Iran continues to rear its ugly head (in the form of their President) and the UN is finally poised to take notice. I suppose there is hope in the world if we can make the Iranians back down using diplomacy, but there's a serious question here as to whether any of our options will be helpful. Essentially, we're counting down to a situation where we end up with sanctions, which never seem to be all that effective in driving anyone from power, or airstrikes, which may not be the wisest course of action given our current military commitments.
Of course, none of this proves that it was incorrect to invade Iraq and deal with that problem, which seems to be one of the rallying cries from the peacenik left and the isolationist right.
Vodkapundit has a terrific essay where he calls out the other side of this argument...
There are certain people who would tell you that we should never have invaded Iraq, because now we have too many troops tied up there, keeping us from dealing with Iran. That's a bullshit argument, and it's about time somebody called them on it.
If Iran were really the peaceniks' first concern, why weren't they calling for us to invade that country in 1979? Or in 1982? Or when Iran first got serious about getting nukes ten years ago? The fact is, if we'd have invaded Iran three years ago, they'd be bitching about how we were too tied up there to deal with Iraq.
Another fact is, those idiots can't read a map. Look at where Tehran is, in relation to Kuwait (our major Persian Gulf supply area, pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom) and the Persian Gulf itself. What do you see? Oh, yeah – it's a long, long way from here to there. A long way to the north, across mountains and rivers which run mostly east and west. In other words, invading Iran from the Persian Gulf is a real sumbitch. Look again, and you'll notice that Tehran is much closer to US-friendly Iraqi Kurdistan. You'll also see more-favorable terrain.
One more thing. Congressman John Murtha can kiss my ass. If he thinks we're suffering in Iraq, imagine trying to pacify Iran – a country five times as large with triple the population.
Not that I'm advocating that we invade Iran – from our Iraqi bases or anywhere else. What I'm about to say might sound paradoxical, but bear with me. Iraq in 2003 was far less ready for democracy than Iran in most any year. In my mind, that made Iraq a better candidate for democratization. Nearly three years ago, when Iran seemed ripe for revolution, I wrote that
The most important thing is what we don't do. Don't send letters to President Bush, telling him to point Third Infantry Division east towards Tehran. First off, we more than have our hands full already in Iraq and elsewhere. But more importantly, let's not try to turn their revolution into our occupation. Iranians are a proud people, and rightly so; this is their country, their fight, and their future to win.
The Iraqi people had no such possibility; they required some outside power to lend them one. And our own security required that we give someone, somewhere in the Middle East just such a chance. The Iranians, I think, can still make their own chances.
We'll get to that last point in a second, but the first one bears repeating. I believe that what we did in Iraq was and is worthwhile, and it was the right thing to do. I know plenty of people disagree, for any number of reasons. But arguing that it was wrong simply because it leaves in a position where we're unable to deal with Iran with as much force is a blind argument that ignores morality and reality. Essentially, the argument seems to be that because we think another threat is on the horizon that may be greater, we can't deal with the one that's right in front of us. That makes little sense in the context of national security, and it inidcates a weakness to deal with the reailty of the threat. A fair criticism can be made that Americans should be asked for a greater degree of sacrifice, such that we can deal with all of the threats. It's absurd to claim that we shouldn't deal with them.
Now, as to the last point made in the essay, this is likely the hope that we have that we don't end up with sanctions or military action -- we have to hope that the Iranian people throw off the shackles of the ruling mullahs and their hate-filled leader before said leaders move much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we're back to the table with a choice between sanctions or airstrikes.
Of course, plenty of people think President Bush will go to war simply for the electoral points. This seems to be a popular point of view among the nutty left. As for the less-nutty left, they're convinced that the Bush Administration isn't competent enough to handle Iran.
I think we had an election on this issue in 2004, and the best option the left offered was John Kerry. I'm not sure why they think Kerry's team would be better -- other than a fundamental mistrust of the Administration, but that's not a logical basis for claiming that Kerry's team would come up with a different solution. Point in fact, one can reasonably argue that the Bush team is following a Kerry-like strategy for dealing with Iran.
Dan Drezner elaborates...
Josh Marshall -- with strong endorsements from Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias -- believes the Bush administration is too incompetent to handle Iran...
Now, I certainly have had my doubts about this administration's foreign policy competence in the past few years. Gven the administration's policy to date on Iran, however, this line of argument strikes me as pretty much bulls**t.
Consider what the U.S. has done vis-à-vis Iran:
1) Deferred to the EU-3 on negotiations towards Iran;
2) Backing away from having the IAEA refer Iran's noncompliance to the UN Security Council unless and until there was overwhelming international support from key members in that organization for the move;
3) Sharing their intelligence about Iran's nuclear ambitions with all the relevant governments;
4) Endorsing a Russian compromise proposal that would have allowed Iran to continue a nuclear energy program;
5) Securing the support of China and Russia in ratcheting up the rhetoric towards Iran.
The approach the Bush administration has pursued towards Iran -- multilateralism, private and public diplomacy, occasionally deferring to allies -- is besotted with the very tropes that liberals like to see in their American foreign policy. I'm still not sure what the end game will be with regard to Iran, but to date I can't see how a Kerry administration would have played its cards any differently than the Bush team.
I try not take a committed leftie like Marshall too seriously, but Drezner is someone who hews to a far more independent line. And he's essentially right, except that I would say that I think John Bolton is probably far more aggressive in urging Security Council action than many Democrats would likely be. But even there, we're working within the auspices of the U.N. to urge action. There's not very much difference, and if someone is against the public pressure being ratcheted up against Iran's leaders, they'd need to explain why they think this a bad idea. As Drezner notes,
Brad Plumer offers one such altermanive in the form of engagement with direct discussions with Iran and the offer of economic and security guarantees. It's a suggestion worthy of serious discussion, but I think we tried that once upon a time with North Korea, and that hasn't worked out all that well. Simply delaying the problem may work this time, since it's always possible that the mullahs may fall, and that was more than unlikely for Kim Jong-Il ("Do you have any idea how f***ing busy I am, Hans Brix?").
Meanwhile, one thing to note. All of the less-nutty liberal commentators (save Plumer) listed above seem to follow one universal track: let's not worry about this from any angle save the political one.
Brad Delong's headline to this post says enough, but check out
Atrios' viewpoint on this. Essentially, they're not worried about the Iranian threat to the United States, but they are worried about the threat that a perceived Iranian threat creates to Democratic chances come October.
They may ascribe this to a distrust of President Bush handling
any issue, but that's idiotic beyond reason. Claiming that President Bush screwed up is fine -- but offering an effective and reasonable alternative is a genuine responsibility for those who would rather see someone else in power, and
especially on issues impacting national security. Unfortunately, many liberal Democrats don't see national security as an important issue, only a political one. This may be why many Americans distrust Democrats on the issue of national security, and why they lose elections when it's an issue.
