Bush's Growing Hostility Towards Iran
| By timeforimpeachment - Jan 11th, 2007 at 8:05 am EST |
As noted on ThinkProgress, Bush mentioned that for the "national interest" he plans to send another carrier strike group to the Gulf. The more likely explanation is that he wants to continue his steps towards a military strike against Iran. Meanwhile the defense and intelligence establishments are being purged of dissenters and reports are circulating about a potential attack on Iran.
These frightening measures should send shockwaves through the progressive community. If an attack on Iran does happen, you can throw all your progressive fantasies and policy proposals out the windows. And believe me, Iran will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
So give your Congressman or Senator a call ASAP. Tell them to investigate Bush's questionable moves towards conflict with Iran, and to oppose any such warmongering.
These frightening measures should send shockwaves through the progressive community. If an attack on Iran does happen, you can throw all your progressive fantasies and policy proposals out the windows. And believe me, Iran will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
So give your Congressman or Senator a call ASAP. Tell them to investigate Bush's questionable moves towards conflict with Iran, and to oppose any such warmongering.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Says who? First off, you're assuming we'd invade Iran. A strike on Iran and an invasion of Iran are two very separate things.
Secondly, we need to be saber-rattling with Iran, if only because we have no better options. The Clinton administration tried the dialogue route with Iran; it got us absolutely nowhere, and she gave far more than any administration before or since could possibly give.
And yes, an attack on Iran will be devastating for the progressive cause. An attack on Iran will most certainly result in a surge of terrorist attacks, making another 9/11-civil-liberties-gone-xeno phobia-everywhere scenario far more likely. In that sort of mental environment, progressive ideas suffer badly.
And no, threatening Iran is not, as you say, productive. The regime has never responded to threats, except by increasing its overall repressiveness. They'll never listen to America's demands. After all, America installed and supported dictatorial rule in their country. And threats make it only MORE LIKELY that they'll build a bomb.
Would Iraq just sit back if Israel bombed their nuclear power plants? Oh wait, that happened, and they did.
This is silly logic.
An attack on Iraq has not resulted in a surge of terrorist attacks against America. Our worst terrorist attack, 9/11, came before we had invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Not to mention that most of the terrorists attacking us have been Sunnis, and Iran is a Shia kingdom.
America has not become seriously xenophobic in the aftermath of 9/11.
They will want to build a bomb no matter what we do, as they are surrounded by countries on all sides that have them (America, Russia, Pakistan, Israel). One cannot remove their motivation to make a bomb, only their means of doing so.
Also, while we installed and supported dictatorial rule in Iran, the current rulers of Iran are also dictators.
Secondly, IRAN IS NOT THEIR COUNTRY. Iran belongs to the Iranian people, not to the fascist, fanatical mullahs. People of their ilk have no rightful place in any Iran based on justice.
They've not responded to unprecedented diplomacy under Clinton, either.
An offer to negotiate does not mean there will be meaningful negotiations. The Clinton Administration tried that - bent over backwards, in fact - and we didn't see any results from it.
But we're not talking about the Clinton era, we're talking about now. And now we have an opportunity to engage moderate elements within the Iranian leadership that have already said they are willing to make deals with US. Hashemi Rafsanjani, a political power broker in Iran, has said that Ahmadinejad's stance on the nuclear issue is too unilateralist and dangerous. If we were to talk to people like Rafsanjani, there will be a glimmer of hope.
Even if negotiations fail and Iran resumes uranium enrichment, who cares? The CIA has already said that they are at least 10 to 15 years away from getting a nuclear weapon, and the IAEA and the CIA have both acknowledged that there is little to no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear program. And even if they did get the bomb, which is hard to do anyway, they a are highly unlikely to use it. For all his rambling, Ahmadinejad doesn't have his finger on the button - Iran's constitution gives him no control over the armed forces.
And even he has backtracked on his comments about Israel, saying recently that Iran has no plans to ever use nuclear weapons and that rather than be "wiped off the map", Israel should collapse like the Soviet Union did.
Another fun fact: You mentioned that Iraq didn't respond after the attack on its Osiraq reactor. That's not true. They DID respond by beginning their nuclear weapons program shortly afterwards. They only started making nukes after Israel's attack convinced them that they need to have a deterrent to defend themselves from future aggrssion. The same thing could happen with Iran; a military strike would probably ACCELERATE their program.
On display here is a shocking ignorance and naivete regarding the facts of the Clinton era.
LOL. Gee, that'll endear us to the Iranian populace. You do realize Rafsanjani is widely despised for the extreme level of corruption under his presidency?
Also, you do realize he was president for a while, and we did talk to him then?
May I just point out one ironic part of the America's FP in the Middle East: it wants to create democracies, but works against the only one in the region (save Israel, of course).
This is not to say Iran is "good" or "bad," but in terms of legitimacy is has far more than say Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
Though I agree with SuperD's reading on this: saber-rattling to Iran might be good.
But it has to be done carefully: America must repel Iranian incursion into Iraq, but if it goes too far (launching strikes is an obvious example) the Iranian public will turn to their current hard-line leader.
Clearly one way to do this is secure Iraq’s borders.
Oh but wait, we don't have the troops to spare and the mission is still failing.
The obvious alternative: do a pull-out, aggressively engage Iran and give them the goodies they want. Fans of this world point to the chances that they would than moderate and the public--lacking gripes against the US--would vote in moderates.
But this is all superficial analysis.
And I have not even come close to a decision on how the US should interact in Iran.
It's a hard problem: an extreme regime that still has public legitimacy that would only be strengthened by any American overreaction.
Good things to read for America’s Iran options:
The American Way of Strategy by Michael Lind
Ethical Realism by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman
Link Christian Science Monitor Opinion Piece
Flynt Leverett’s thoughts (New America Foundation Scholar) Link
Barry Posen’s thoughts (Century Foundation)
Sam Gardiner take on America’s military options toward Iran Link
That's not a "neo-conservative sentiment" - it's a human sentiment shared by all free-minded people regardless of what option they support for dealing with said regime.
Wrong. I want to create liberal democratic republics, with a liberal, secular constitution undergirding democratic processes. I have no use for mob rule, or an illiberal democracy like Iran's current regime.
The legitimacy of each of those regimes is questionable, but claiming Iraq has 'far more' than Egypt and Jordan is silly. Arguments can be made for and against each, but none of them seriously resemble a liberal democratic republic.
We shall see. Part of what's been working against Ahmadinejad is the perception among the people that he's provoked our wrath.
Well, at least you admit that you want us to simply concede to Iran on every point. Yay for appeasement.
Saying the Iranian mullahs have public legitimacy is an insult to the Iranian people.
A.) You didn't cite any evidence or polling here
B.) Although some Iranians probably agree with this, polls have consistently shown that Iranians feel their country has a right to a civilian nuclear program.
"Wrong. I want to create liberal democratic republics, with a liberal, secular constitution undergirding democratic processes. I have no use for mob rule, or an illiberal democracy like Iran's current regime."
Wow. Sounds a lot like William Kristol or Richard Perle. The only problem with this ambition of yours is that the US has opposed it repeatedly. The US never wanted to have elections in Iraq; only a campaign of nonviolent protest by Sistani brought it about. The US, for years, supported the dictatorial Shah in Iran. And THAT wasn't a liberal democracy. The record is clear: foreign policy elites within the US government only support "democracy" when it suits them.
I cite the polls themselves - specifically, the defeat of Ahmadinejad's party.
Of course it has. How is that a problem with my ambition?
As for Kristol and Perle, I'd hope no good progressive would disagree with them when it comes to desired ends - we all want a free, democratic, liberal, secular-minded Middle East. The disagreement is in how to bring those ends about.
Supporting democracy all the time simply doesn't work. Regardless of what we'd like to see in the long-term, an immediate democratic revolution in China would be a disaster for the world at the moment.
Choices have to be made - sometimes they're made well, sometimes they're made badly. America has chosen badly plenty of times within the past fifty years, with hundreds of thousands of dead as a result. Nobody disputes that.
The US never wanted to have elections in Iraq; only a campaign of nonviolent protest by Sistani brought it about. The US, for years, supported the dictatorial Shah in Iran. And THAT wasn't a liberal democracy. The record is clear: foreign policy elites within the US government only support "democracy" when it suits them.