iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Tirman

GET UPDATES FROM John Tirman
 

Forgetting Iraq, Republicans Thirst For War Against Iran

Posted: 01/03/12 02:48 PM ET

Of the many oddities of the Republican challengers to President Obama, the most serious is their vow to go to war with Iran. This is now such a common staple of GOP rhetoric in the campaign trail that it's scarcely newsworthy when yet another White House aspirant thumps the war drums.

Only Ron Paul, of course, has disparaged the impulse to attack Iran. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich have all in one way or another vowed military action against the ayatollahs.

The war cries come at a peculiar moment: we have just finished Operation Iraqi Freedom, another attempt to punish an authoritarian regime for allegedly building weapons of mass destruction. The results of that war are plain: no weapons found, a half million or more Iraqi deaths as a result of the war, five million displaced, and a price to the U.S. of $3 trillion, thousands of dead, tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of thousands suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

This grisly outcome, so devastating for Iraq and costly to America, tells us something about what a war with Iran would look like. (It is much a more relevant comparison than the failed war in Afghanistan, though the results there, too, should sober us.) Not that Iran has much military prowess: the New York City Policy Department probably has about as much firepower in its arsenal. But Iran has other means.

It can activate Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine to attack Israel. Neither group acts at the direction of Tehran, but a U.S. assault on Iran would be viewed far and wide in the Middle East as yet another American blow against Islam. Other militant groups would join in. Radical Islamists in the newly emerging democracies of the Arab Spring would gain in their own countries.

At a time when America should be encouraging moderates in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere to follow the democratic secularism of Turkey, we would instead be giving the anti-American zealots a competing rallying point -- the Islamic Republic of Iran -- with potentially disastrous results that could last a generation.

Iran can stir actions against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and exacerbate the tense political situation in Iraq as well.

A war with Iran would also demolish the green movement inside Iran, which remains potent despite official crackdowns, but would be crushed completely if America attacked.

And while there's a debate about the efficacy of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, the consensus of expert opinion is that bombing the enrichment plants can set back Iran's nuclear development but not destroy it. There is also the prickly fact that there's no convincing evidence that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons.

So we have a phantom threat that is being used by nearly the entire Republican Party to generate war fever. Never mind that the consequences of bombing or invading Iran could be catastrophic across the region. Never mind that American lives would be at risk. Never mind that the largely pro-American Iranian public would turn against us overnight. Never mind the human costs of war. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all insist that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, plus drone and special ops attacks in Yemen and Somalia and Pakistan, just aren't quite enough to show American toughness against radical Islam.

What is striking about this GOP pose is how reckless it is -- precisely the kind of recklessness that created such a bloody mess in Iraq. Their lack of common sense or simple knowledge is stunning. There was a time when the Republican Party stood for the somber judgment of gray men in gray suits exuding caution. There was always a cowboy wing, but even the paragon of that -- Ronald Reagan -- never got us into a major war.

Today's Republicans are quite different and considerably more dangerous. Their ill-informed military adventurism matches their know-nothing economic policies and their anti-science bent. They campaign as if rationalism and knowledge are signs of weakness. This obviously is deleterious for challenges like climate change, but the more immediate consequence is in foreign policy.

Let's remind ourselves of the Iraq War to illustrate the point. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs after the 1991 war. Yet we imposed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of between 300,000 and 500,000 children and gave rise to religious extremism in Iraq (sanctions that were sustained by President Bill Clinton). Without minimally competent intelligence, we insisted he was building lethal arsenals and invaded.

Occupying Iraq was a model of incompetence and stirred a resistance that plunged the country into a nightmare of violence and destruction. It is likely that between 600,000 and 800,000 or more Iraqis died as a direct result of the war.

All the while, the Republicans were cheering this war of choice, begun by President George W. Bush, and in fact have criticized President Obama for withdrawing from Iraq too soon, even though it was a fundament of Obama's 2008 election. Nearly nine years of this devastating war are apparently not enough for the leaders of the party.

Obama's quiet but firm policies toward Iran -- while debatable in many respects -- have kept the pressure on without resorting to belligerence. Whether it's working is difficult to say, but early this week Iran asked the U.S. to return to negotiate on their nuclear program.

The boundless thirst for war among Republicans, by contrast, underscores yet again how extreme their politics have become. Unable to devise diplomatic strategies or simply recognize how puny the Iran threat is, they reflexively reach for the bomber. And that we as a society have not adequately accounted for the human costs of the Iraq War gives the Republicans permission to be reckless again.

John Tirman is the author of The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 105
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:42 PM on 03/03/2012
They thirst for our sons and daughters to fight it also. I'm reminded of Mitt's last run for the presidency and when he was asked why none of his five sons were serving in the military? He replied because they were busy trying to help him get elected president. I remember watching a war movie once and a commander was known to his troops as "old blood and guts". They said it was his guts but their blood.
10:16 AM on 02/21/2012
The hawks are out in force -
Let’s bomb Iran, they shout.
These same folks, of course,
Said it’d be a blow-out
If we started to attack
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
You’d think they might have learned,
But no, that’s not the case.
They’re simply not concerned
Their faith in war might be misplaced.

more political verse at http://doggerelo.blogspot.com/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Righterthenthou76
Talk right think left
04:23 AM on 01/06/2012
Reagan doesn't deserve a pass on this. He and Bush the elder royally screwed up the Iran/Iraq situation. Had we been hands off, Iraq could have served as a check at best or distraction at worse for Iran, and we could have appeared natural. Rather we aided Iraq (the whole fallacy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend), then when we let Saddam get out of control, we invaded Iraq the first time. The original aid to Iraq can almost be forgiven if there had been a strong state department to keep Saddam in line as a condition of the aid. Then, as always, the 1st gulf war didn't even finish the job, leaving both Iran and Iraq mad at us and the door open for the younger Bush to add insult to injury in the second gulf war, which has now left Iraq likely to become a client state of Iran. All the while the Iranians still hate our guts for helping the Iraqis and the previous issues with the Shaw. What a mess. Obama is the only one who can deal with it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Maryam Zar
02:45 PM on 01/04/2012
the voice of reason: "At a time when America should be encouraging moderates in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere to follow the democratic secularism of Turkey, we would instead be giving the anti-American zealots a competing rallying point -- the Islamic Republic of Iran -- with potentially disastrous results that could last a generation."
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lorelei Kelly
World peace without patchouli
11:36 AM on 01/04/2012
Thanks for writing this, John, it is indeed astonishing that they are using the same playbook and not getting called on it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
07:32 AM on 01/04/2012
So if Obama responds to the threats with a war against Iran, we should blame the Republicans? He is sending more troops to Africa - to fight - so isn't that a definition of war? BOTH parties would jump on board for another war - don't kid yourself - it supports the MIC and the Pentagon and both have a big stake in wars.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SkelDaddy
single payer is the only viable solution
06:12 AM on 01/04/2012
There are really two things that the US needs to do in the region:

1) Refuse to indulge our insatiable thirst for oil

2) End support for the expansionist Israel and demand a return to the 1967 borders.
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
05:51 AM on 01/04/2012
"Only Ron Paul, of course, has disparaged the impulse to attack Iran." Which is why I want him to hang in there for as long as possible. Heck, I want him to form a third party and keep shouting about the stupidity of recreating the Iraq quagmire in Iran all the way to November.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tb much
austere
05:41 AM on 01/04/2012
When a man decide to bring about a desired solution [War Hawks] in another man back yard [Iran], he had better considered carefully all of the things that can go wrong in his endeavor to do such and he had better consider that things will not likely go as planned. War Hawks, do you really need to feed the "war machine" so soon?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:23 AM on 01/04/2012
It is just not another unfunded war. Extremist Republicans and Christians will spend every nickel President Obama saves trying to pay for their last war and tax breaks for their 1% to drive the budget further into the hole. The real war will still be against us 99% with or without 100+K Muslims getting in the way. They will then balance the budget by selling us further into slavery and refund the original slave-values lost to heirs of Southern plantations.
11:41 PM on 01/03/2012
"...potentially disastrous results that could last a generation," is actually optimistic. The Persians have a memory lasting far longer than a generation.
11:18 PM on 01/03/2012
America does not control its foreign policy, it is controlled by a foreign lobby and its agents in the government. This is what Americans seem to want, to go bankrupt while fighting these immoral wars. The average american is braindead. Afraid of the big bad Muslim that hates them for their freedoms. I don't even think the Neocons could have imagined that controlling the country would be so easy. The same guys controlling our foreign Policy and government also control the Federal Reserve and our economic policies.
11:14 PM on 01/03/2012
The real danger to world peace is not Iran, but America and Israel. Thankfully Russia and China have stated they will not hesitate to go to war with America if Washington attacks Iran, and quite rightly so. Who do the US think they are. They are not the world police, they do not have the right to believe all of the earth's resources are theirs and they need to keep their nose's out of other countries business. We English should side with Russia or China and move away from you second rate ex superpower.
09:51 PM on 01/03/2012
Thanks for giving me anothe reason for voting for Obama.
11:18 PM on 01/03/2012
Why, he is continuing Bush's policies to the letter.
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
05:52 AM on 01/04/2012
Try reading the column next time, sparky.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pmoschetta
Where are the Jobs, Speaker Boehner?
07:25 AM on 01/04/2012
Really, Buster?

It is the GOP who are starving for a war with Iran, not Obama
photo
modeforjoe
We had the experience, but we missed the meaning
09:13 PM on 01/03/2012
Obama and the Democratic legislature are on the same page w the neocons. Are they also deserving of condemnation?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
swimbiker
10:06 PM on 01/03/2012
No, they are not. If you make a wild claim like that, you have to back it up with proof.
11:15 PM on 01/03/2012
Give me a break, he is and was surrounded by Neocons from the start. He has attacked Libya which was one of the countries listed in the Neocon war plans back in January 2001, he has increased drone attacks on Pakistan and will be attacking Iran and Syria soon, The writing is on the wall. The only guy who would stop the Neocons is Ron Paul and they will never let him get close to the White House