« Does Anyone Think We Shouldn't Attack Iran? | Main | On The Table? »
February 15, 2007
More Experts on Iran
So remember, Ken Baer asked, "is there any person with real experience with the Iranians, diplomacy, or nonproliferation who has argued [that the military option should be off the table]?" I gave a couple in the last post. Here are a few more.
“I do not expect any kind of military solution on the Iran issue,” Hagel told a news conference. … “I think to further comment on it would be complete speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option,”
Republican representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, former chair of of the Middle East and Asia subcommittee:
“Now, we are not going to go to war with — with Iran. So, that military option is probably off the table. Diplomacy, you have seen what has been taking place. We have been at this diplomatic maneuver for many, many months and many, many years, all to no avail. They have even built up their nuclear infrastructure. So, that leads us to the third tool in our toolbox, which is sanctions.”
Ret. Air Force Lt. Col. Sam Gardiner:
Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army’s National War College, after leading a “war game” on Iran: “After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.”
IAEA Director Mohamed El-Baradei:
“I don’t believe there is a military solution to the issue. I think that a military solution would be completely counterproductive.”
Former UN Weapons Inspector David Albright:
Iran ‘could cause all kinds of disruption clandestinely in Iraq.’ For that reason, and several others, he said there are no good military options on the table for confronting Iran. He also said loud external threats, especially from the United States, tend to backfire by sending Iranian moderates and reformers running under the banners of the clerical regime that Washington opposes.”
Richard Clarke:
“[W]e’ve thought about military options against Iran off and on for the last 20 years, and they’re just not good, because you don’t know what the end game is. You know what the first move of the game is, but you don’t know what the last move of the game is.
More here, at the invaluable Think Progress.
February 15, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"is there any person with real experience with the Iranians, diplomacy, or nonproliferation who has argued [against the military option]
No, he didn't.
He made his statement about people taking the military option off the table. It's hardly the same thing.
Posted by: Aaron Bergman | Feb 15, 2007 11:27:01 AM
Perhaps it was Atrios, perhaps Josh Marshall, but I recall somewhere, a version of this formulation. So we're gearing up for a war against targets we're not sure exist, we don't know where they are and even if we did, we're not sure that we could "take them out" through the use of force. We don't know what the ramifications of an attack on Iran would be in the region, though we can easily infer from Iraq, it would be devastating. But we're gearing up for an attack and a war because we refuse to "take any options off the table". In fact, we're taunting them and teasing them out on it by deploying new assets in the region.
Sound familiar?
And given bush and his administration's well recorded capacity for lying and distortion, we know we're not getting the straight story.
So why is it we're supposed to support this new war effort?
If for no other reason, this administration's utter and complete incompetence in pursuing their Iraq folly should be more than reason enough to take george's guns away and tell him to sit down and shut up for the next two years.
Anything less is lunacy in my opinion.
Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 15, 2007 11:30:00 AM
you're right, I edited to reflect that. But I don't think the difference is as wide as you, or Ken, may think. If Ken wants to say "under no circumstances should we bomb Iran just because they get nukes, but let's be quiet about that," that's one thing. That isn't what he's saying, though. He's saying all options should be on the table. ANd I think that's crazy.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 15, 2007 11:32:12 AM
Oh, and according to the people you listed, war with Iran would be a really bad idea.
Seriously, what intelligent adult advances the other option and why?
This is so far beyond politics and reason that it startles me. Absent an immediate, obvious threat, anyone who wants to give george the power for more war is stupid, crazy or both.
Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 15, 2007 11:32:48 AM
This strikes me as yet another situation where there aren't any good options. Of course war with Iran would be a disastrous outcome. So might be a nuclear Iran. The question to answer is which is the more disastrous outcome.
All indications were that Clinton was willing to go to war with NK in 1994 before the Agreed Framework. I can't imagine anyone would argue that war with NK wouldn't have been at least as disastrous as a war with Iran now.
Posted by: Aaron Bergman | Feb 15, 2007 11:38:17 AM
There's a perfectly good option -- diplomacy.
Posted by: Dave | Feb 15, 2007 11:41:45 AM
As I said in the thread below, you're attacking a strawman. There was no one (or almost no one) who thought attacking the Soviet Union was a good idea but most people thought threatening it with attack was a good idea. It's called deterrence.
You might have problems with the theory of deerrence; if so, you should take it on directly.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 15, 2007 11:43:19 AM
This strikes me as yet another situation where there aren't any good options. Of course war with Iran would be a disastrous outcome. So might be a nuclear Iran. The question to answer is which is the more disastrous outcome.
No. Not the question. Not a question at all, to anyone who's paying attention. The unspoken assumption here is that it's either/or--that military action would prevent a nuclear Iran--but nobody who isn't completely batshit crazy believes there's a non-trivial probability of that being the case. So it's more like 'which is the more disastrous outcome, a nuclear Iran or military action and a nuclear Iran', and that's not a question at all.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Feb 15, 2007 11:45:15 AM
Isn't that what I did here, and what started the argument?
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 15, 2007 11:47:15 AM
Yeah, like David Minzer says in the post below, "the viability of an attack on Iran and the viability of threatening such an attack" are two different things.
In 1994, for instance, everyone agreed that going to war with North Korea would've been a horrendous thing. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration went very far in threatening to do just that and managed to scare Kim Jong Il into negotiating. The result was the Agreed Framework. So there's at least one example in which--at least at first glance--military strikes would've been bad, but leaving military strikes on the table seemed like a smart idea, even in the context of engagement.
Publius' original argument was that, in Iran's case, this won't actually work -- and will actually be counterproductive. Yglesias links to Kenneth Pollack and Rand Beers, who argue the same thing. Now I think Publius is right, but it doesn't help to muddle this debate with a heap of quotes from people arguing something slightly different.
Posted by: Brad Plumer | Feb 15, 2007 11:48:26 AM
He's saying all options should be on the table. ANd I think that's crazy.
I don't know what you mean by that, but this is Baer's thesis:
But precisely because these Democrats want to avoid war with Iran that they must offer the now familiar formulation: no nukes for Iran, no options off the table.
None of your experts, or even you, contradict what Baer actually says. David, Tim, Aaron, Brad and others are all pointing out the disconnect here.
The question of formally taking force off the table for Iran can't be considered in isolation. Even if it might appear helpful in regard to Iran (which I think is doubtful), that would cause problems with other nations where force is left on the table, which would then want to know what leaving it on the table means for them, since we exclude it for Iran.
Focus less on the formality and more on other forms of bellicosity as well as positive engagement.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 15, 2007 12:10:11 PM
> The question of formally taking force off
> the table for Iran can't be considered
> in isolation.
Correct. And the context here is that Bill Clinton, Eisenhower, George Marshall, Winston Churchill, or even Teddy Roosevelt are NOT President: George W. Bush is. And that our entire intelligence, national security, and diplomatic arms are staffed and/or controlled by Dick Cheney's Vulcans or their acolytes.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 15, 2007 12:18:08 PM
So? What would it help for those people to claim to take force off the table?
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 15, 2007 12:21:12 PM
Sanpete is right.
And the context here is that Bill Clinton, Eisenhower, George Marshall, Winston Churchill, or even Teddy Roosevelt are NOT President: George W. Bush is.
You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean. Bush/Cheney can't do it, and you can't either.
Posted by: Korha | Feb 15, 2007 1:40:43 PM
Neither of you are that obtuse, so there isn't much point in replying as you know exactly what you are doing.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 15, 2007 1:44:46 PM
He's saying all options should be on the table. ANd I think that's crazy.
So you would publicly state that certain options are off the table, eh? What options has Iran taken off the table?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2007 1:48:43 PM
OK, I guess we have to be explicit. I will point you to Atrios' comment:
}} Look, regarding this "all options are on the table" stuff, it's only a phrase to use if you're making a threat. All options are always theoretically on the table. The only reason to state that war is on the table is because you feel it's advantageous to make a threat.We don't hear leaders saying, "we hope to come to a trade agreement with El Salvador, but until we do all options are on the table," because we're not trying to threaten them with war. This week, at least.
If Bush is interested in war then the impact of a bunch of presidential candidates throwing out threats of war is to validate that view. {{
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 15, 2007 2:29:40 PM
Man, Republicans get to say anything.
Posted by: Jon O. | Feb 15, 2007 3:12:30 PM
It makes sense to use that phrase if you are wanting a behavior change such as giving up the persuit of nukular weapons technology.
Does it matter to you if they are moving toward this capability or not? No one seems to be mentioning that when discussing the possibility of war with Iran.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2007 3:18:03 PM
> Does it matter to you if they are moving toward
> this capability or not?
Mr. Jones,
If you were the President (or Prime Minister, or Dictator, or Head Mullah) of a mid-sized regional power, what lesson would you draw from the Iraq War concerning whether or not your nation would be better off possessing nuclear weapons?
If _you_ were the President (or whatever - one of the guys with actual power) in Iran, what would _you_ do? Remember, in threat analysis you don't analyze what you think you opponent will do - you analyze what he _can_ do and what he [1] says he _might_ do.
I will be fascinated to hear your answers. Consider also the definiton of malfesence in office.
Cranky
[1] In this context "he" includes Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and PNAC.
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 15, 2007 3:34:02 PM
Ok, then, let's look at this from another perspective.
Who in this discussion thinks the leaders of Iran and bone, stick, stone stupid? Not crazy, not religious zealots, who thinks they are unaware of the basic conditions that exist now in the middle east?
Anyone?
I didn't think so.
So, if we can possibly stipulate that there is a very good chance that Iran is aware that we really aren't capable of a sustained military action in Iran then this sable rattling bush is doing is accomplishing what? Aside from once again stirring things up where they may or may not need to be.
The "nuclear option" as it were, is the only strong option bush has with regard to Iran. Sure, we can bomb them and probably send some thousands of troops there but what will that accomplish? And what exactly will those troops do? They won't be destroying or securing areas where we know nuclear work is taking place because we don't know where those areas are. So what will our armed forces be doing?
This is why you don't threaten things you either cannot follow through on or are extremely unlikely to follow through on. It only makes you look weaker and once again degrades your credibility. I think both of those things have taken enough hits care of the bush administration.
Look at what's happened in North Korea. After years of saber rattling and not doing much we've come to make the same agreement we had in place, the one george thought was so bad. We basically undercut our own position and now negotiate from a weaker one given the developments in NK. Why? Because we had to pretend to do something we weren't going to do. And now, even though there is, apparently, an agreement that may be workable, bush's own staff, john bolton, thinks it's a bad idea. His own staff is fighting him on this.
This administration is worthless and incompetent and that's not a political opinion, it's a practical one.
And anyone who thinks the rest of the world, NK and Iran included, doesn't know this, is kidding themselves.
Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 15, 2007 3:48:40 PM
The question was, Does it matter to you if they are moving toward this capability or not?
How tough can this be? It's a "yes" or "no" question.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2007 4:19:11 PM
Does this matter to you?
Iraq adviser: Al-Sadr in Iran
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2007 4:21:39 PM
Can you answer the questions please Mr. Jones? Thanks.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 15, 2007 4:32:49 PM
It would appear that I asked my question first. Thanks.
I did not get an answer. Instead I got some fantasy about being the head of a country.
The Iranian desire/capability for nukular weapons technology is an important issue as this is the reason why many believe we may have to go in there and clean house. If you believe it doesn't matter, then have the balls to say so.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 15, 2007 5:36:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
