« Blair | Main | Obama's Sleepy Campaign »
September 27, 2007
Abizaid Comes Out Against War With Iran
General John Abizaid, the longest serving CentCom commander in history, says we can live with a nuclear Iran. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear...Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." He continued: "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can."
Abizaid's remarks are pretty clearly meant to blunt chatter coming out of the White House on the need for war with Iran. And they're important. One of the pernicious dynamics in the rhetoric around Iran is that the Bush administration's hawkishness has merged with the Democratic candidates' cowardice ("all options are on the table," when most mean "no, I won't bomb Iran, as I'm not an idiot") to create an impression, well-expressed by Ken Baer here, that no serious experts believe we should rule out war with Iran. As Abizaid, and many others, show, that's simply not true.
September 27, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Abizaid did good with the recent assessment of Iran. I just wish Fallon would speak out (again, and publicly) and preempt Cheney.
Fallon was anonymously quoted at the time of his assumption of command that war with Iran would be over his dead body. Say it again, Admiral!
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 27, 2007 11:04:35 AM
That the US could deter Iran was never in doubt. The problem was and remains that nuclear weapons would allow Iran to deter America.
Posted by: RLaing | Sep 27, 2007 11:29:31 AM
The problem was and remains that nuclear weapons would allow Iran to deter America.
The last 20 years of Republicanism have blunted my satire detector, so I will treat this as if it's serious since I can't tell.
Why is Iran deterring us a "problem" exactly? The US track record of interference in the ME and Central Asia has been largely disastrous for the people living there, and I would argue, hasn't done much good for us either (keeping us addicted to oil is not a "good" except in the most limited junkie-scoring-a-fix way).
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 27, 2007 11:49:42 AM
How many times were we nearly attacked by a nuclear Soviet Union? With all do respect to the general I think he actually makes the case why we can't live with a nuclear Iran given his silly examples. Perhaps if we wanted to live on the brink of a nuclear holocaust for the next 20 years we could live with a nuclear Iran.
Furthermore, the last time we employed the "I think we can live with a nuclear *insert country here* " Pakistan gave North Korea nuclear technology. And then when we stated we could deal with a nuclear North Korea, North Korea gave Syria nuclear technology. Maybe I'm old fashion but I prefer to decrease the amount of countries with nuclear weapons rather than increase them.
But this is all assuming that the analogy between a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear Iran is correct. However the analogy is incorrect because one of the biggest fears of a nuclear Iran is the possibility of Iran passing nuclear technology/materials/weapons to terrorists organizations. I can't live with that.
This isn't even taking into account the problems a nuclear Iran poses for the region given the existence of Israel. Nor does it take into consideration the rogue regimes who would copycat Iran.
I'm not saying bomb bomb bomb Iran, at this point, but an Iranian government pursuing nuclear weapons is out of the question.
Posted by: Phil | Sep 27, 2007 11:50:02 AM
Why is Iran deterring us a "problem" exactly? The US track record of interference in the ME and Central Asia has been largely disastrous for the people living there, and I would argue, hasn't done much good for us either (keeping us addicted to oil is not a "good" except in the most limited junkie-scoring-a-fix way).
Tell that to the Kurds
Posted by: Phil | Sep 27, 2007 11:51:34 AM
Yeah, because we haven't encouraged the Kurds to fight on numerous occasions, then sold out the Kurds to pacify first the Turks, then Hussein, then the Turks again. I suspect we also sold out the Kurds back when we put the Shah in power as well, but haven't chased that. The no-fly zone in the north of Iraq was great for the Kurds, but US intervention in the ME has hardly been an unqualified good for them. I also note that I did say "largely disastrous".
Also, are you seriously saying that US interests require that we basically run full-tilt at the Iranians, further destabilizing the region, all so that the Kurds aren't further screwed by the Iranians (although Turkish Kurd-screwing is A-OK, since the Turks are currently mostly our friends)?
Even on a humanitarian basis (let alone a realist basis) that makes no sense -- it's a flimsy pretext for a stupid, destabilizing policy pimped by Ledeenites, just like the newfound wingnut concern for the rights of women and gay people in countries we don't like is a pretext.
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 27, 2007 12:24:28 PM
Maybe I'm old fashion but I prefer to decrease the amount of countries with nuclear weapons rather than increase them.
After you, Alphonse.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | Sep 27, 2007 1:08:07 PM
Yeah, because we haven't encouraged the Kurds to fight on numerous occasions, then sold out the Kurds to pacify first the Turks, then Hussein, then the Turks again. I suspect we also sold out the Kurds back when we put the Shah in power as well, but haven't chased that. The no-fly zone in the north of Iraq was great for the Kurds, but US intervention in the ME has hardly been an unqualified good for them. I also note that I did say "largely disastrous".
Added Hoshyar Omar, a 23-year-old student-translator: “My father was buried alive [by Saddam’s men] when I was 3. I want to thank Mr. George Bush personally. ... He may have made some bad decisions, but freeing Iraq was the best decision he has ever made. ... We had nothing and we built this Kurdistan that you see.”
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02friedmancolumn.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Thomas%20L%20Friedman
Also, are you seriously saying that US interests require that we basically run full-tilt at the Iranians, further destabilizing the region, all so that the Kurds aren't further screwed by the Iranians (although Turkish Kurd-screwing is A-OK, since the Turks are currently mostly our friends)?
Nowhere did I say that. In fact I said I'd prefer to not bomb Iran. Maybe you should reread my post.
Posted by: Phil | Sep 27, 2007 1:54:22 PM
Can Israel live with a nuclear Iran?
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
Israel is our ally, we are obligated to defend them if they are attacked.
Not to mention, the Iranian leaders may see nuclear holocaust as God's will.
Posted by: abg | Sep 27, 2007 2:25:30 PM
Israel is our ally, we are obligated to defend them if they are attacked
Remind me when we ratified that common-defense treaty.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 27, 2007 2:31:54 PM
Washington Post
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A18
President Bush said yesterday the United States would defend Israel militarily if necessary against Iran, a statement that appeared to be his most explicit commitment to Israel's defense.
They may not technically be an ally, but that doesn't matter if Iran nukes Israel.
Posted by: abg | Sep 27, 2007 3:07:44 PM
abg, it might be a good idea to defend Israel directly, under certain circumstances, but we're not obligated to, as we would be in the even a fellow NATO member-country were attacked. As I said, what treat obligates us to defend them if they are attacked?
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 27, 2007 3:29:19 PM
I have a feeling the real reason Democratic candidates keep all options on the table is that at least some of them want to go to war with Iran.
People who assume that these folks are secretly doves when they go out of their way to portray themselves as hawks are likely to be disappointed.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 27, 2007 3:32:11 PM
Furthermore, the last time we employed the "I think we can live with a nuclear *insert country here* " Pakistan gave North Korea nuclear technology. And then when we stated we could deal with a nuclear North Korea, North Korea gave Syria nuclear technology. Maybe I'm old fashion but I prefer to decrease the amount of countries with nuclear weapons rather than increase them.
i, Which Middle Eastern country has the largest number of nuclear weapons?
ii, Which Middle Eastern country has attacked its neighbours more than any other in the last 50 years?
iii, Which nuclear armed superpower gave nuclear technology to them?
iv, Which nuclear armed superpower has used nuclear weapons in war, has never denied the right to resort to first use, and is currently developing a whole new generation of *operational* weapons - in violation of the NPT?
(Oh, but that's different because PeaceandFreedomandDemocracyand... and... you're just a Dirty Hippie!)
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Sep 27, 2007 3:33:18 PM
"As I said, what treat obligates us to defend them if they are attacked?"
As I said, they may not technically be an ally (no official treaty) but Bush said we would defend them militarily against Iran, we have strategic alliances with Israel and the US has billions of dollars invested in Israel.
Do you doubt that if Iran nuked Israel, and Israel didn't obliterate Iran, that the US wouldn't?
Posted by: abg | Sep 27, 2007 4:09:45 PM
Phil, what a crock of shit your last reply is.
Yes, I am very sure that the Kurds are currently benefiting from the US occupation -- so what? The larger question is whether US intervention in the ME and Central Asia over the last, say, 60 years has been good overall for anyone in the ME (except maybe the Israelis and the Saudis). You didn't answer that question. For example, what if we hadn't propped up the Turks and Hussein when they were killing Kurds in the 70's and 80's?
You're pretending that there's no history or context for any of this in order to try to parlay the current Kurd situation into what? A pretext for destabilizing the ME further? Let's be really clear. The US didn't give a fuck when anyone was killing Kurds until it became politically convenient to do so, and you're playing the same game.
As far as "bombing" Iran, you need to refresh *your* reading skills, because I didn't say "bomb". Of course, I'm not the person toeing the PNAC line about how Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That would be you, and you haven't said where you'd stop in your determination to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. So, bombing? Not bombing? Further alienation, empowering the hardliners? What?
And abg, it sure sounds like you're slavering at the prospect of nuking some Iranians. Where is our national interest there, again? What do you think would happen to the Strait of Hormuz?
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 27, 2007 6:00:35 PM
This is roughly the anniversary of the execution of the Rosenbergs, who felt that the planet was not safe with an American monopoly on atomic weapons, so they'd help Stalin's evil USSR out. (Presumably they were not up to speed on British, and at that time Canadian, nuclear weapons.)
Now we're back in 1948, only far worse: America -- a country and a Constitution which I love -- is governed by an insane claque of psychopaths.
This means that protection against America is a legitimate aim of peoples everywhere.
The North Korean bomb, barely capable of being taken by a PT boat to the middle of a carrier force, has kept mad-dog Bush away.
Fine.
Let's have another one for Iran. These fools have to be kept at bay.
Nigeria is currently a total shit-hole of every civic problem you could imagine, but in due course they may figger it out, the way Venezuela recently has.
No doubt the American Enterprise Institute will at that time have an answer for Nigeria. My answer is, Nigeria should have The Bomb. A short range missile of the kind that can be bought here and there (though drawing along side with a Boston Whaler works pretty well), plus a 1.5 kilo whom-pit, a shotgun bomb, can protect small countries from the swinging-form-the-chandeliers Bush.
And others the inane American electorate may be drawn into electing.
Posted by: David Lloyd-Jones | Sep 27, 2007 7:47:37 PM
So that stupid quote is again used as proof that Iran is an evil country just itching to attack Israel. So, once again - the quote is from Khomenei. You remember Khomenei - the guy Israel sold weapons to? They did so because they could distinguish boilerplate - and their is plenty of it - from substance.
Israel certainly doesn't want Iran to have bombs, but this is less for fear that Iran is going to attack Israel than for fear that Israel's dreams of being the great Middle Eastern power will be permanently blocked. Well, they should be. Israel's existence is not the equivalent of Israel the Middle Eastern super power. If Israel could live in peace with that fact, the Israeli governing class could actually lead the country to a more peaceful future. One in which they don't feel called upon to invade or bomb their neighbors.
Posted by: roger | Sep 27, 2007 8:37:48 PM
"And abg, it sure sounds like you're slavering at the prospect of nuking some Iranians."
Please show me what made you draw that conclusion. I would like to see the train of thought.
"So that stupid quote is again used as proof that Iran is an evil country just itching to attack Israel."
So you are saying that we should ignore the threats of a dictator who sponsors terror?
"One in which they don't feel called upon to invade or bomb their neighbors."
Israel is called upon to attack and invade their neighbors when their neighbors launch rockets into Israeli towns, kidnap innocent Israelis, bomb Israeli children on buses or try to assemble chemical weapons to attack Israel.
What gall Israel has!
Posted by: abg | Sep 28, 2007 10:14:33 AM
I agree with the post. I am disappointed however that the world won't even enforce non-proliferation through economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Sep 28, 2007 11:57:22 AM
I'm glad to hear the general speak out so courageously-- whether we can live with a nuclear Iran is not my question--when we have invaded their neighboring country in such an unlawful manner,why wouldn't Iran feel threatened and want to protect themselves? Maybe if all the world's countries had nuclear bombs- we here in the U.S. would be sufficiently "deterred" so that we would finally start to mind our own business and attend to some of our own real serious issue! such as the erosion of our own constitutional liberties!
Posted by: babasyl | Sep 28, 2007 9:21:19 PM
What makes us believe that a "nuclear Iran" is an "atomic bomb Iran" other than we have so much repeated the claims made by white house that we're almost certain it's true? So much ado for nothing -exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and no "weapons of mass destruction" as Cheney and Bush said or "uranium transfer from African State of Niger" as Collin Powell said. The peak of Iran's nuclear technology is 3,000 centrifuges and a max of 3.5% uranium enrichment, compared to at least 90% weapon grade enrichment. Let's be brave and face the realities and not to be fooled by propaganda.
Posted by: comrun | Sep 29, 2007 4:13:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
