How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bombing Iran

For long time now, perhaps a year, I've been hearing (we've all been hearing) that the White House is planning to bomb Iran. As the neo-cons say, "Boys go to Baghdad; real men go to Tehran." It's a strategy so seductive that John McCain set it to music.

I've been dismissive of these rumors, as have you. Why? Because one would have to be a madman (or Dick Cheney) to start a second war when the first one is going so fucking well.

Unfortunately, this doesn't take into account the way decisions about these things are made; and it neglects to take into account, as well, this particular president's view of himself in history.

As Bush this weekend was disclosed to have said to his biographer, "I made a decision to lead... One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?" [The biography, by the way, is called Dead Certain. How reassuring to the rest of us.]

In the eyes of our president, an Iran with a different government is a world better off. The people of Iran, or what's left of the people of Iran after a 1,200-target bombing campaign, will greet us as liberators. History and Joe Lieberman will judge him brave for having turned the tide in the Grand Battle Against Islamo-fascism -- a battle which, as we now know, had its origins in the Vietnam war.

Still, I was inclined (you were inclined) to dismiss all this bluster as sabre-rattling. Alas, in the past week it has become more likely that those sabres are Tomahawk missiles -- locked, aimed, targeted.

Here are the indications that a large bombing campaign against Iran is not only on the table, but is in fact the main dish -- the turkey, if you will, of Thanksgiving 2007. I list them in order of ascending terrifyingness.

First: Robert Baer, the former middle-East CIA operative and a man who is not unconnected in the intelligence world (c.f., Syriana), says his peeps tell him we're planning to "hit" Iran.

Second: Barnett Rubin, a scholar and one of the Serious people in the academic foreign policy establishment, says we're already committed to an attack on Iran, and that the marketing for this attack will be ramped up after the long weekend. [In this light, Bush's speech to the American Legion and various Cheney remarks of the last month can be seen as test-marketings. As Bush said in that speech, "We will confront this danger before it is too late." Meaning, I suspect: "before I no longer have my finger on the button."]

Third: I doubt that David Addington believes that Bush, under the AUMF, really needs the permission of congress, or of anyone. As a courtesy, of course, he'd likely, as the planes are on their way, inform a bipartisan leadership group (several Republicans plus an independent from Connecticut). But what's sadder is that this Congress, whose Democratic leadership is talking about opposing the war but not mentioning the words "withdrawal" or "timetable"; which cowed before the FISA revisions; whose Senate this year blithely passed, 97 to zip, a resolution condemning Iran for attacking U.S. forces in Iraq -- When push comes to shove, will Reid and Pelosi (and Clinton, and Obama) put their political capital where their mouth is? As the magic eight ball says, "Signs point to no." (See Glen Greenwald's astute assessment of the political situation.)

Fourth: the foreign press, which during the run-up to Iraq was far less blinkered than, say, the Gray Lady, has been over this weekend treating an attack on Iran as a fait accompli. See this from the Telegraph (UK) . The Times (UK) ran today a headline with the flat declaration, Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran. The blitz includes what The Times terms "plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran." They quote Alex Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus." [One can't help but recall the strategic calculus of General Buck Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."]

For me (and for you), beginning a war in Iran -- in the midst of the disaster that is Iraq -- is the precise incarnation of Santayana's warning: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." But for Bush and Cheney, two of the ten or twelve people who actually believe that the Iraq war is going well, this new venture isn't fanatic at all. It would be, in their eyes-- Going from strength to strength.

I've written to my Congressman, and to both Senators. Call me quixotic, for writing; call me naive, for encouraging you to do the same; and, at day's end, call me cynical, for believing that public opinion here makes not one whit of difference.

For this long, hot weekend in Los Angeles, the last weekend before the full roll-out of the Iran Strike Ramp-Up [can't you just see the CNN logo?], we've gone to Video Hut and rented Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. We have a 14-year-old in the house, and we thought it would be nice to provide him with some context. As we pray, against all indications, for cooler weather and a peaceful fall.

[Department of Blogospheric Transparency: an earlier version of this post contained a paragraph based on a reference to a DKos Diary which has since been removed by DKos due to questions about its legitimacy. I posted the reference in good faith, and since that faith seems to have been unjustified, removed the paragraph. Apologies if, however inadvertently, I was a party to the dissemination of untruths-- Especially since what can be verified is frightening enough as is.]

Follow Howard A. Rodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivanjohnson

Comments

[ProudPrimate]

The link the author posted in the phrase "a battle which, as we now know, had its origins in the Vietnam war", which is http://www.whitehouse.gov/newsreleases/2007/08/20070822-3.html is (now) dead.

I would ask the author to provide, if possible, another avenue to look at the material, whether it be posting his personal copy on a website, or quoting the relevant text, or perhaps, correcting the URL if that be the issue.

[don]

I believe that the author was referring to Bush's talk to the veterans on Aug 22 where he alluded to how the loss of resolve and will of the American people brought about the defeat in Vietnam and the resulting bloodbaths there and in Cambodia, projecting an aura of weakness that was acted on by the terrorists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html

I found the article and you'll note the additional slash between news and releases. This link should work now, I copyed it from the address bar and pasted it here.

I think that the views of history expressed in this speech were a bunch of hooey, and a lot of the references were discredited and questioned since then. The Graham Greene reference was especially beguiling and is discussed here in "George Bush Meets Graham Greene."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003629456

Methinks the whole thing was conjured up in one of them fancy think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute where they preen themselves with the number of regurgitated ideas they can foist on the American leadership. Of course they have to pepper the input with vague references and distortions so that they can recogonize their work when it pops out of the other end. Ask Bill Kristol how that feels, kind of like Alden Pyle?

[FlowerGirl]

Well now, Mr. Rodman, what are you doing, and what do you recommend that we do to stop this illegitimate president from starting another illegal war?
It makes me no difference who wants it for whatever immoral reasons: it will amount to more murder. That is against your concepts of justice, isn't it?
And especially since these criminals, who have already published their plan, pretend to act in America's name, isn't it our DUTY to stop them?

[tbone99]

Yeah but we can keep China from getting the oil before they have the military to kick our butt.And if Bush launches his death and destruction right before the election cycle there'll be only one topic and it's not the one the Dems excel at.

[julierb]

I am physically ill over all of this. I was away from home, trying to drum up my rent money for this month, and wish I had been higher up in the comments! The thing is, I was freaked out about this over a year ago, when Seymore Hersh was sounding the alarm, and what sickens me more than the mindset of Cheney and the other neocon warmongers is that we who were expressing our concern were blown off BY NEARLY EVERYBODY. It's bad enough that we who opposed the Iraq war were blown off by most of the country in the lead-up to the invasion - but to be blown off by people who generally agree with us about most topics has been truly devastating. I have been in a state of severe angst over the probability that Iran was next. I am so deeply saddened that this is going to happen and it is far past the point of no return. If only we had been taken seriously. The folks over at Just Foreign Policy have been on the ball, trying to stop this madness, but that is about it. I was chastised over at Daily Kos for being an alarmist. We should have been pre-empting the whole idea of attacking Iran, but nobody wanted to even consider the possiblilty that the neocons were that crazy. Well, they are.
Sigh - i am so very very tired of being ignored in a socielty that puts faith in God or the Universe to bring happy flowers and candies...

[madprophet]

A few thoughts on this:

1. I posted a few days ago the strike power of the Soviet SS-22 anti-ship missiles the Iranians purchased some time ago. Unless the U.S. gets every single one in the 1200 airstrikes, you are looking at 150 bucks a barrel for oil, when the tankers start burning in the Strait of Hormuz.
But for Bush and Cheney and their pals, this is perfect, because they will have prior knowledge of when the attack will take place, and have purchased significant oil futures, or be sitting on a massive stockpile of oil today.

2. The result will be a massive downturn in the global economy, so pull your money out of the markets soon, and be sitting on cash when the crash comes. At least you can also profit from this madness.

3. Unless the U.S. plans on killing one million Iranian soldiers, how do they plan on stopping them crossing into Iraq, and killing every american they can get their hands on. If the U.S. has had such problems with militia, how will they handle a suicidal ARMY?

You americans have one choice left, and it is not impeachment. These airstrikes will happen before you can get congress to move the articles of impeachment through. BTW, Bush is now in Australia for the APEC conference, until Saturday. I will leave it up to you to fill in the rest.

[wayoutleft]

unfortunately, there is no bombing, no attack, no slaughter, no destruction of another country that congress- except for dennis, russ, and the black caucus- will not lie down like mutts and give the president tens of billions for. they will fund an attack on anybody, they would fund a nuclear attack on a third world country if bush just did it. congress would lie down for arab nuclear genocide with no objection whatsoever. that's a real problem.

[ProudPrimate]

When Clinton was pres, oil was $20/bbl. WAY too cheap. Can't have that! Gotta get the price up. OPEC isn't coming thru. Saddam is pumping too much. Hmmm -- I know! Invade Iraq, and shut off the spigot!

Problem solved. EXXON's Lee Raymond (with the skin beard and front tooth missing): $400 million parachute! What a great year. Here's a toast to Bush & Bombs!

P.S. -- cash may not be safe, either: better go for metals

[ApolloSpeaks]

Truthorelse says:
I am not sure the mullahs are any less fanatical than Bush and Cheney. Furthermore the mullahs NEVER ATTACKED ANYONE NOR DO THEY INTEND TO DO SO. You may chose to believe the same propaganda which told us that Saddam had 'weapons of mass destruction', but it does not change facts. it only makes YOU A PARTNER IN CRIME WITH THE CURRENT CRIMINALLY INSANE ADMINISTRATION.
By the way, 'Apollo' you ain't. "Hades' - perhaps.

Apollo says:

If the Bush Administration is as you say "CRIMINALLY INSANE" that should be resaon enough for the mullahs to follow the example of Kaddafi and disarm, instead of playing brinkmanship like Saddam and defying the world. What would you do if you were Achmenijad, Truthorelse? Or better still, if you were his advisor what would you counsel him to do? Dig in, defy and risk destruction? Or would you advise him to abandon his nuclear program and focus on the economic needs of his people like he promised to do. What good does it do to provoke an "insane" enemy who can flatten you in minutes?

[babylonandon]

It's not going to happen.

Do you know why?

Pay attention kiddies and Uncle Babyler will gives you a quickie edumacationski.

Before this ever happens there will be an Iranian/Russian mutual defense treaty.

Why would the Russians do this?

The most important thing in the world to them is self-preservation against invasion from outsiders. Their people have been historically butchered by outsiders repeatedly and the Western ones (the Nazi's) were the worst.

For them, the idea of the threat of Western (read American) attack is as much a threat and a part of their psyche as is the threat of Islamist terrorism to us.

Anything that diminishes our power and saps our will and strength (like the Iranian involvement in killing our soldiers and creating mayhem that keeps us bogged down in Iraq or better yet causes us to surrender and run from the field in disgrace) is a good thing. They were invested in our defeat in Vietnam for the same reason.

Knocking off Iran, their friend, market, client, and another buffer against us focusing on them is not in their interest.

They will threaten even nuclear war to stop us from preceding any further to knocking off countries and having a secure base of operations in their part of the world.

You will eventually even see Russian aid to the insurgents in Iraq. Whatever it takes to get rid of our presence just like we did in Afghanistan to them. Tit-for-tat.

[don]

Just look at a map. The Caspian Sea is a common border for Russia and Iran, and would be a conduit for aid. Will we be bombing sanctuaries in Russia next?

China borders Afghanistan, and is heavily invested in Iran's security. China restrained North Korea's nuclear program, and that course can be reversed as easily as flicking a switch.

Iran fought Iraq for eight years of brutal fighting which included the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and human wave attacks of martyrs by Iran. What hubris to think that they can be defeated by a three day air campaign.

[deminmo]

Lets see if September 15 is not only a report on how "we" are doing in Iraq, but a televised reason why we are sending bombs to Iran. Its not a question of who will win, its how long till the real war starts and we can all kiss our American way of life, pursuit of happiness, and the future of the children good-by. If the President starts another war, will he face impeachment for killing America?

[Zenobius]

Militarily, this doesn't make much sense.

We destroy the Iranian military with a Pearl Harbor type surprise attack. Then what? We don't have enough troops to actually invade Iran and force them to surrender, and we run out of bombs for several months. While Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are hurriedly building new munitions. we get to find out what the Iranians can do; what the Chinese will do in response to our bombing their biggest oil supplier, etc. Bombing was not as effective against Hezbollah as the IAF promised; a bombing campaign again the Iranian will not go as well as the USAF promises either. Remembering what happened when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it does not seem likely that the Iranians will forgive us.

On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to the Bush administration. They may blame the Iraq fiasco on Iranian intervention, and think the lesson of Vietnam was that we should have invaded the North. They may be hoping that if they bomb Iran, AIPAC will swing enough support to their side to keep their war in Iraq going. So I cannot discount the proposal to bomb Iran as something so crazy the White House won't order it.

Of course, Admiral Fallon et al; the people who will probably have to deal with the Iranian reaction, are probably stalling. Maybe they can slow this down some.

[DumbDad]

The really scary part of this is that the focus-group testing is done, and they've hit upon the perfect formula: the only opponents of our search for 'victory' are the wethercock Dems who pander to the electorate out of 'fear' of being criticized. So the brave Prez will defy them and lead our troops on to 'victory'.
The people who oppose this war deem it not only increasingly destructive to our nation's military and interests, but in the first place morally daft and deeply stupid, criminally wasting the lives sacrificed to it, whether we gain what he calls 'victory' or not.
But he's got it. We'll lose. Iranians will die, and Republicans will rule forever because enough Americans always want to 'win'.

[ranjit919]

folks, i am no fan of radicals in iran or anywhere else for that matter. i think everyone has as much a right to be worried about mullahs mixing yellowcake as they do a madman in israel with his hand on the button.

a nuclear iran clearly no danger to the usa. neither was iraq mind you, but that has changed.

a nuclear iran will cause israel to reconsider its foreign policy quickly and drastically. if they feel that this is not something they can live with, then by all means who can stop them form bombing iran. but why drag the usa into this senseless slaughter?

they alone should have to accept the consequences and the wrath of the world.

cue: jordan, syria going up in smoke. cue egypt tearing up its peace treaty with israel.

in time, iranian sympathizers will help some madmen score a few dirty nukes and set them off in cities across the usa and israel.

then, it becomes a total war of genocide.

the average citizen will never be able to travel safely anywhere in the world. till every single islamist (read: muslim) has been wiped out.

i am a huge fan of centrist us and israeli opinion.

but there's another element that worries me far more than the threat of mullah wrath.

that the isrealis and the jewsih lobby here want nothing more than the complete domination of the middle east.

if the usa attacks iran, in time we will have to call that the 5th oil war. not that the usa went in for those reasons, but that oil will be redistributed to freinds and allies.

but by then the usa and israel will have no friends and allies.

dont sell your automotive stocks yet, my feeling is that oil is going to be lot cheaper in the next decade.

nostradamus said ww3 might be started by a man in a beret. any pix of dubya in similar headgear?

[MichaelVail]

This is called 'Full Spectrum Domination'. In the minds of many still left in the Bush administration America is supposed to control the middle east. Even if we have to go through Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to do it.

Michael Vail
http://www.thought-criminal.org
Clever tyrants are never punished. --Voltaire

[JGatsby]

"I've been dismissive of these rumors, as have you." Uhm speak for yourself. I haven't been dismising these rumors at all. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't done it already. Two people you didn't mention are Scot Ritter (ex-Marine, ex-US Weapons Inspector, ex-Republican) and Daniel Ellsberg. Both have been saying that an attack against Iran is iminent for almost a year now. I believe that if the Iraq war and more importantly the public oposition to it were not going so badly we would have "hit" Iran already. As it is I agree with you it is a distinct possibility. One of the things that amazes me in the leaked and public Neocon plans for such an attack I have never seen any serious consideration of what happens next. We hit Iran with a massive number of conventional or nuclear weapons and then ...? We expect that their government will fall and the people will welcome a US friendly democracy? (Sadly there are still people in the Neocon world who are so deluded they believe or at least advocate this) In the real world Iran will obviously hit back and then what? Such a conflict will at a minimum disrupt the world's oil flow and cause major economic upheavel. That's a best case scenario, I don't want to even think about the worst case. Maybe Chimpie will do his evangelical base one more favor before he leaves and bring on the rapture.

[twasbrillignslithy]

If Bush chooses to bomb Iran and start a war with half the world I will renounce my citizenship. I hope that our good neighbor Canada will be accepting political refugees. I & my family have already been subjected to government surveillence & harassment. Our Senators & Representative will do nothing about it. I have no doubt the surveillence never stopped despite The ACLU & EFF's concerted efforts. Our Constitution is now largely meaningles. If we attack Iran, all those opposing the government will be delt with severely. My grown but young children had already decided likewise independantly of my advice that they should leave this country when they have the resources. Any country whose citizens would vote for their government to become a facist world empire by attacking others without provocation is not likely to recover it's professed morality & freedom. What we have now is 'virtual freedom'.

[HereticalPolemicisit]

When the most lawless are the supposed administrators of the rule of law, is that the precondition for declaring a lawless government, and a de facto warrant for anyone to presume the powers enunciated in the Declaration of Independence to change that government to one which does reflect the sovereign will of the people it serves?

The "Minutemen" better redeploy from the Mexican border area and head for Washington, D.C. where another sovereign named George is instituting abuses on the Republic greater than any single or 20 million Mexicans have done.

Bucco, Pivateer of Polemics and Liberty
Privateero­fPolemics@­excite.com