During the 2008 presidential campaign, one of Sen. John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain's favorite bons mots was that "There is only one thing worse than military action [against Iran], and that is a nuclear armed Iran." As with so much else that McCain said during that campaign, it's really not clear that this is actually true, but its tone of belligerence posing as analysis was very much in keeping with the sort of "tough and stupid" foreign policy that Fareed Zakaria refers to in his op-ed this morning. ("Tough and stupid" was, I believe, one of the taglines originally considered for The Weekly Standard.)
For all the conservative bluster being leveled at Obama's engagement policy, you'd think that we hadn't actually just come off of eight years wherein their ideas were tried and shown to be a complete failure, but of course we have. The administration of George W. Bush, especially its first four years, was about as pure an application of hard line conservative foreign policy principles as one could ever hope for, and it was a disaster. It resulted in an Iran that was far more dominated by hardliners, far less inclined to compromise, in a far more secure and influential position in the region, and much closer to a nuclear weapons capability.
Former ambassador John Bolton, who works in this vein of clueless conservative bluster the way some artists work in oils or watercolors, told Fox News this morning that "the only real way to be sure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, unfortunately, is the unhappy alternative of military force against its nuclear program."
I don't see the Obama administration doing that. I think that leaves the decision with Israel. I think President Obama is committed to diplomacy and I think the outcome of that strategy is a world where Iran has nuclear weapons.
As with McCain's claim about nuclear Iran, Bolton's isn't true either. Military strikes would not ensure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, they would, in even the best case scenario, merely delay it. But what's more disturbing is the way Bolton raises, with obvious relish, the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran, something that is becoming increasingly common among the Cheneyite set.
In an op-ed on Saturday, Anthony Cordesman focused on the difficulties that the Israelis would face in a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities (as well as the difficulties that Iran would create for itself by choosing to create a nuclear weapon.) What Cordesman doesn't discuss, and what has been far too little discussed in the debate over how best to deal with Iran, are the likely consequences that a military strike on Iran would have for the region, and the world.
During remarks at the New America Foundation earlier this month, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni gave a very good -- and chilling -- overview of those consequences. Zinni said that he liked to respond to advocates of such strikes with "And then what?"
After you've dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? What happens if they decide, in their hardened shelters with their mobile missiles, to start launching those? What happens if they launch them into U.S. bases on the other side of the gulf? What happens if they launch into Israel, or somewhere else? Into a Saudi oil field? Into Ras Laffan, with all the natural gas? What happens if they now flush their fast patrol boats, their cruise missiles, the [unclear] full of mines, and they sink a tanker, an oil tanker? And of course the economy of the world goes absolutely nuts. What happens if they activate sleeper cells? The MOIS, the intelligence service -- what happens if another preemptive attack by the West, the U.S. and Israel, they fire up the streets and now we got problems. Just tell me how to deal with all that, okay?
Because, eventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll love Iran.
The Carnegie Endowment's Karim Sadjadpour has also said that he thinks that "Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would actually welcome a military strike; it may be their only hope to silence popular dissent and heal internal political rifts." It's hard to think of a more efficient way to extinguish Iran's reform movement than by either an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran.
These are, to say the least, very serious consequences. But given the way they have resolutely ignored the catastrophe that ensued the last time their foreign policy ideas were tried, we probably shouldn't expect conservatives to honestly address them as they prepare the ground for their latest war.
Follow Matthew Duss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mattduss
It is very significant that there is no active, ranking military officer that supports bombing Iran.
All proponents of bombing Iran should try to debate Cordesman's critique of the results of such an attack.
But my best guess is that Iran will not be attacked any time soon.
The global price of oil is directly related to the stability of Iran.
War based on lies, exaggerations, and an organized media propaganda campaign is treason.
Failure to prosecute those who brought us Iraq has allowed the new campiagn to proceed.
Anybody supporting war without PROOF of a threat is catering to traitors who have cost this country TRILLIONS, the lives of thousands in our own military, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and the reputation of our country.
Discussing consequences even to help stop the war drums from banging is in reality moving the debate beyond the point it deserves.
Somebody get a dictionary and look up "justified" before we move on to "fallout".
Often a warmonger’s vision extends only to the tip of his nose.
Anyone who thinks the political problems of the world can be resolved with “bombs” is clinically crazy
.... as anyone who thinks there is a god sitting in the seventh sky watching him !
This is the age of internet, now, for tribalist, nationalist people theold imperial rules are like blank bullets...they can only scare some but not all.
Attacking Iran is a stupid prescription for a worldwide depression. Their is also the possibility that the Chinese or India who need the oil from the Gulf intervene to protect Iran. Now we are talking a major regional war which Israell has no chance of winning and neither do we.
We should listen to the many Generals and Admirals who know this course is suicidal. We should ignore the neo-con chicken hawks who are trying to lead us towards another disaster even though they are out of power. Above all we should not listen to the reactionary Israeli government whatever we do.
Russia has supplied Iran with their latest TOR M1 short range air-defense missile system.
Russia and China have developed major economic ties with Iran over the past eight years. They will encourage Iran towards long term stability in their region.
We're not talking about a few well-placed smart bombs. It would take a large air campaign lasting weeks or longer.
It's too many sorties over too much distance for the IAF.
Rather than continuing what will prove to be a difficult and probably unsuccessful air campaign, they are left considering a nuclear strike. And, to borrow Zinni's phrase,"and then what?"
Who retailiates in kind? Does Iran have a single, large weapon? Where would they detonate it? How about Pakistan? China has a fair bit of investment in Iraq; what will they do?
The conservative world view is about 3 decades out of date. Just like all their other ideas.
You know the ones. Advanced Russian missiles designed to shoot down the F-16 and F-15 fighters and fighter bombers that make up most of the Israel Air Force.
Last I heard, Russia sold close to a billion dollars worth of these missiles to Iran.
And they rebuffed Khatami's overtures as well as the so-called Grand Bargain proposal.
I loved the lines from Zakaria and the one about Bolton as well. I remember him on the Daily Show spouting his belligerent nonsense. The thing that made me so furious, besides him being a transparent shill for Israeli hawks, was that he should know better.
Zinni's comments were dead-on. As were Gate's about it setting them back maybe three years if that was truly their goal. Then what?
I'm so tired of this bombast. What about this question: how would you feel if we were attacked by a foreign power? Don't you think that might supersede domestic problems and unify us?
No, the West will once again leave it to Israel to do the "dirty" work for it, the same way they did when they "wink winked" at the attack on the Iraqi reactor back in the '80s. This time, though, the US will help defend Israel against missile counterattacks from Iran. US ships are already stationed in and around Israel for the "Juniper Cobra" exercise scheduled to begin mid October.
The exercise will include the Arrow missile defense system as well as three American systems - the THAAD, Aegis and PAC3 - that will all be deployed in Israel for the duration of the exercise.
This makes Israel, at the moment, the most heavily protected region in the world against missile attack. To think that this is pure "coincidence" is fatuous at best.
Whatever the "hypocrisy" of the US that Mr. Duss condemns, nobody in the civilized world wants the fanatical regime of Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. After Israel attacks, there will be the usual condemnations from the usual countries, but that's all. Iran will stand alone and will be soundly defeated. No amount of political posturing will cover the universal sigh of relief that will emanate from all corners of the civilized world.
This regime's target (according to their ideology) is ruling the world. I know this seems rediculous but it's true. Their existence is a major threat not only for Israel but for all the countries around the world. Don't think I am exaggerating.
In this battle they are permitted to lie. I am astonished how some Americans believe their lies.
Iranian regime earned 300 000 000 000 $ through selling oil in the last 4 years of Ahmadinejad presidency. Meanwhile Iranian's lives is getting worse and worse. The regime is spending this money to concrete terrorism around the world and making nuclear weapons. It is very simple . Why some of you can't understand?! The regime thinks the only way to survive is having nuclear bombs so they will never ever stop making them.
Their ideology is the same as Taliban but there is one basic difference : They are permitted to lie to reach their goals!
Don't forget : They have enough money to buy whatever they need form the black market so the sanctions will never work even though Russia and China approve them.
Where do I even start with this? ...it's not worth the effort.
The Arab states know this and have been privately urging Israel to take action for the last 2 years. Obama knows this as well, and though he's talking diplomacy, he's using Israel as his "big stick" to back up his soft words.
Assuming the Geneva talks do not produce a capitulation by Iran on its nuclear program, military action by Israel is practically guaranteed. The US and Europe will support that action both politically and militarily. That's what the whole "united front" that Obama put together is meant to signal to Iran.
Sanctions are spoken of, but everyone knows they can't possibly even have a chance of working without full support of both the Russians and the Chinese. That would mean a military blockade would be necessary to enforce the sanctions. Only the US is in a position to do that, and bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it has no stomach for it.
Also, we cannot forget that it is U.S. troops, military equipment, and bases that keep corrupt feudal anti-woman monarchies in power in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, as well as the brutal dictatorship in Egypt.
The hypocrisy of U.S. politicians is staggering, as they condemn the actions of the Iranian government while sweeping their own crimes under the rug. Iran’s elections and disputes are an internal matter, to be resolved by the Iranian people and not the governments of imperialist countries with agendas of dominating Iran and a track record of using internal issues to justify military invasion.