Iran and the Imminent Threat Fallacy

Reflecting on his now infamous appearance before the UN Security Council in 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has referred to his act of WMD drumbeating at the time as a "blot" on his long record of government service. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," laments the former cabinet member. Given the benefit of hindsight, we now know that Powell's charges against Saddam Hussein were spurious at best, and downright deceitful at their very worst. While holding no vested interest in exonerating the general, I do think it's worthwhile for us to examine the full context of Powell's efforts to convince the global community of immediate bodily harm.

Critics likely scoff today when Iraq's alleged "yellow cake" and mobile bio-weapons labs come up in conversation, but the rush to create an imminent Iraqi threat has less to do with incompetent intelligence gathering, and much more to do with the administration's need to mobilize the country behind a war they had already decided on starting.

Saddam Hussein's regime was a blight on the entire Middle East. He oppressed and persecuted his own people, while instigating two wars that led to regional instability and rampant counter-proliferation. He financed Palestinian terrorism, and repeatedly threatened the security of our Israeli allies. If ever there was a war to be had on terrorism, there had to be a reckoning of sorts with Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime in order for us to conduct it. However, while these may have seemed like reasonable concerns to a few policy wonks and regional experts, such tangential threats and activities would be of much lesser concern to the average American citizen. Thus, the Bush administration was left with the task of convincing the American people -- along with the broader global community -- that deposing Hussein was essential for America's own domestic security.

Some might look back on this deception as a "neoconservative" ploy, but nothing could be further from the truth. An honest, dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative would never need to make a case like the one made by Powell. Their probable argument would rely more on how preemptive engineering would yield more fruitful, albeit less apparent, results for American security down the road. While arguably sharing the same whimsical outlook held by neoconservatives, the Bush administration instead went about convincing the American public that their own personal security was at risk as long as Saddam Hussein was allowed to rule over Iraq. Rather than outlining the same kind of foreign policy prescription as seen in the so-called Bush Doctrine, the administration instead appealed to an American populism that can be galvanized when directly threatened by a foreign adversary. Fermenting regional instability wasn't going to cut it; WMDs became a necessary component to the war narrative.

This narrative -- or rather, exploitation -- of American security dominates foreign policy discourse to this day. As a result, we get this week's kerfuffle over the imminent (or not so imminent) threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Referring to Iran's capabilities as "tiny," Senator Barack Obama shook the proverbial beehive that passes as foreign policy dialogue in this country today. As a result, we get rather puerile debates over the size of Iran's economy, or whether or not they've acted in a fashion similar to that of the Soviets or the Nazis. Not only does this litmus blur the legitimately horrible actions of these aforementioned regimes, but it makes dealing with lesser threats far more difficult.

The reality is that Iran has been contributing to regional instability in the Middle East for over 25 years. Attempted coups, assassination plots and terrorist finance are just the tip of an unstable iceberg that is revolutionary Iran. The Islamic republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini extended what likely would've been a two year border incursion with Iraq into a nearly decade's long war of attrition against what he viewed to be the Arab apostates in the region. The plan, from the Supreme Leader's perspective, wasn't merely to repel the Iraqis, but to also march on Lebanon and Jerusalem "through" Iraq (also known as "Operation Ramadan"). The girth of the regime's economy has never prevented it from exporting their revolution all over the Middle East, nor has it given solace to our allies having to deal with Iran's surrogates on the frontlines.

And it would be a mistake to assume that Iran has become any more rational today than they were twenty years ago. Indeed, the fact that they have exhibited pockets of rational behavior only makes dealing with the republic all the more difficult. Bloated and bureaucratized, Iran suffers more from diplomatic confusion than it does extremism. However, explaining such nuances to the American public (for example, the difference between their president and their various councils, the role of the IRGC and the appellate Supreme Leader, etc.) requires a more grownup conversation about foreign policy. It requires explaining the importance of vital interests overseas, and how the Iranians can threaten those interests if not brought to the negotiating table. It means distinguishing an imminent threat from a regional one, and requires explaining why it's necessary to deal with both rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.

To this point, Senator Obama has done just that. By exposing the "culture of fear" propagated by post-9/11 Republicans, Obama is attempting to talk to the American public as if they were adults, rather than children concerned only for their immediate sphere of safety. This week's "tiny" slip only panders to a foreign policy dynamic that Democrats have never been very good at. It makes the conversation about range, rather than importance.

Iran is not Hitler's Germany, nor is it Stalin's Soviet Union. It is, however, a serious threat to America's regional interests. Explaining the difference between the two will be important if Democrats hope to act globally and snap the imminent threat fallacy that has been promulgated by the Republican Party since the 9/11 attacks.

Kevin Sullivan is an associate editor for RealClearPolitics. He blogs regularly at Independent Liberal.

Comments

[NABNYC]

I hear drum beats. Hillary's supporters praying for a war against Iran.

In the early 1900s, imperialist England bought off the rulers of Iran and took over their oil. In the early 1950s, Iran finally had a government that took it back. The U.S. and England overthrew that government and installed the murderous Shah. The Shah had a special Blackwater-style police squad known as DINA, trained by Israel and the U.S. in brutality and torture. DINA was devoted to oppressing anyone who stood up against the Shah, torturing and murdering many Iranians, protecting the dictatorship of the Shah. With the blessing and oversight of the U.S. and Israel. When the Shah was finally overthrown, unfortunately every democratic group had already been destroyed by the Shah, the U.S., and Israel, which meant that only the religious fanatics remained to take over.

Iran is no threat to us and never has been. They're probably legitimately pissed off at Israel, but I'm not an Israeli. The U.S. has no business even discussing Iran, never mind threatening to nuke them or annihilate them as the deranged senior members of our government have threatened. Hands off of Iran, U.S. Out of Iraq, U.S. Out of Israel. Jobs not wars.

[UnbiasView]

"Iran is no threat to us and never has been"

Then why would Obama say that they are a "grave threat" . . . is he just blowing smoke up our butts or what?

[NABNYC]

Yes, he is. All the politicians are. Remember Tim Russert demanding every Democratic presidential candidate "swear to the American public that Iran would never get a nuclear weapon?" And I remember thinking I wish they would swear to stop taking bribes, to stop selling their votes, to start creating jobs in the U.S., to reinstate the taxes so that rich people pay too, to stop funding this ridiculous "war on bad people," go get bin Laden and kill him, then get out of the middle east. This whole hysteria about Iran is simply designed to extend the industrial looting of our treasury in never-ending war, and to create new bogeymen. The real war is being conducted by the U.S. politicians against the people of the U.S. And the people are losing.

Every second in this election spent talking about Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, is time that none of them have to be accountable to us about how they have pissed away our money, driven us into debt, and are getting ready to sell off our country's roads, highways, water, forrests, ports, and financial institutions, in order to finance that horrendous debt. And yes, Obama will jump up and toe the line for now. Maybe when he's elected we can get change. That's just a maybe. With McCain and Hillary, more war.

[MajorKong]

Hard to say.

This is just my "gut" feel. I think Obama would be the least likely of the three candidates to attack Iran. Hillary somewhat more likely but McCain leading the pack by a long stretch.

[RoloTomassi]

The obvious answer [if you think in terms of what is PC] is that it is Politically Incorrect in the current political environment to appear even remotely hospitable to Iran; the reality doesn't warrant such, but that's the way it is. Any politician wanting to get elected/re-elected will at the very least talk tough while admitting the need to negotiate.

We are suffering from eight years of GOP foreign policy idiocy, and the national mindset won't change significantly [in the superficial aspect] until new leadership has taken control f the government; at that point it will be "PC" to begin slowly modifying the "official postion" concerning Iran.

[Mike789]

Roger that. And why not depart the Middle East completely? Why are we there? Stability of the region? Proxy for the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia who are now about to buy the World in one year's pumping of crude. As a military guy, it was alway obvious to me and my buddies that we were the appointed policemen of the world made imperative by our nation's debt. Maybe we can't leave completely, but how about a little pay back for the defense pact. We should charge a tidy sum for our services.

[Lazyeye]

The U.S. has no business threatening to nuke anybody. Or, any nation or country. You get what you give in this world. Life and Karma has a way of doing that.

[andyc]

Obama hasn't the slightest clue as to how to handle Iran or any other terrorist sponsoring country. He is an empty suit with a Hamlinesque charm that has hypnotized a young and impressionable group. He will lead this country down a path that may be too destructive to return from. Americans as always will get what we deserve, and if it's Obama, we will just have to pay the price.

[UnbiasView]

I don't agree with letting Iran jerk the USA around again but with all due respect to Mr. Obama, I don't think anyone has a clue on how to deal with Iran:

Every administration since Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 has negotiated with the Iranians. Nothing positive has ever come of it, but most every president has come to believe that a "grand bargain" with Tehran can somehow be reached, if only we negotiate well enough.

[Rao]

Maybe US should not be jerking the rest of the world. Did you ever think of that. It is disgusting to think of the so-called US negotiations as diplomacy. Our stand is that we will talk with you if you are going to accept what we want up front.
Everyone talks about the security of USA. How insecure is this country, one of the most powerful of all time, the most belligerent of all time? This is insanity. Maybe we should start with compensating the rest of the world for the harm we have caused, say since WWII.
As the dirty Harry would say, "Man must know his limitation­s."

[RossalGondamer]

Do you even know the history of how the Ayatollah came to power???

[PioneerKing]

One can rest assured that addlepated Sen. McCain knows how to handle Iran.
McCain knows how to handle Iran - that is if he's ever able to figure out who the leader of Iran is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-goldenberg/another-foreign-policy-ga_b_102611.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/mccain-from-mcbush-to-mcn_b_102635.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/mccains-burden-of-proof_b_102816.html

[wolfi101]

And McCain's plan of --- "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" --- is better? Or would you prefer Clinton's 'obliterate' method?

[BubbaC33]

Ms. Clinton's comment was in answer to a hypothetical question, as you ought to know. Her response was to a question about the US response if Iran nuked Israel. Her answer said we could find a number of ways to obliterate Iran. What answer do you believe she should have given?

[sky2blue]

Wow. I really, really disagree with you. If for no other reason but that I'm not impressionalbe or hypnotiziable (not sure that's a word).

Israel's negotiating with Syria. The notion of "not talking" and forcing other countries to do it our way or else has to change. If the US is gonna improve, we HAVE to stop being so imperialistic and selfish.

[UnbiasView]

I could care less if we talk to them, time after time they have made us look like fools and they will again. Clinton was a master at negotiations and he still couldn't get it done. Let me post this again:

Every administration since Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 has negotiated with the Iranians. Nothing positive has ever come of it, but most every president has come to believe that a "grand bargain" with Tehran can somehow be reached, if only we negotiate well enough.

[BubbaC33]

Israel demanded specific conditions before the start of talks with Syria. It did not jump into talks without first establishing some parameters on what the talks would cover. Obama, on the other hand, has said there is no need to set preconditions for talks, which I believe is a serious and perhaps fatal mistake.

[RoloTomassi]

Utter nonsense; if there is a path of destruction, BushCo has already taken it. We didn't deserve Bush, but he was [IMO] criminally foisted upon us.

A clueless school girl would be a better diplomatic choice than anyone brought to bear on the process by BushCo. As people in the know in the UK can tell you, the only real hope for settling issues with problematic regimes and terrorists is to TALK TO THEM, UNCONDITONALLY, TO DISCOVER THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

The problem with the US attitude concerning negotiation is that we refuse to talk because we already know what the problems are, and we refuse to modify our positions or goals; it is much easier--from a world leader's bully pulpit--to label the party we don't want to negotiate with as unreasonable and to shift the blame to their violent reactions to our policies.

The current unwillingness to talk to various governments and terrorist factions is merely a bait & switch routine designed to put in the best possible light while attempting to hide our insistance on maintaining unreasonable policies and our unwillingness to even discuss modify them.