Sunday, January 01, 2012 6:20:17 PM
Iran Hawk Watch
December 23rd, 2011
Jasmin Ramsey
In response to a worrying trend in U.S. politics Lobe Log is launching “Iran Hawk Watch”. Each Friday we will post
on militaristic commentary about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Mainstream Media and Pundits:
Washington Post: Neoconservative media spokesman Charles Krauthammer (who argued that the U.S. had no option but to use “military force” against Iran during the middle of the Iraq War) likens the Obama Administration’s Iran policy to “appeasement”:
[ 3 links from there
Washington Post .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wages-of-appeasement/2011/12/15/gIQA5KEzwO_story.html?tid=sm_btn_tw
Charles Krauthammer .. http://www.lobelog.com/Applications/Microsoft%20Office%202011/Microsoft%20Word.app/Contents/rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Krauthammer_Charles
who argued .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401413_2.html ]
Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development.
Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress explains .. http://middleeastprogress.org/2011/12/what-appeasement-isnt/ .. why Krauthammer’s argument is absurd:
One can disagree with the Obama administration’s two track approach of engagement and pressure. But to describe that approach — which includes the adoption of some of the most stringent multilateral sanctions ever, .. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/corralling_iran.html .. successfully supporting the appointment of a special UN human rights monitor for Iran, .. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25iht-iran25.html .. and unprecedented defense cooperation.. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/12/nuclear_iran.html .. with regional allies — as “appeasement” is to declare oneself desperately in need of a dictionary.
Even Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak disagrees .. http://www.lobelog.com/obama-administration-gets-another-endorsement-from-ehud-barak/ .. with Krauthammer!
CNN: .. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/opinion/frum-iran/index.html .. Pro-Israel Senate hawk Mark Kirk is called a “leader” by David Frum, .. http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Frum_David .. the Iraq war-pusher who coined the infamous “axis of evil” phrase for George W. Bush. Frum applauds the Kirk-Menendez amendment to the defense authorization bill which includes sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank. The bill was approved by a 100-0 Senate vote after months of lobbying. .. http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/aipac-posterizes-obama-in-senate-100-0.html .. Frum is a talented writer who knows how to sway public perception. By ending this piece with the argument that strangling sanctions are preferable to war or “nuclear terror”, he is making it seem like there are no other available options. In other words, the second to worst-case scenario is actually the best scenario. Here’s how he does it:
The utmost irony here is that detractors in the administration and in the foreign policy establishment criticize Menendez-Kirk as a form of confrontation with Iran. In reality, Menendez-Kirk is the last and best chance for regional peace: the last best hope to avoid the horrible choice of either using force to stop Iran — or acquiescing as Iran gains the power to wage nuclear terror against its neighbors and the world.
Notable analysts and former officials beg to differ, most recently evidenced by this. .. http://www.lobelog.com/dear-president-obama-its-not-too-late-for-diplomacy-with-iran/ ..
Analysts:
Foreign Affairs: .. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran .. According to Matthew Kroenig, an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, going to war with Iran is the “Is the Least Bad Option”. .. http://mm.cfr.org/redirects/6d7a6bfc06786c23b9b1542e9171a022?pa=6848762544 .. Harvard’s Stephen Walt thoroughly debunks Kroenig’s appallingly bad analysis here. .. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran#.TvLL_jtUMKB.twitter ..
....................................................
INSERT EXCERPT FROM STEPHEN WALT'S EXCELLENT PIECE ABOVE
There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war. First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don't act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice's infamous warnings about Saddam's "mushroom cloud"?) All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst. Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren't that great. If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized. In short: In Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.
Kroenig's piece follows this blueprint perfectly. He assumes that Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons (not just a latent capability to produce one quickly if needed) and suggests that it is likely to cross the threshold soon. Never mind that Iran has had a nuclear program for decades and still has no weapon, and that both the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that there is no conclusive evidence [MY BOLD] .. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh .. that Iran is pursuing an actual bomb. He further assumes -- without a shred of evidence -- that a nuclear-armed Iran would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. For example, he says that other states are already "shifting their allegiances to Tehran" but doesn't offer a single example or explain how these alleged shifts have anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. .. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran#.TvLL_jtUMKB.twitter
....................................................
Wall Street Journal: .. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577109950183402554.html .. Emanuele Ottolenghi .. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Ottolenghi_Emanuele .. of the uber-hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies .. http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies .. argues that the U.S. should wage war on Iran because Iranians are more likely to welcome foreign invasion than they they are to oppose it. Ottolenghi makes unsubstantiated assumptions such as the claim that Iran’s non-Persians would ally with their invaders over their nation. He doesn’t discuss how an attack should be carried out, or what kind of resources would be needed to maintain any supposed successes. He also ignores the financial costs for the U.S.’s economy and most importantly, the human costs for Iran, the U.S. and its allies:
American policy makers should factor in the possibility that a U.S. attack will actually accelerate regime change, not hinder it. And given that it would come on the heels of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear military program—an undeniable strategic gain—the Obama administration and its allies should have a second look.
Past and Present U.S. Officials:
Washington Times: .. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/21/facing-reality-about-iran/#.TvKEddtAnDY.twitter .. Retired Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons advocates three positions on Iran. First, the U.S. should make “regime change in Iran the official policy of the United States Government.” Second, the U.S. should wage war on Iran. .. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/11/for-30-years-when-it-has-come-to-addressing-irans-/ .. Third, the U.S. should delist the anti-Iranian cult, .. http://www.campashraf.org/a-matter-of-honor/ .. the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) .. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201184132732146192.html .. from its foreign terrorist organizations list.
This week Lyons advocated the first two positions while endorsing strangling sanctions against Iran. He also said the U.S. should support the Syrian opposition–not because massive human rights abuses are being committed against them–but because the overthrow of the Syrian government would eliminate a key Iranian ally.
http://www.lobelog.com/iran-hawk-watch/
December 23rd, 2011
Jasmin Ramsey
In response to a worrying trend in U.S. politics Lobe Log is launching “Iran Hawk Watch”. Each Friday we will post
on militaristic commentary about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Mainstream Media and Pundits:
Washington Post: Neoconservative media spokesman Charles Krauthammer (who argued that the U.S. had no option but to use “military force” against Iran during the middle of the Iraq War) likens the Obama Administration’s Iran policy to “appeasement”:
[ 3 links from there
Washington Post .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wages-of-appeasement/2011/12/15/gIQA5KEzwO_story.html?tid=sm_btn_tw
Charles Krauthammer .. http://www.lobelog.com/Applications/Microsoft%20Office%202011/Microsoft%20Word.app/Contents/rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Krauthammer_Charles
who argued .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401413_2.html ]
Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development.
Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress explains .. http://middleeastprogress.org/2011/12/what-appeasement-isnt/ .. why Krauthammer’s argument is absurd:
One can disagree with the Obama administration’s two track approach of engagement and pressure. But to describe that approach — which includes the adoption of some of the most stringent multilateral sanctions ever, .. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/corralling_iran.html .. successfully supporting the appointment of a special UN human rights monitor for Iran, .. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25iht-iran25.html .. and unprecedented defense cooperation.. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/12/nuclear_iran.html .. with regional allies — as “appeasement” is to declare oneself desperately in need of a dictionary.
Even Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak disagrees .. http://www.lobelog.com/obama-administration-gets-another-endorsement-from-ehud-barak/ .. with Krauthammer!
CNN: .. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/opinion/frum-iran/index.html .. Pro-Israel Senate hawk Mark Kirk is called a “leader” by David Frum, .. http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Frum_David .. the Iraq war-pusher who coined the infamous “axis of evil” phrase for George W. Bush. Frum applauds the Kirk-Menendez amendment to the defense authorization bill which includes sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank. The bill was approved by a 100-0 Senate vote after months of lobbying. .. http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/aipac-posterizes-obama-in-senate-100-0.html .. Frum is a talented writer who knows how to sway public perception. By ending this piece with the argument that strangling sanctions are preferable to war or “nuclear terror”, he is making it seem like there are no other available options. In other words, the second to worst-case scenario is actually the best scenario. Here’s how he does it:
The utmost irony here is that detractors in the administration and in the foreign policy establishment criticize Menendez-Kirk as a form of confrontation with Iran. In reality, Menendez-Kirk is the last and best chance for regional peace: the last best hope to avoid the horrible choice of either using force to stop Iran — or acquiescing as Iran gains the power to wage nuclear terror against its neighbors and the world.
Notable analysts and former officials beg to differ, most recently evidenced by this. .. http://www.lobelog.com/dear-president-obama-its-not-too-late-for-diplomacy-with-iran/ ..
Analysts:
Foreign Affairs: .. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran .. According to Matthew Kroenig, an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, going to war with Iran is the “Is the Least Bad Option”. .. http://mm.cfr.org/redirects/6d7a6bfc06786c23b9b1542e9171a022?pa=6848762544 .. Harvard’s Stephen Walt thoroughly debunks Kroenig’s appallingly bad analysis here. .. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran#.TvLL_jtUMKB.twitter ..
....................................................
INSERT EXCERPT FROM STEPHEN WALT'S EXCELLENT PIECE ABOVE
There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war. First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don't act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice's infamous warnings about Saddam's "mushroom cloud"?) All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst. Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren't that great. If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized. In short: In Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.
Kroenig's piece follows this blueprint perfectly. He assumes that Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons (not just a latent capability to produce one quickly if needed) and suggests that it is likely to cross the threshold soon. Never mind that Iran has had a nuclear program for decades and still has no weapon, and that both the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that there is no conclusive evidence [MY BOLD] .. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh .. that Iran is pursuing an actual bomb. He further assumes -- without a shred of evidence -- that a nuclear-armed Iran would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. For example, he says that other states are already "shifting their allegiances to Tehran" but doesn't offer a single example or explain how these alleged shifts have anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. .. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran#.TvLL_jtUMKB.twitter
....................................................
Wall Street Journal: .. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577109950183402554.html .. Emanuele Ottolenghi .. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Ottolenghi_Emanuele .. of the uber-hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies .. http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies .. argues that the U.S. should wage war on Iran because Iranians are more likely to welcome foreign invasion than they they are to oppose it. Ottolenghi makes unsubstantiated assumptions such as the claim that Iran’s non-Persians would ally with their invaders over their nation. He doesn’t discuss how an attack should be carried out, or what kind of resources would be needed to maintain any supposed successes. He also ignores the financial costs for the U.S.’s economy and most importantly, the human costs for Iran, the U.S. and its allies:
American policy makers should factor in the possibility that a U.S. attack will actually accelerate regime change, not hinder it. And given that it would come on the heels of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear military program—an undeniable strategic gain—the Obama administration and its allies should have a second look.
Past and Present U.S. Officials:
Washington Times: .. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/21/facing-reality-about-iran/#.TvKEddtAnDY.twitter .. Retired Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons advocates three positions on Iran. First, the U.S. should make “regime change in Iran the official policy of the United States Government.” Second, the U.S. should wage war on Iran. .. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/11/for-30-years-when-it-has-come-to-addressing-irans-/ .. Third, the U.S. should delist the anti-Iranian cult, .. http://www.campashraf.org/a-matter-of-honor/ .. the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) .. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201184132732146192.html .. from its foreign terrorist organizations list.
This week Lyons advocated the first two positions while endorsing strangling sanctions against Iran. He also said the U.S. should support the Syrian opposition–not because massive human rights abuses are being committed against them–but because the overthrow of the Syrian government would eliminate a key Iranian ally.
http://www.lobelog.com/iran-hawk-watch/
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
