolsey.
NAYS 21
Tammy Baldwin - Dem
Earl Blumenauer - Dem
Allen Boyd - Dem
Peter DeFazio - Dem
John J. Duncan - Rep
Jeff Flake - Rep
John Hostettler - Rep
Walter B. Jones (NC) - Rep
Dennis Kucinich - Dem
Jim Leach - Rep
Jim McDermott - Dem
Jim McGovern - Dem
Cynthia McKinney - Dem
Jim Oberstar - Dem
Dave Obey - Dem
John Olver - Dem
Ron Paul - Rep
Nick Rahall - Dem
Vic Snyder - Dem
Pete Stark - Dem
Gene Taylor (MS) - Dem
********
Did I mention that this legislation was sponsored by
the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee"
to effect an eventual regime change in Iran ?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll105.xml
No energy lobbies pushing this legislation.
.
|
