Make a tax-deductible contribution today and get exclusive Vonnegut gear!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > September 18, 2007 > Web Only

Another War We Can’t Afford

The neo-cons may be coordinating with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and all the usual suspects to build enough public support to bomb Iran

By Allen McDuffee

The Bush administration and its Beltway network of supporters and enablers are ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran again, and this time it seems the positioning will have consequences. According to New York University professor and Informed Comment Global Affairs blogger Barnett Rubin, the rhetorical campaign will continue until a military campaign is executed in the very near future. According to one of Rubin’s Washington sources who spoke to one of his contacts in a leading neo-conservative institution:

They [the source’s institution] have ‘instructions’ (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’

It might not be so difficult to obtain the minimum threshold of 35 to 40 percent support among Americans. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this year, 43 percent of Americans believe that the United States should use military action if Iran continues developing nuclear technology and is close to developing a nuclear weapon. Other polling data suggest similar American attitudes toward Iran.

Rubin goes on to add:

Of course I cannot verify this report. But besides all the other pieces of information about this circulating, I heard last week from a former U.S. government contractor. According to this friend, someone in the Department of Defense called, asking for cost estimates for a model for reconstruction in Asia. The former contractor finally concluded that the model was intended for Iran.

Meanwhile, a story that received more attention, but without consideration for its full implications, was that six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were carried on a B-52 bomber from North Dakota’s Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on August 30. This was labeled a mistake—that the crew unknowingly carried nuclear weapons. But somebody did. Nuclear weapons are only loaded for the purpose of transport or if on alert. The other point worth noting is that Barksdale is a primary staging point for Middle East operations.

Adding to anti-Iranian sentiment and in perfect timing with the administration’s campaign, a U.S. district court judge ordered Iran to pay $2.65 billion in damages to victims and their families for the 1983 Marine barracks in Beirut last Friday. The judgment seems more symbolic than anything since there is no clear way of seizing the money given that Iran has denied responsibility for the attack, has not acknowledged the lawsuit and doesn’t have normal relations with the United States. Also with impeccable timing, neocon Iranophobe and National Review contributing editor Michael Ledeen published The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction.

Army Gen. David Petraeus wanted to do his part while he was in town. After two days of Congressional testimony, Petraeus said at the National Press Club that “you can’t win in Iraq … just in Iraq.” A victory in Iraq necessitates “greater involvement with respect to some of the neighboring countries, some of the source countries for foreign fighters. … And it certainly involves Iran.”

But Petraeus showed considerable restraint given the path Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) attempted to lead him down during his testimony: “Is it time to give you authority, in pursuit of your mission in Iraq, to pursue those Iranian Qods Force operations in Iranian territory, in order to protect America’s troops in Iraq?” In the context of Petraues’ testimony, the question was a non-sequitur, but for those who remember Lieberman’s insistence earlier this summer that “the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us,” it was of little surprise.

Bush is doing his part in the rhetorical campaign, recently accusing Iran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust” and adding that the United States and its allies would face Iran “before it is too late.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy has already signed up to another coalition of the willing, warning that Iran risks being bombed if the outstanding nuclear issues aren’t resolved.

All along, Iran has maintained that the purpose of the program is to generate electricity for civilian use. And the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported on August 30 “significant” cooperation from Iran over its nuclear program and said that the uranium enrichment processes have decreased and are producing “well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design.” Additionally, according to the IAEA, Iran has promised to answer most of the agency’s questions by November. The IAEA further commended Iran for coming to agreement on a new work plan and timeline set forth by the IAEA.

The State Department, however, must have been reading a different report. In a September 7 press briefing, the State Department somehow managed to cast the IAEA report in a different fashion, saying that “if Iran wants to take steps backward to limit its cooperation with the IAEA or with other parts of the international community, again, that is only taking them further away from a resolution of this issue and I think will only lead to further negative consequences for the government and unfortunately, for the Iranian people as well.”

In an equally baffling move, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a September 2 talk with Iranian students, claimed that the nuclear program is now operating at 3,000 centrifuges—the necessary level to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel within a year. It may seem strange for Ahmadinejad to contradict the IAEA, which is trying so desperately to save Iran from a U.S. military attack. However, a defiant Ahmadinejad has broader concerns; he is bent on making sure the world knows the West, and especially the United States, is not as powerful as it believes.

Does this at all sound familiar? An unfriendly, defiant leader of a country which has fallen in and out of the graces of the United States and is certainly no friend to Israel, who misleads the United States into thinking (or at least giving them the alibi) that they have weapons of mass destruction.

But we cannot afford another attack. True, with the Iraq debacle continuing to cost Americans $10 billion each month, an air campaign in Iran would be a barely noticed drop in the “War on Terror” bucket. What would be unaffordable is the loss of life among Iranian civilians, the further destabilization of the Middle East, the further degeneration of the position of the United States in the world and, though it seems impossible, the further destabilization of Iraq that such a bombing would cause.

With the Government Accountability Office reporting at the beginning of the month that only three of 18 benchmarks set by Congress have been met by Iraq, it seems implausible that this administration would pursue such an agenda in Iran. Even Ahmadinejad has calculated it to the best of his ability and is confident that the United States can’t carry out an attack. “I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypothesis. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran.”

Hare-brained as they may be, Ahmadinejad’s calculations are, in this instance at least, absolutely correct. But when it comes to the Bush administration, reason all too often takes a back seat to aggressive militarism and empire-building.

Allen McDuffee is a Chicago-based researcher and writer focusing primarily on Middle East politics and American foreign policy.

More information about Allen McDuffee

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    No one wants war. But the idea of a nuclear armed medieval state is very very scary.

    Sanctions are a good idea, particularly if they target all advanced technology. We should avoid letting Iran acquire any technology that was not available in 1950 or so, unless it is clear that such technology cannot be abused by the crazies who rule that country. Of course, no modern weapons should be allowed in as well. This is not only for our own good, but for the good of Iran as well. They simply are not ready for such disruptive technologies and clearly are inclined to wreck havoc with the same, if they obtain it.

    How sad it must be to grow up in such primitive conditions, when wealth and knowledge are both available to them. I pity those who are unlucky enough to be born there. But perhaps they will come out of savagery and ignorance and eventually find they way into the modern world (rather than attempting to destroy same). One can only hope, for their sakes and ours.

    Posted by wolf on Sep 19, 2007 at 10:27 AM

    What about the paramilitarism and attempt to regain empire by the radical Muslims? Did he forget about that already?

    Due to the over-extention of our military in the Iraq escapade we are in bad shape to deal with another wacko regime whether Iran, Korea, or ?

    Both the left and the right need to stop the medial civil war and establish a coherent military policy which includes the other free world leaders who have also been attacked.

    With a solid front we could handle this with strategies economic planning backed by a global miltary threat rather than resorting to unilateral force.

    Posted by whattheheck on Sep 19, 2007 at 10:33 AM

    For anyone to even believe that we have the right to attack or go to war with Iran if we could afford such actions, and our military wasn’t overexpanded is ridiculous. We have NO right to attack Iran, regardless of how ridiculous the regime may be, and regardless of what the US government would like us to believe regarding the Iranian governments intentions. Even the idea that we should attack Iran is ridiculous given the fact that even if Iran is attempting to create nuclear weapons (which there is no proof that they are, and obviously according to the weapons inspectors, they don’t have the uranium enriched at high enough levels to be doing so) they still do NOT have a nuclear weapon. Should we believe now that the US has a right to attack other nations based off of their governments intentions to do something alone? Are we going to enforce thought crimes for other nations? Why is it that American’s are still foolish enough to believe that this government has a right to police the world, when the government itself is in violation of international law, is guilty of war crimes, and continues hegemony?  The only reason we will go to war with Iran is to expand the US empire, and it’s time that the liberals wake up and realize that this is the very purpose of all US actions abroad. The govenrment has no clear intention to make sure the world is safe, otherwise it wouldn’t be intending to start another arms race with Russia by putting a missile defence system in the Czech republic and Poland.
    The US has more nuclear weapons than any one else in the world, it alone spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. It is supporting Israel as it continues to occupy Palestine, and enforce aggressive foreign policy throughout the Middle East, inevitably causing terrorism. The US recently announced it is going to military buildup everyone around Iran by arming them to the teeth, and what do we expect Iran to do exactly? If they were creating nuclear weapons, would they not be justified? It would be the only thing to deter a US attack on them. Then there is the idea that we need to attack Iran because they are supporting Shiite militias which are responsibl for attacks on US troops, yet, there still is no proof that Iran has directly given them weapons, and in fact Petraeus himself has said that they have no proof to support this, as well as many other US generals.
    It is time for us to stand up and stop the US government, and to stop this kind of hostility which is only getting worse. We as human beings must not accept the actions of this government as being legitimate just because we live in America. Has no one learned anything from Iraq? For how long can we blind ourselves, before we realize the truth, and finally put a stop to the US empire building. Military action obviously is not the answer to our problems, bombing an innocent population is not goign to solve anything, we must look at dismantling militarism instead of encouraging it. (this comment was mainly regarding the two previous comments)

    Posted by anarcho-liberation on Sep 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM

    Quoting anarcho “Why is it that Americans are foolish enough to believe that this government has the right to police the world.....”
    That’s the big question millions of us around the world are asking ourselves each night, the cause of most of our nightmares.  The options are not too many: either because they are too self-centered and really believe they are the “super race” or they are too blind to see the consequences of USA’s foreign policy in the last decades, which has only brought about pain, suffering and death to many countries, always based on lies, half-truths and arrogance.
    So, calling other governments “wacko” is lacking any sense of perspective and self-criticism. The very moment your president started on his imperial campaign against other countries based on absolute lies, I came up with a definition of “a blindman poking about with a long stick on ant-hives”. I wish I had been mistaken but everyday news confirm my suspicion.

    Posted by Maria on Sep 19, 2007 at 6:09 PM

    Maria,

    Perhaps you would rather Iran or Korea were the dominant military in the world — well, you are entitled to your opinion. History shows us that someone always fills that role.

    I notice you chose to ignore my suggestion, “…establish a coherent military policy which includes the other free world leaders who have also been attacked.”

    And… “With a solid front we could handle this with strategies (like) economic planning backed by a global military threat rather than resorting to unilateral force.”

    Someone had better take on the policeman job and I would prefer it be a federation of nations. The U.N. has proven lax and corrupt and we need to seek others. Without the threat and strength to back up any warnings to rogue nations or “wacko” religious zealots, the world would indeed be run by anarchists. I guess you would prefer that?

    Well, if so, the next time there is a natural disaster — call an anarchist for help.

    Posted by whattheheck on Sep 20, 2007 at 9:30 AM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 94 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Also by Allen McDuffee

Your financial support of In These Times is critical, because as a non-profit, we rely on donors like you who know that In These Times will never cede the debate to the right and its corporate allies.

Donate now and get a Kurt Vonnegut mug or t-shirt!

Popular Discussions