We Can't Wait Till Bush Commits to Oppose War with Iran

[This is adapted from a series of talks I gave at Purdue last week, sponsored by the Lafayette Area Peace Coalition. Note that as of Wednesday morning, the Senate has not yet acted on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which seeks to escalate the U.S. confrontation with Iran. You can take action here.]

Frequently those speaking up against war with Iran are confronted with some variation of the question: "You don't really think the U.S. will attack Iran, will you?"

It's understandable that people would ask this. U.S. officials have engaged in a lot of bluster towards Iran for some time, but while the U.S. has certainly engaged in a lot of provocative actions, like arresting Iranian government officials in Iraq, supporting groups that are trying to destabilize the government of Iran, and stationing warships off the Iranian coast, so far the U.S. and Iran have shied away from direct military confrontation. Perhaps they will continue to do so for the indefinite future.

But in assessing our responsibility to act, this is not the most productive way to look at it. First, if you think of it crudely as a probability of the U.S. attacking Iran, for anyone outside the highest reaches of the U.S. government, it's in some sense fundamentally unknowable. Speculation might be the grist for an interesting conversation, but it's not really a useful guide to action.

A recent illustration is given by an article by Steve Clemons in Salon. The title of the article, "Why Bush won't attack Iran," is a little misleading, because what Clemons really argues is that Bush hasn't decided to attack Iran, not that he won't before he leaves office, which is really what should concern us. Clemons relates a Washington dinner party where former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft debated whether Bush intends to attack Iran. What's striking about this is that two people who are about as knowledgeable and well-connected about what's going on in U.S. foreign policy as it's possible to be without currently serving high in the Administration - and who are both opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran - have opposite views as to whether it's likely. This strongly suggests that folks with much less knowledge and access, who are absolutely convinced that they know, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still thinking of it as a probability, either the probability of a U.S. attack on Iran in some foreseeable timeframe - say before President Bush leaves office - is zero, or it's one (100%), or it's between zero and one.

If it's zero, there's no danger of military confrontation. As a moral and political matter, the U.S. threat to attack Iran is still something that we should respond to. Under the UN Charter, members of the United Nations are not allowed to threaten to attack each other, so by threatening to attack Iran, the U.S. is violating international law. By threatening to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the U.S. is violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - part of the NPT bargain between the nuclear and non-nuclear powers is that the nuclear powers agree not to threaten non-nuclear powers with nuclear weapons. We have a moral and political responsibility to pressure our government to comply with international law. Obviously, this is a long struggle. It's very important, but I would concede it wouldn't have the same urgency as preventing a war that you think could really happen.

If the probability of a U.S. attack on Iran is one, then there is also little urgency. In this case, there's nothing we can do to stop it. We should still protest and dissent, because it's our moral responsibility to do so, but it would be reasonable not to spend too much time and resources on it, because there are other crimes to be prevented that we might have a better chance of stopping.

But if the probability is between zero and one, and if we could do something to reduce that probability, then it seems obvious that we have a major responsibility to try to stop such a war. We can only speculate about the probable consequences of such a war. But it is certain that many innocent people would die, among many other likely and severe negative consequences.

I submit that the probability is between zero and one, and that we could do something to reduce the probability. And I also submit that preventing war with Iran is not a task separate from other tasks, but is related to other tasks, like getting out of Iraq. Iran could help stabilize Iraq, making it easier to leave. Of course, a precondition for meaningful diplomacy with Iran is to take the threat of bombing them off the table. Another way to look at the connection between Iran and Iraq is that part of what's keeping us in Iraq is that our government has a project of containing the political influence of Iran by force, and if we were cooperating with Iran instead of confronting it, that reason for being in Iraq would be removed.

Similarly, Iran could help diplomatically resolve the conflicts in Lebanon, between Israel and Palestine, and within Palestine. It could be argued that the current policy of the U.S. is not to resolve these conflicts diplomatically, but to try to ensure the domination of one side over another. But this indicates the overlap between deescalating the confrontation with Iran and these other issues. Part of the conflict with Iran is that in these areas where our government is trying to ensure the domination of one side, Iran is supporting the other side. In order to ensure the domination of its favored party, the US wants to restrict the influence of Iran. So the two go hand-in-hand - deescalating the conflict with Iran and resolving these other conflicts.

To see that the probability of war is greater than zero, look at a sample of the press from early last week. The Sunday Telegraph reports that the US is pressing Britain to move troops to the Iranian border, but British commanders fear the move carries a serious risk of embroiling the UK in a war with Iran. The New York Times reports that the escalation of Bush's rhetoric against Iran suggests Cheney is winning the internal debate on Iran policy, and that belief has been growing in Iran that the Bush administration was considering military strikes. The Sunday Telegraph reports that senior American intelligence and defence officials believe Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran. The Guardian reports that UN officials said IAEA chief ElBaradei's recent warning against threats of military force against Iran was an attempt to halt an "out of control" drift to war. AP reports that Iran's ambassador to Kuwait says that if the U.S. attacks Iran from bases in the Gulf, Iran will attack those bases.

And that's just a sample press from the first few days of last week.

Now you could argue that some of the stuff that appears in the press is speculation, bluster, disinformation, psychological warfare designed to intimidate Iran, or to pressure countries in Europe and elsewhere to support U.S. policies on sanctions and isolating Iran, because supposedly the alternative to supporting these policies is war. And there's some truth to that. But consider the following. First, a threat that one is not willing to carry out is no threat. If the Bush Administration seriously hopes to intimidate Iran through the threat of force, it has to be prepared to use force, and convince Iranian leaders that it is prepared to use force. There isn't any bright line that can be drawn between threatening war and actually preparing for it. Second, there is clearly a limit to how much Iran's government can moved with a threat of force. This is a country, and a government, that endured hundreds of thousands of casualties in the Iran-Iraq war. This is a government that came to power following a revolution that overthrew a U.S.-backed dictator, who was installed by a coup orchestrated by the US. And this is a government that last summer saw its less numerous and less well armed allies in Lebanon successfully resist an invasion and air campaign last summer supported by the U.S. I'm not suggesting that the threat of force can't possibly have any effect on the Iranian government. I'm suggesting that the effect clearly has limits. And there is every reason to believe that if Iranian leaders feel that fundamental Iranian national interests are at stake, they will prefer a U.S. attack to capitulation.

And this leads to the key point. There are currently fundamental conflicts between Iranian interests, as articulated by Iranian leaders, and U.S. interests, as articulated by U.S. leaders.

Consider the nuclear issue. The headline is that the U.S. wants to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But if you look at the actual U.S. negotiating position, it's something far stronger. The actual negotiating position of the U.S. is that Iran cannot be allowed to enrich uranium, period. This goes well beyond Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran's leaders have stated clearly and repeatedly that giving up the right to enrich uranium is out of the question for them, and there is no reason to believe that they are insincere about this.

Or consider Iraq. The headline is that the U.S. wants to stop Iran from supporting insurgent attacks, or sending weapons, or supporting militias attacking U.S. forces. But regardless of whether these allegations are true - and so far, they are unproven - if you look more closely, a lot of the conflicts between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq revolve around questions of political and economic influence, that have nothing to do with violence. Recently U.S. forces in Iraq arrested Iranian electricity officials who were invited by the Iranian government to help build an electricity plant, despite the fact that the Iranian officials had proof of their credentials. This arrest, of course, was not authorized by the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government. These officials were released following protests from the Iraqi government; subsequently U.S. forces arrested another Iranian official. Iranian diplomats arrested earlier this year are still being held. U.S. officials complain when Iraqi officials consult with Iranian officials about issues that the U.S. wants to control. As it stands, this is a fundamental conflict. What the U.S. refers to as Iranian "meddling" in Iraq, the Iranians see as protecting core interests.

Of course, I argue that the probability of war is less than one. Obviously, there are huge potential costs to the U.S. of a military conflict with Iran. But I'll focus on the political side, because that's the part we could impact. The key fact is that the U.S. political landscape has changed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It's important to remember that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq had key Democratic support, support that would be much harder to muster today. Just to take one very important example, the Democratic leader of the House, Dick Gephardt, moved quickly to support the Bush Administration's drive to war, undercutting Congressional opposition - including Republican opposition.

The Bush Administration can't count on such support today. Of course, neither can we count on opposition from Democratic leaders. But we can already see that citizen pressure has had a real impact. The leading Democratic candidates for President caught a lot of flak for their assertions that "nothing can be taken off the table" in dealing with Iran, which everyone understood was code for the threat of military force. And they have since moderated their positions, insisting that the Bush Administration has no authorization for war. These positions significantly constrain the Bush Administration, and strengthening the positions, among members of Congress and Democratic Presidential candidates, should be a key focus of our efforts.

There's a saying in Washington: it's always too early, until it's too late. We can't wait until the Bush Administration openly and explicitly commits itself to a war policy with Iran in order to organize opposition. Then it may well be too late. We need to stop this train before it leaves the station. We need to organize opposition now.

Comments

[Plowboy]

Does anyone believe that if we asked them nicely, the Democrats would stop acting exactly like the right wing of the Republican party?
Nah! Not worth the bother.

[RanTalbott]

Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that public outcry is likely to do much. Just look at the polls: even though 2/3 of the country believes that Iran is at least probably supporting insurgents in Iraq, and despite a propaganda campaign that would make Goebbels proud, only 9% of the country supports military action right now.

We already have 59% saying that whatever threat Iran might pose should be countered with diplomacy for now, and 24% saying that it's not a threat requiring military action, period, it's unlikely we'll ever see stronger public opposition to going to war. Unless, perhaps, it's revealed that Bush has secretly hired jewelers and tailors to make him an imperial crown and robes.

What we really need is, not a strategy for rousing public opposition, but to find out what the hell the Senators who voted for this are thinking.

[BillfromSaginaw]

Pessimist that I am, I put the chance of Little George the Lame leaving his mark on Persia too at about 50/50.

Faux News reported earlier this month that highly placed, anonymous inside sources speaking on deep background due to the classified nature of their leak, said that a bombing attack on Iran of at least one week's duration was likely to take place "after the primaries" but before the 2008 general election.

They say in real estate, location is everything. In waging war, timing is everything. Why after the primaries, but before the November 2008 balloting?

Because if Faux has the time line right, such a development would solidly galvanize the red meat militarist neo cons behind the Republican candidate. The GOP, the right wing echo chamber, and the mainstream media will all then turn to the Democratic nominee, and chant in unison like a great Greek chorus, "Won't you reconsider your promised plan to pull US troops out of the Middle East, what with success, security and stability now so nearly within our grasp?"

Talk about changing the frame of public debate overnight.....

As long as the attack on Iran is after the primaries, but close enough to the election that the blowback doesn't have time to materialize, this development will drive a huge and bloody wedge between the Democratic Party's grassroots and its beltway/DLC campaign leadership.

Support the troops at this crucial moment with victory right there on the horizon, or stab them in the back?

What, pray tell, will the Democratic nominee do?

In my opinion, it's not just about oil, or ideology, or Israel, Apocalypse, global capitalism, or even about terrorism.

Rather, it's about power - domestic partisan power - with an attack upon Iran serving as the centerpiece for orchestrating the ebb and flow of war abroad primarily to unify and fire up the newly minted Homeland Security/military wing of the Republican Party, while dividing the Democrats internally against their antiwar base.

And I'd love to know how Brent and Zbiggy analyzed that wrinkle at their recent insiders' debate.

Bill from Saginaw

[patb]

hopeless277
I agree with you as Bush takes every orpunity to take away our rights. As he once said it would be easier to rule as a dictator. I believe this is what he will do before the next election. As a matter of fact America has
seen the last election as we now know them.

Fear is what we live on today and it will only get worse.

[alkamm]

The nice thing about craven corporate stooges is that they can be held back by their corporate masters. Sure Halliburton and Big Oil would like to continue destablizing the mideast in order to stimulate unending windfall/bombfall profits. At the same time, they realize that no matter how strong the camel, straws add up, and bombing Iran is a straw most Americans would call the last.
Sure the corporations would like to take over Washington, but they are smart enough to realize they already have that territory and its passified elected populace. Why wake up the American public?
So even though there is some percentage of likelihood that the administration will attack Iran, there's a small chance that such an attack will be much more than a wag the dog moment designed to "surgically" punish Iran in order to please right wing macho constituencies and convince them of the toughness of Bush and the other draft dodgers in power.

[tililek]

The Bush administration has lied often and repeatedly over Iraq and has disrespected human rights, civil rights and the constitution With the history the administration has, I find I don't believe the furor they are whipping up about Iran.

I do not know what Iran is hoping for or planning for. Mr. Pelley's interview was a shame, he should have been skeptical about both the US and the Iranians in equal measure.

I find that too many Americans are believing Bush, when experience should have encouraged a lot of doubt. A blood-thirsty administration filled with draft dodgers is not my idea of what any American should be unquestioning about.

[avergejoe]

Great Post Robert,

But there is a wildcard you didnt mention, besides isreali pressure.

That is chertoff's gut, or some sort of incident, contrived or not, the neozioncons can 'run with' to overwhelm msm and whip up patriotic support.

Look at what the Columbia (disgraceful) incident. A small group of little more than rabid attack dogs obliterated any hope of enganging in meaningful debate with Iran.

[hopeless277]

I have to correct you. 'We' will never attack Iran. The Bush Administration WILL attack Iran. This must be made clear. The people and congress of the United States of America have no interest in attacking ANYONE ANYWHERE. The Neocon dictator who currently occupies the presidency DOES NOT CARE what the people or their representatives think about ANYTHING. They WILL attack Iran using nuclear weapons. It looks like Bush is so set on being Harry Truman, he will take it to the Nth degree and kill hundreds of thousands JUST BECAUSE HE CAN.
I just can't wait until he declares martial law ,dissolves congress, and shuts down the internet and the media. Oh what fun we'll have then. Cheers!

[Plowboy]

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment would at this point be annother Enabling Act and the Senators know it. Those voting "Aye" are voting a declaration of war. If it fails, the warheads will try again.

[babylonandon]

I have to take issue with a couple of things you have stated here:

"...the U.S. has certainly engaged in a lot of provocative actions, like arresting Iranian government officials in Iraq"

Of which there appears to be more and more evidence that Iran's officials are aiding those who are killing our soldiers and Iraqis in job lots by providing both training and weapons.

"supporting groups that are trying to destabilize the government of Iran"

They certainly do the same in Iraq (Moqtada Sadr) and it is known that they have stationed a multitude of agents here in the US in preparation for causing chaos if there is a war.

"and stationing warships off the Iranian coast"

The Arabian Gulf is a small waterway and anything in the AG is just off of Iran's coast. With Kuwait and Iraq butting up against Iran it is impossible to avoid close contact...unless your are suggesting that we should just vacate the Gulf Area completely.

"so far the U.S. and Iran have shied away from direct military confrontation".

Unlike Iran's kidnapping a bunch of British sailors.

"Perhaps they will continue to do so for the indefinite future."

Unlikely if for no other reason than the 12th Imam won't come back unless there is an Apocalypse.

[Plowboy]

baby, you sell the p, don't you! On most of your charges Iran is "guilty by accusation"! Proof isn't required?
And "kidnapping a bunch of British sailors" who were provocatively in Iranian water?

[RanTalbott]

Iran is doing nothing that we haven't done all over the world, for many years. Including _to Iran_, in the form of our support for Saddam's attempt to conquer them in a war of aggression.

Condemning Iran for supporting Hezbollah far beyond its original purpose of countering Israeli meddling in Lebanon is entirely fair.

But complaining that they're using the same techniques that _every_ nation, including us, has always used to counter existential threats is just whiny hypocrisy. Especially when we're still in the middle of putting millions of innocent Iraqis through Hell just because we were scared that their dictator _might_ have been a threat.