Our fear-mongering, testosterone-poisoned Congressional Hawks are sharpening their claws and trying to ramp up war fever, timed two days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits President Obama on Friday.
Trying to paint President Obama into a corner, and perhaps set the stage for a campaign issue for the next six months, a group of hawkish senators, led by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, are pushing a senate resolution that, in effect, puts the senate on record as willing to back the president if he decides that it is necessary to bomb Iran.
This comes on the heels of a thinly veiled campaign by the White House to tamp down just such war fever, releasing a series of statements that include doubts from our intelligence groups that Iran is actually working on a nuclear bomb, as well as Iran's presumed retaliatory direct attacks on Israel and terrorists attacks on U. S. personnel and interests throughout the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, went so far last week as saying that bombing Iran would not "be prudent."
In response to the senate hawks, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, has now asked the obvious question: Just exactly what do you hope to accomplish by bombing Iran? If they are in fact working on a bomb, it would clearly be in their deep underground facilities beneath a mountain that would be impervious to bombs. What is the national security objective?
The prudent course seems to be continuing sanctions, diplomacy, efforts at talks, and covert activities to disrupt their computer-controlled centrifuge systems. From all I've read, my best guess is that the Iranians are not yet working on actual weapon systems or yet concentrating uranium to weapons grade (it requires many times more concentration than does fuel for nuclear power plants, which they are making), but that they are doing all things short of that to be prepared to move more quickly if they do decide to make a bomb.
The hawks say if we wait until they do, it will be too late. They also, being hawks, think that the U.S. must convey a threatening level of power and the willingness to use it. They think Obama's approach comes from -- and conveys -- weakness.
Gen. Schwartz also pointed out that the Pentagon has complete plans for just such attacks on Iran, if it should become necessary, as part of their preparedness strategy; and President Obama has been given a full range of options from the military standpoint.
There are other considerations that the hawks ignore, however. For example the effect on the larger Muslim world of the United States attacking yet another Muslim country, inflaming the image of us as the imperial power. After all, much of the anti-American feeling in the Muslim world is related to our backing Israel -- which is a nuclear power in the Middle East and their enemy. It didn't help either that we were behind the coup that overthrew Iran's elected socialist government and put the Shah back in power. The Shah was then eventually overthrown in a coup that resulted in the present theocracy that rules Iran.
Did we learn nothing from the hawk's leading us into a misadventure in Iraq? Are we going to let them do it all over again?
Ralph
I looked up the cosponsors of this resolution, and it is does include a wide range of bipartisan support -- including Senators Schumer and Gillibrand of New York and Sherrod Brown of Ohio -- among the more liberal senators.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps it's not so much a call to war as it is telling the Iranians that President Obama has the backing of Congress if he should need it --- as a negotiating tactic.
My cautions about rushing to war, however, still stand.
A poll found that only 19% of Israelis support a military strike against Iran, if the U.S. does not lend it's support; and only 42% support it with U.S. support. One third (34%) oppose a military strike under any circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThere are varying opinions within the military advisers about whether an airstrike alone could significantly cripple Iran's nuclear operations. In the past, some have said that the underground bunker operation is impenetrable by bombing; others have more recently said that our Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) could do the job.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the Obama administration has signaled that it will not rush to a military strike and continues to try to discourage Israel from doing so.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey stood his ground yesterday in a hearing exchange with Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
ReplyDeleteDempsey reiterated his position that the Iranian government should be regarded as a rational actor in international affairs.
The hawkish opposition has tried to paint them as irrational and therefore unable to negotiate with. Dempsey insists that their actions are carefully calculated for effect -- and that we should be even more calculating in our response.