Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Let’s-Bomb-Iran Crowd Mobilizes

Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (I-CT) recent call for air-strikes against Iran appears to be the culmination of a two-week-long campaign by proponents...

Sen. Joseph Lieberman‘s (I-CT) recent call for air-strikes against Iran appears to be the culmination of a two-week-long campaign by proponents of war to again put the military option center stage in the U.S. debate over Iran.

The immediate effect of reigniting the let’s-bomb-Iran discussions is the undercutting of the recently initiated U.S.-Iran talks over Iraq, which in turn will cause the idea of military confrontation with Iran to be viewed in a new light.

Senator Lieberman out-hawked the George W. Bush administration on the television news show Face the Nation on June 10 by calling for "aggressive military action against the Iranians," including "a strike over the border into Iran." Repeating the by now all but abandoned accusations of Iranian complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Connecticut senator’s comments caused a storm in the U.S. media last Monday. Suddenly, the military option against Iran was once more at the center of the debate in the United States.

In early June, Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s hawkish transport minister and former defense minister, had visited Washington to hold strategic discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear program with Bush administration officials. According to press reports, Mofaz urged the United States to give diplomacy with Iran an expiration date after which a military option would be exercised by Israel.

"Sanctions must be strong enough to bring about change in the Iranians by the end of 2007," Mofaz reportedly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to Channel 2 News in Israel, Mofaz went on to declare to Rice that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities by year’s end if diplomacy and sanctions fail to persuade Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities.

A week prior to Mofaz’s visit to Washington, Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative editor-at-large of Commentary, published a lengthy op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled "The Case for Bombing Iran." Comparing Iran’s fire-brand president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, Podhoretz accused Iran of seeking to "overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism."

Dismissing both diplomacy and the sanctions track, Podhoretz concluded that "the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force—any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938."

Lieberman, Mofaz, and Podhoretz’s comments all share an air of frustration and desperation in light of the growing public opinion against any new military adventures in the Middle East, the loss of key hawks within the Bush administration, reports of the new head of U.S. Central Command’s vehement opposition to war with Iran, and the State Department’s recent shift toward diplomacy.

For Washington to seriously consider once more the military option, in spite of its significant flaws and many unpredictable risks, the diplomatic track must first be deemed a failure. If diplomacy were to produce positive results in Iraq, however, it could potentially foreclose the option of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for the foreseeable future.

In the worst-case scenario—from the perspective of the proponents of war with Iran, that is—successful diplomacy with Iran over Iraq might force the Bush administration to reach a compromise with Tehran over the nuclear issue. Such a compromise would likely entail a small-scale Iranian enrichment program, albeit under strict International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

Even though limited enrichment would only pose a minor proliferation risk in the short term, Iran’s acquirement of the nuclear know-how and mastering of the fuel cycle can pose a devastating long-term proliferation risk, proponents of this school of thought maintain. In addition, the mere access to nuclear technology—even if Iran doesn’t weaponize—will tilt the balance of power in the Middle East in Tehran’s favor, a development that would come at the expense of regional powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

As a result, the Bush administration’s experimentation with diplomacy with Iran is viewed with great concern by the advocates of war. Senator Lieberman hinted as much on June 10 when he told Face the Nation: "If there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them."

Whether intentional or not, the vocal push to reignite the let’s-bomb-Iran discussions undermines the very diplomatic process that constitutes the greatest obstacle to turning the military option into policy.

This debate signals to the ever-so-paranoid decisionmakers in Tehran that their cooperation in Iraq will not cause Washington to abandon its apparent plans to take on Iran militarily at a later stage. Absent the potential for such a trade-off with the United States, Iran’s incentives to aid the United States in Iraq will quickly diminish and cause the diplomatic track to fail, a development that in turn will pave the way for the military option to be put into practice.

Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliances—The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007).

Citations

Trita Parsi, "The Let's-Bomb-Iran Crowd Mobilizes," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, June 18, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share