Tikkun Magazine, March/April 2008
Democrats Need an Iran Stategy ASAP
by Guy T. Saperstein
DEMOCRATS ARE ALMOST GIDDY ABOUT THEIR PROSPECTS OF WINNING THE presidency and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate. In fact, in an article in Mother Jones magazine (November/December 2007), Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden of the New Democrat Network even predict a fifty-year shift of power to Democrats.
Due to the near-complete collapse of conservative ideas and policies, Democrats have an opening and perhaps even a strong hand to play, but they are underestimating the Republican trump card and Bush's willingness to play it: national security. In fact, Democrats are woefully unprepared for what is likely to happen between now and next November.
The last three federal elections have been decided on security issues, with the Republicans winning two of them. Even in 2006, with the Iraq war collapsing around the Republicans, according to a Greenberg Quinlan poll, 22 percent of voters said "protecting America from terrorism" was their No. 1 voting priority and these "security voters" broke 74 percent to 24 percent for Republicans. On all other issues, Democrats maintain 20-plus point advantages over Republicans. In light of such facts, which are well-known, should we assume the Republicans, specifically George Bush, Richard Cheney and Karl Rove (who continues to advise Bush) will let the election be dominated by Democratic issues? Wouldn't it be more prudent to assume Bush/Cheney will play the one strong card they have? These people have proven their willingness to lie, cheat, manipulate, create fear, and even go to war against a country which posed no threat when it served their political purposes. In short, we must assume the worst: that they will take aggressive action against Iran, most likely an air attack, before November 2008.
Mainstream media opinion has already cohered around the sunny view that the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which reported that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program, will prevent Bush from acting against Iran this year. That view is hugely premature.
Responding to the NIE report at his December 4th press conference, Bush said "I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed... Look, Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." It is generally a mistake to ignore Bush's own words.
Democrats are not merely unprepared for a Bush attack on Iran; they appear to be traumatized by it. Given a mandate by voters in November 2006 to wind down the Iraq war, they splintered, proved incapable of uniting, and failed to use the authority expressly given to them by the Constitution: the power to withhold funding for the war. In fact, many Democrats are continuing to blame Republicans for the impasse on Iraq, contending that they need a filibuster-proof sixty votes in the Senate to put conditions on funding to stop or wind down the war when, in fact, all they need to stop continued war funding is a simple majority in the House (which they have) and forty-one votes in the Senate (which they have). In short, if the Democrats were as resolute in what they believed as are the Republicans, the United States would be well on the way to meeting the Iraq Study Group Report recommendation of near-complete withdrawal by March 2008. Instead, Dick Cheney's prediction in October 2006 that the midterm election results would not matter, as he and Bush would continue to prosecute the war regardless of the election results, has proven to be 100 percent accurate.
Democrats are fragmented and disorganized, blood is in the water, and Bush/Cheney are set to exploit this disarray to the Republicans' advantage.
Sometime in the spring of 2008 we should expect the Republican drumbeat about Iran to crescendo and the Republicans in Congress to promote an Iran resolution much like the one they foisted on the Democrats in October 2002, shortly before the midterm elections of that year, where they crushed the Democrats. They will claim the resolution will not specifically authorize war against Iran, that its purpose will be to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiations with Iran, but the resolution will be broad enough in its terms to be used for an attack on Iran. Democrats will whine and moan, but the more conservative Democrats, approximately seventy-five in the House and twenty-five in the Senate, fearing accusations of not being "strong on defense," will crumble and sign on with the Republicans. A charade of "negotiation" will ensue, punctuated by claims that insurgents in Iraq are being supplied by Iran, and perhaps even that Iranians are moving into Iraq. Then, in late fall 2008 (my guess is Oct. 1) Bush will authorize an air attack on Iranian targets to protect our soldiers in Iraq and reduce the Iranian nuclear threat (a still-unproven threat). Act One in this drama has already occurred, with the Republicans promoting the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in the Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization (the first time a part of any national army has been branded as such). Predictably, twenty-five Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, voted for this resolution and it passed 76-22. The resolution was nonbinding, but the exercise displayed the inherent weakness and lack of self-confidence of Democrats on national security issues for all to see.
Attacking Iran would be mostly symbolic, but would have disastrous consequences.
An attack on Iran would not protect American soldiers in Iraq. Rather, it would almost certainly have the opposite effect. In Iraq American soldiers are already stretched to the max and replacements and reinforcements are not available. According to Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton (ret), who was commanding general in the Office of Security Transition in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004, even without the added pressures of an attack on Iran, the current "...15-month tours will break the Army." Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said recently that, "The answer to dealing with Iran will not be found in a military operation. The U.S. is currently bogged down in two wars. Our military is terribly overburdened, and we are doing great damage to our force structure and readiness capabilities."
The United States does not have the capacity to widen a ground war and take on a nation with more than double the population of Iraq. Attacking by air risks Iran retaliating by sending armed forces and advanced weaponry into Iraq, which, to date, Iran has not done. Iran also has the capacity to send armed forces into neighboring nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Lebanon, creating a wider front, as well as increasing its political reach. General Eaton confirmed that, "The United States has insufficient forces in Iraq to defend from an Iranian attack." He added, "Iran has the capacity to send thousands of soldiers into Iraq in 4-9 person teams, armed with rocket-propelled grenades to support the Iraq insurgency; the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to respond to this." Eaton also said that Iran is believed to have "sleeper cells" throughout the Middle East, increasing the chance of widespread asymmetrical warfare the United States is not prepared to counter. The prospect of putting our soldiers in Iraq at much greater risk and transforming a one-nation war into regional war is real.
The downside to attacking Iran is even deeper. If Iran controls Hezbollah, attacking Iran could lead directly to "non-attributive" terrorist attacks on American soil. It wouldn't take a nuclear device or dirty bomb to disrupt the American economy. A few suicide bombers and/or "suitcase bombs" in crowded transportation hubs, shopping malls, movie theaters, or perhaps an NFL football stadium would cause major economic dislocations in the United States. Iran could also use sea mines to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil supplies must pass; Iran could attack Iraqi, and perhaps even Saudi, oil production. If world oil prices hit $200 a barrel, the world economy, already weak, would be seriously threatened—a global depression is even possible. And while the United States gets relatively little oil from the Middle East, this region is the main source of oil for China, Russia, and Japan. Are these countries going to sit by quietly while the United States threatens or diminishes their oil supplies? China and Russia possess great influence and the unintended consequences of attacking Iran could be dramatic.
At a minimum, China has the capacity to stop buying U.S. bonds or even to begin selling their huge supply of U.S. dollars, further devaluing the U.S. dollar, already at historic lows. And Russia, which is building close economic relations with Iran, would likely provide more sophisticated weaponry to Iran in the event of a U.S. attack, including advanced anti-aircraft weapons. Hagel has said, "The challenge of Iran will not be successfully met without Russia and China and the world community." It certainly will not successfully be met by jeopardizing China's and Russia's oil supplies.
Attacking Iran also will unite the Iranian population against America for a generation: the Arab street throughout the Middle East will become even more hostile to America, and the world community (with the exception of Israel and possibly a few other nations) will condemn the United States. Can our position in the world get worse? Yes.
Lastly, a "surgical strike" at Iran's nuclear program would largely be a fiction. For one thing, we should not assume U.S. intelligence about where Iran's nuclear development sites are located is any better than the faulty intelligence about Iraq's supposed WMDs. Further, current U.S. "bunker busters" (a.k.a. "penetrating warheads") do not have the capacity to bust into deep underground bunkers. In fact, dropping a series of bunker busters would liquefy the soil around the bunkers and make them even more impregnable. The only way to knock out the bunkers is with nuclear weapons, but nuclear weapons and the radioactive fallout they leave behind could cause millions of deaths and casualties, and not just in Iran. Last year, Gen. Wesley Clark stated that Iran's nuclear program could not be stopped by an air attack alone, and last week Maj. Gen. Eaton confirmed that assessment. Thus, a Bush/Cheney decision to bomb Iran would largely be symbolic, designed for an audience of American voters. It would not fundamentally alter realities on the ground, except to diminish U.S. standing in world opinion—already at historic lows.
Alternatively, Bush could attack the many Iranian Revolutionary Guard encampments. Of course, the Democrats who voted to condemn the Revolutionary Guards as "a terrorist organization" have left themselves wide open to this; if the guards are "terrorists," how will those Democrats be able to object to an air attack without appearing to be weak on fighting terrorism? Remember, Bush/Cheney were not the ones who made "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy; credit for that belongs to Bill Clinton and congressional Democrats who collaborated with Republicans in 1998 to accomplish this. Democrats play chess one move at a time; Republicans seem to be able to see the whole board.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and her past behavior is a guide, we can expect cautiousness and triangulation on Iran, and perhaps even outright support for military action. Already, she has fallen into the Republican trap of supporting the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, which, as mentioned above, characterizes a part of the Iranian national army as a "terrorist organization." This is the kind of rhetoric which Sen. Hagel recently called "the lowest common denominator of 'who can talk the toughest' and who is the 'meanest cowboy on the block.' That kind of rhetoric ... political as it may be ... will only drive the world further away from America and deepen a world crisis ... that we may not be able to recover from." Democrats falling in line with Republican "cowboy" rhetoric and behavior on Iran sets up the prospect of the 2008 election mirroring 1968, when progressive opponents of the Vietnam War, outraged by Democratic inaction, deserted the Democratic Party, thereby helping to elect Richard Nixon. We could even see the rise of third, or even fourth parties. Given Clinton's already record-high unfavorable poll numbers and her weak match-up poll numbers with Republican presidential candidates, it won't take much to tip the election to the Republicans.
Will the military stop Bush/Cheney?
IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE U.S. MILITARY ARE OPPOSED TO military action in Iran. A posting on the leftwing progressive blog Think Progress reported that Adm. William Fallon, head of Central Command in Iraq (i.e., General Petraeus' boss) has said there will be no attack on Iran "on my watch." And, it is rumored that more than twenty high-ranking army officers have already tendered resignations in case Iran is attacked. We should salute these brave officers for keeping sight of America's long-term interests in the Middle East, rather than the short-term political needs of Republicans, but the American tradition is civilian rule, not mutiny. We should expect that no matter how many courageous military officers object, when the order is issued to attack Iran, it will be followed.
What can Democrats do?
DEMOCRATS CANNOT OUTBID, OUTSPEND, OUT-COWBOY, OR OUT-HAWK THE REPUBLICANS. If Democrats play the "tough on Iran" military card, they will be chasing Bush/Cheney all the way into another un-winnable war. From a strategic game-theory standpoint, those who are posturing "tough on Iran" are putting control of the game totally in the hands of the opponent. Isn't this the one lesson from the run-up to the Iraq war that every Democrat should have learned? Democrats need to get ahead of this issue, not continue to passively respond to hawkish initiatives, like the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which accepts all the hawk assumptions and set the table for war.
The Bush's justification of attacking Iran will likely be threefold: (1) he is protecting American troops in Iraq, (2) he is preventing World War III by stopping Iran's nuclear program, and (3) he is responding to threats to the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf. Democrats need to attack, as well as put into context these claims. While there may be some Iranians in Iraq supporting their Shiite compatriots, and some of the IED's found in Iraq may have been manufactured in Iran, Iran has been remarkably cautious about arming or supporting Iraqi insurgents, particularly given the fact that Iran has 300,000 American soldiers and mercenaries on its borders. While Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has, like Bush and Cheney, been bellicose, Iran's actual behavior in Iraq has been cautious. One prominent national security expert, Peter Galbraith, has even argued that Iran is our natural ally in Iraq, as it does not want continued instability on its borders, and both Iran and the United States support the Shiite-dominated Maliki government in Iraq. This provides Democrats the opportunity to make the case—perhaps through investigative hearings featuring testimony by military commanders—that attacking Iran will put American soldiers in Iraq at more risk, not less. Adm. Fallon, testifying in Congress regarding his doubts about taking military action against Iran and his "not on my watch" statement, might take the initiative from the Bush-hawks and push the terms of public debate in more sensible directions. Army commanders testifying in public about "breaking the Army" with multiple fifteen-month tours of duty and not having sufficient forces available in Iraq to contend with Iranian retaliation might change perceptions about which party "supports the troops."
Democrats also need to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat for what it is: potentially long-term, but not immediate. In fact, many security experts, including United Nations chief inspector El Baradei, say Iran's nuclear threat will not be realized for five years or more. This assessment has been confirmed by the recently disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, which Bush has discounted, if not ignored. We know it is possible to deal with such threats diplomatically. Last February the Bush administration made a deal with another member of the "Axis of Evil," North Korea, to dismantle the North Korean nuclear program in favor of promises of economic aid. Bush has been remarkably quiet about this—perhaps his one legitimate foreign policy success—but there is no reason for Democrats to be quiet about this example of diplomacy working. Furthermore, there have been efforts by Iran to forge a game-changing deal with the United States. As Trita Parsi's book Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007) shows, in May 2003, the Iranian government sent a proposal to the United States via its Swiss ambassador proposing a deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for an end to U.S. hostility. As explained in the book, as well as Peter Galbraith's article published in AlterNet, the deal was summarily rejected by Bush/Cheney. But, with the current weakness of the United States in Iraq, and with its real options limited in Iran, diplomacy and a deal should be pursued, just as the Iraq Study Group Report recommended. In short, there is no reason for Democrats, or for anyone, to assume that diplomacy has no chance of success.
Lastly, Democrats need to carefully scrutinize any claim of threats to U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf if they are to avoid another manufactured pretext for war as in the Gulf of Tonkin. The U.S. needs to understand that when we put fifty warships close to Iran (the Strait of Hormuz is only fifty miles wide), some interaction with Iranian boats is inevitable. In fact, interaction occurs routinely, providing an opportunity to inflate innocent contact into "near-attack," as recent events have shown. Having said this, the fact that there will inevitably be contact between Iranian and U.S. ships does not mean there is no danger: Fast-moving Iranian speedboats armed with torpedoes have the capacity to sink U.S. ships. Last year, I spoke with Jim Webb, a former Secretary of Navy and now U.S. Senator from Virginia who said, "I am terrified about the U.S. putting a second aircraft carrier fleet into the Persian Gulf. It is wholly unnecessary from a strategic standpoint, is provocative to the Iranians, puts the U.S. fleet at greater risk [it is hard even to turn the fleet around in the narrow Strait] and could lead to inadvertent or manufactured conflict." Webb has called for the removal of aircraft carrier based fleets from the Gulf, but his fears have largely been ignored. This is a ticking time bomb that Democrats need to investigate, challenge, and defuse.
Last November, Sen. Hagel gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned speech about Iran and the Middle East. Echoing the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group Report, he called for direct talks with Iran: "[N]ow is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran ... We should make clear that everything is on the table—our issues and Iran's—similar to the opportunity we squandered in 2003 for comprehensive talks with Iran." Hagel added:
We must be clear that the United States does not ... seek regime
change in Iran. There can be no ambiguity on this point. This should
include offering Iran a credible way back in from the fringes of the
international community, security guarantees if it is willing to
give nuclear weapons ambitions, as well as other incentives....
Creative approaches like these, rather than war speeches and talk of
World War III, would strengthen our ability across the board to deal
with Iran. Our friends and allies and international institutions
would be more confident to stand with us, not just because of our
power, but rather because they trusted our purpose, our words and
our actions. It could create a new dynamic in U.S.-Iran relations,
in part by incentivizing the Iranians to react to the possibility of
better relations with the West because it is in their interests....
By refusing to engage Iran in direct, unconditional and
comprehensive talks, we are perpetuating dangerous geopolitical
unpredictabilities.
Let us salute Republican Sen. Hagel for his insights and courage to speak forthrightly about Iran. Shouldn't we expect the same from Democrats?
In November 2007, Rep. John Tierney, who sits on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairs a National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee, initiated a series of subcommittee hearings. He invited experts to teach Congress about Iran, such as what the Iranian people want, where power lay in the Iranian government, how Iran might be engaged diplomatically, what the costs of military intervention in Iran might be, etc. And, recently, Sen. Jim Webb sent a letter to President Bush contending that, "Offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress." As many, including Steve Clemons, who directs the American Strategies program at the New America Foundation, have argued, in light of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, Democrats need to get fifty votes on something, even a nonbinding resolution, even a letter to the president, showing that a majority of the Senate opposes an attack on Iran. This is an opportunity for leadership from Democratic U.S. Senators. Can one or more of them rise to the occasion and bring some sanity to the discussion of Iran?
Conclusion
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I ATTENDED A TWO-DAY DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLICY DISCUSSION. The featured luncheon speaker on the second day was famed Democratic strategist James Carville, whose topic was the 2008 elections. Carville provided a rousing, rosy picture of Democratic opportunities in 2008, but missing from his discussion was any mention of national security contingencies. During the Q & A, a major Democratic donor asked Carville how the Democratic Party would respond to a major act of terrorism or a manufactured security event, such as Iran. With Nancy Pelosi sitting nearby, Carville answered, "I don't have a clue; that is way above my pay station."
If the Democrats hope to avoid another crushing, demoralizing defeat in a presidential election, as well as prevent America from digging an even deeper hole in the Middle East, they will need more than a clue: they will need a coherent strategy about what to do about Iran, and the sooner the better.
Guy T. Saperstein is a member of the Democracy Alliance, past president of the Sierra Club Foundation, and founder of the National Security/Foreign Policy New Ideas Fund. The National Law Journal named him one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."
RELATED ARTICLE: BREAKING NEWS!
Americans Do Not Believe U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Finding That Iran Has Ended Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Washington, D.C., 12/13/07—A new bipartisan poll commissioned by The Israel Project shows Americans do not believe the NIE and worry it will make the U.S. less safe. The survey shows that:
* 75% of likely voters had heard a "great deal" or "some" about the NIE report
* 27% believed that Iran's nuclear program ended in 2003.
* 64% believe the NIE findings will make us less safe because it might lead to reduced pressure on Iran
* 69% of U.S. likely voters think the Iranian nuclear weapons program is still underway
* 69% think that the international community should try to prevent Iran from further civilian nuclear research
* 76% of likely voters approve of expanded United Nations economic and diplomatic sanctions on Iran
Source CitationSaperstein, Guy. 2008. Democracy needs an Iran strategy ASAP. Tikkun 23(2):33-39.
