One critical element leads me to the conclusion that the United States will not go to war with Iran, nor allow Israel to do so. It is this: common sense.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

One criticalelement leads me to the conclusion that the United States will not go to warwith Iran, nor allow Israel to do so. It is this: common sense.

It is true, ofcourse, that common sense dictated against invading Iraq. But the very factthat we did invade Iraq, and that the Iraq war is almost universally considereda catastrophe, should add to the weight common sense carries this time.

Then there isthe war in Afghanistan, which most Americans are now desperate to see end,especially after the recent massacre of innocent Afghan civilians. The polls show that Americans are sick and tiredof both the Iraq war (which has thankfully ended... for us) and the Afghanistan war as well.

And then, onMonday, the New York Timesreported on a classified Pentagon simulation exercise which concluded that anIsraeli strike on Iran "would lead to a wider regional war, which would draw inthe United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead." On the positive side, theIsraeli attack would "set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year." (Emphasis mine.)

It isinconceivable that the United States will get involved in a third Middle Eastwar in a single decade.

That is why the New York Times front page story this weekend titled,"Hawks Steering Debate on How To Take on Iran" was so jarring. It seemed toaccept war's inevitability.

(Worth noting. TheTimes likely changed the title fromthe original version "Pro-Israel Groups Differing Approaches on Iran" when itrealized that most of the sources it cited were not so much "pro-Israel" asright-wing pro-war Republicans.)

In any case, accordingto the Times:

WithIsraeli leaders warning of an existential threat from Iran and openlydiscussing the possibility of attacking its nuclear facilities, pro-Israelgroups on all sides have mobilized to make their views known to the Obamaadministration and to Congress. But it is the most hawkish voices, like theEmergency Committee's, that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of somecritics, pushed the United States closerto taking military action against Iran and another war in the Middle East.

The evidence presentedcould hardly have been weaker. Here, in order, is a list of the luminaries thatthe Times cited for their conclusionthat we are moving closer to war. (Note the absence of business leaders, like former Republican three-term Senator Judd Gregg— now a Wall Street analyst — who warned yesterday of the tremendous costs in blood andtreasure of another war; this prediction is not surprising given that anotherwar would cause oil prices to skyrocket and kill off economic recovery.)

  • The far-right Emergency Committee forIsrael and itsvice-chair, the Christian right and GOP leader, Gary Bauer. The ECI's chair isWilliam Kristol, a leading Republican;
  • The House Majority Leader, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the GOP's #1 spokesperson inCongress and close ally of Binyamin Netanyahu;
  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a hawk in almostall conflict situations and a vehement adversary of President Obama;
  • "The American Israel Public AffairsCommittee, or AIPAC; the so-called 'neocons' from the George W. Bushadministration who were strong proponents of the war in Iraq...";
  • Sheldon Adelson, the "billionaire casinoowner" who is a primary funder of Newt Gingrich'spresidential campaign;
  • The Republican candidates for president;and
  • Richard N. Perle, the leadingneoconservative who famously started pushing for war with Iraq within 24 hoursof the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Talk about yourusual suspects.

Then, mid-story, the writers decided to conflate the Congressional supporters of Iransanctions with those favoring military action, even though many backers ofsanctions view them as alternatives to war. Lumping these legislators withWilliam Kristol, Gary Bauer and Sheldon Adelson is ridiculous.

Besides, onlyone person is going to make the decision about war, and that is President Obama— who has repeatedly said that, for him, war is a last resort. That iscertainly the case given that the military is so stronglyopposed to it. RetiredGeneral (and former CENTCOM commander) Anthony Zinni puts it like this: "If you like Iraq and Afghanistan,you'll love Iran."

As for Congress,even the most hawkish will not likely jeopardize the lives of theirconstituents in uniform who are already deployed in the Middle East and whoselives would be endangered by a U.S. or Israeli attack. That became obviouswhen, after announcing at AIPAC that he would immediately introduce a resolution authorizing war, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) subsequently pulledback, understanding that his war resolution would not sail through the Senatewith anything like the (sometimes unanimous) support of previous sanction bills.

Come on. IsBarack Obama really going to surrender to the pro-war lobby either in therun-up to November or in a second term, especially when most of the war lobby iscomprised of his political opponents who are doing everything they can to denyhim re-election?

This is not toflat-out predict that war cannot happen. It can and it might. But common sense,political calculations and, above all, the president's commitment to thenational security of the United States — and to the brave men and women whokeep us safe — dictate against a war with Iran.

In short, the Times gets the story all wrong. Except forthis one thing (which we need to worry about):

In the standoff with Iran, it is thehawkish groups supporting military action that wield more money, politicalclout and high-profile names than do the advocates of a diplomatic solution.

In all, pro-Israel political actioncommittees and donors affiliated with them have given more than $47 milliondirectly to federal candidates since 2000, according to data from the Centerfor Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.They rank among the top contributors toa number of prominent Democrats and Republicans, and pro-Israel groups havehosted many lawmakers on expense-paid trips to Israel. When Aipac featured Mr.Obama and Mr. Netanyahu at its conference this month, more than half themembers of Congress attended.

That isalarming. But it does not outweigh other considerations, prime among them thatAmericans want to extricate themselves from Middle East wars. Neither SheldonAdelson, John McCain, Gary Bauer, nor William Kristol (and their neoconnetwork) can change that, especially if the rest of us make clear that the verythought of a another war in the Middle East is intolerable.

And that thistime, we won't take it lying down.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot