« Ad of the Day | Main | The New Face Of Zero Sum »
April 14, 2006
Against Saber Rattling
Arguing with James Fallow's contention that public saber-rattling against iran is counterproductive and we should leave the serious threats, if there are any, for back channels, Tigerhawk misses the major point. Not to misuse the holidays here, but think of the Exodus tale: The decidedly public, impressive plagues are repeatedly visited on the Egyptians, but each time Moses returns to the Pharaoh's antechamber, the wannabe demigod's heart is hardened (depending on how you interpret the passages, by God or by pride) and he ignores the latest plague, preferring to pit his society against divine wrath yet again. The end result, of course, is massive slaughter.
Our public projection of aggression creates some problems of that sort for the Iranian regime. Remember, first, that the Iranian government is not cohesive; it's fractured, with the populist maniac Ahmadinejad fighting for power against the Ayatollahs. His strategy? Nationalism. Persian pride. Every time America rattles its saber and declares what Iran can't do (which is obtain the same weaponry that America, and Israel, have), Ahmadinejad gets one more point in the polls. Each time that happens, he becomes more powerful vis-a-vis the Ayatollahs.
Now, in normal times, the Ayatollahs may judge the threat of American attack more compelling than the threat of opposing a broadly supported populist, but remember, Iraq has tied up our army, demonstrated our weakness, and made it look exceedingly unlikely that we'd risk a similar engagement against a stronger opponent. So they may gamble that America's bluffing, that it's all saber-rattling, and they should instead ensure they're not caught on the wrong side of Ahmadinejad's popularity. But we may not be bluffing. And therein lies the problem with such public threats: we make Iranian obstinance more popular, weaken those who could conceivably rein in Ahmadinejad, and risk a war borne from miscommunication. Don't believe that can happen? Read Guns of August.
April 14, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834b8168d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Against Saber Rattling:
Comments
Disclaimer: I'm opposed to military action against Iran. I think the most likely explanation of the Bush administration's saber-rattling is their own hubris and insanity.
That disclaimer said, if we want to assume the WH is thinking strategically, there is a rationale for saber-rattling that doesn't involve the loony plan of trying to shake Tehran's resolve. An intended audience for the saber-rattling that makes strategic sense is Moscow and Beijing. The goal is get Security Council approval for taking a hard Iran line See Laura Rozen's post for a NYT quote outlining the strategy.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2006 3:27:12 PM
Good points on the danger of bluffing and saber-rattling, but how the hell does the Moses analogy fit? Besides its reliance on problematic "will of God" issues, the dynamic is entirely different: the escalating threats and reprisals don't wreak havok on all sides, but instead benefited the side they were supposed to (the mythical Israelites) while devastating the other (the mythical Egyptians).
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Apr 14, 2006 3:44:48 PM
With the Republican spin-meisters doing what they do best it wouldn't suprise me that the threats against Iran have served to keep oil prices high benefitting Bush and his ilk, and that there is no intention of an invasion. In fact, the whole 9/11, Iraq scenario is begginning to reek of conspiracy.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Apr 14, 2006 3:53:01 PM
To be clear, I am not sure I'm a fan of saber-rattling in the case of Iran. I can see arguments pro and con. I am, however, quite sure that James Fallows argument for opposing saber-rattling -- that it might case "excess demand" for the use of force in the United States -- is nonsense. There is no risk of excess demand for a war with Iran. I am also fairly sure that his claim that the government of Iran is the only plausible target of our bluff is nonsense. I don't disagree with your analysis (or most of it), but I also don't agree that I "missed the major point." My major point was to call out Fallows, and I don't think that you did anything to my deconstruction of his arguments, which were uncharacteristically dumb.
Posted by: TigerHawk | Apr 14, 2006 4:03:00 PM
I suspect a even more devious reason for BushCo's loud and public threats of US nukes being used against Iran.
BushCo is now getting very far out on the tree branch, deliberately, so that it becomes obvious to Americans, Russians and Chinese (if not the Iranians themselves) that the US can't back down without suffering a humiliation.
This 'we can't appear weak' argument will gain some support from those who don't want another war but also don't want the US to appear weak or for the President to appear powerless.
Looking back at Iraq II, Bush sent huge amounts of supplies and troops to Kuwait well before the war began. It was the same strategy: we have staked out our position so we can't back off. It was deliberate public policy strategy (as well as necessary if Bush was going to get his war before the 2004 elections).
We have already been suckered into this position again. Plans made, troops being inserted into Iran (maybe), reputation on the line, etc.
At base, this is the 'support the troops' and 'support the President' line, but done deliberately to create the conditions where the US people, Congress and other major nations realize the US can't back away.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 14, 2006 4:14:34 PM
Jim strikes at the heart of the issue. It doesn't really matter anymore what the president of Iran or the Ayatollah say or do. What matters is the apocalyptic nutjob rhetoric coming from our own theologically militant leaders.
Maybe saber-rattling at Iran is a good idea. I could see how it could be. But tactical questions like this are irrelevant. Bush is desperately seeking a legacy besides a failed war in Iraq and an inability to advance his domestic agenda. Republicans don't want to lose the power they currently have, and are certainly afraid of the investigations, indictments and convictions that will come their way when they no longer can impede justice. Both branches of our government are in the control of increasingly desperate people. That's what we need to worry about.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 14, 2006 4:27:21 PM
Um, I mean two of our branches.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 14, 2006 4:28:02 PM
I dunno Tigerhawk, I think this is sort of what Fallows meant. Excess demand isn't merely domestic, it can also be foreign. And if it's even directly causing Iran to harden and ratchet up their rhetoric for political reasons, which is inflaming domestic tensions, creating corresponding increases in warlike rhetoric, etc.
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 14, 2006 4:32:38 PM
Jeez.
Black Reconaissance ...Digby
"It's obvious to me that this call for Rumsfeld's resignation by six generals is about stopping this operation in Iran first and foremost. It is not a coincidence that the first salvo came from Sy Hersh last Sunday." ...Digby, but it's too late. Or the generals are CYA while it is still remotely possible.
"Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way." ...Col Sam Gardiner on CNN, via Hullaballoo
The war against Iran was started a while ago. Perhaps the best way to lessen casualties is to start the saturation bombing this week, or as early as possible, before more nuclear facilities become operational. The fallout problem is going to increase over time.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2006 8:03:04 PM
Let me try again. A flurry of Generals are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation in order to stop something 6 mos or a year away? Why this week or month?
It will only take one B2 with one bomb (probably Narantz) and the war is on. We can build up forces after the war is started. Under theories of Unitary Presidential Pre-Emptive Godhood, a complete sneak attack will demonstrate the doctrine ("I can do whatever I want, try and stop me) most efficiently. There will also be an entire election season of domestic division accompanied by Iranian attempts at counterattack. The security issue is most effective when Americans are actually dying. Another 9/11, loss of some shipping, a division or two lost in Iraq.
Is Ezra gonna call for a pullout from Iraq and an end to all the wars? "But the Iranians have killed 10,000 Americans and Ezra wants to surrender just cause we started it?"
Expect a Presidential speech momentarily.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2006 8:24:22 PM
I think Bob's got it very close to right. US and British Operations ARE underway in and near Iran. Bush WILL NOT go to Congress ahead of time because that might cause delay or demonstrations or put Bush in a difficult spot if an authorization was rejected.
Having spent some weeks thinking about this, I've decided to come down on the side of 'no military attack on Iran pre-emptively'. Yes there's danger. Maybe worse (or not) than M. Korea or Pakistan (if a military or popular overthrow occured). We lived in greater danger for nearly 50 years from the Soviets.
But the danger of inciting a Islam-wide counter to a US attack, and the even more real danger to US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Islamic countries makes me think we should exhaustively work to reverse their direction without use of force - unless the Iranians go truly crazy and attack the US, Israel or our other allies.
In the Iranians favor in this issue is their clear right under the NPT to peacefully use atomic energy, to which they are a signatory. India and Pakistan and N. Korea are not now even signatories to the NPT, and we tolerate their nukes. We have a weaker moral hand than would justify a pre-emptive attack in 2006.
Maybe in 3, or 5, or 7 years we might have conclusive evidence that they have a military nuclear capability that they are using for politico-military threats. Then pre-emption might be justified. But not now.
I'm for retaliation, not pre-emption in this case (and in most others). Our threat should be massive retaliation, including nuclear weapons, if the Iranians use nukes, threaten in a clear way the use of nukes, or put nukes in the hands of terror groups.
Unless something is done to create a substantial dynamic for a non-preemption policy, we will be at war within a year - most probably within 6 months.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 14, 2006 9:21:39 PM
I'm for retaliation, not pre-emption in this case (and in most others). Our threat should be massive retaliation, including nuclear weapons, if the Iranians use nukes, threaten in a clear way the use of nukes, or put nukes in the hands of terror groups.
I'm 2/3 of the way there -- but I'd personally drop "threaten in a clear way the use of nukes". No words can constitute an assault.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Apr 14, 2006 9:29:11 PM
Tigerhawk,
Respectfully, your dismissal of Fallows' "excess demand" theory is, er, overly dismissive. I think JimPorOr's first post (while perhaps alarmist) is a fairly elegant description of how such excess demand would come to pass. I think it's beyond the purview of these comments, but I could list a few other examples of similar bootstrapping efforts, where the admin goes way out on a limb and attempts to force every one else to come to them rather than requiring a retrenchment to a less extreme position.
Posted by: Pooh | Apr 14, 2006 10:29:28 PM
Sorry, guys. I think it's much closer to the "it's started already" scenario than wondering how long until the hammer drops. Think of the time of year and the old preferences of when to start a dust-up in that geographic area because of climate.
Posted by: opit | Apr 14, 2006 11:53:19 PM
Hi Ezra.
It's about time the White House realized that you can't play poker with a haggler. It will always result in dangerous miscommunication. Especially if you are trying to play with a busted flush where the MeK are your hole card!
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
Posted by: Cernig | Apr 15, 2006 5:50:29 PM
Hi Ezra,
In review of US (and world) history all would have been better off backing a nationalist, such as Egypt's Gamal NASSER back in the 1950's rather than the Islamist fundamentalists. The fear mongering against communism then shielded real threats to stable governments giving power to the real nut cake extremists.
Maybe backing Iran's current, brash, big-mouthed nationalist is not such a bad idea considering the religious alternatives? By the way, carrying a big stick (nuclear warheads) worked during the cold-war, why not balance mid East power with Iranian nuclear warheads. I would consider giving the Iranians more credit than the Bushies about mideast policy.
Over 50 years of US administrations have backed fundamentalists only to not learn that a regime change doesn't fix anything permanently.
The real "elephant in the room" is religious fundamentalism and the US taliban is much more threat than any Islamic group to us today.
Posted by: Forest GUMP | Apr 16, 2006 10:51:03 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
