Tuesday
Jul202010
Iran Follow-Up: Dealing with the Media's "War, War, War" Drumbeat (Lynch)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 8:55 
UPDATE 0815 GMT: Matt Duss also has posted an effective challenge to the cries of those promoting a military option against Iran.---
On Friday, we took apart the overblown, thinly-sourced "report" by Joe Klein in Time Magazine of preparations for a military strike on Iran. This, of course, won't stop those agitating for bombing: the latest egregious example is the preaching, posing as analysis, of former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht in The Weekly Standard.
Writing in Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch exposes the campaign and highlights its. (I would only add that this is not just a case of a weak argument. It is also one of manufactured "information". There is little if any evidence that the Obama Administration has modified its point-blank warning to West Jerusalem against a military adventure.)
UPDATED Iran Analysis: When “War Chatter” Poses as Journalism (Step Up, Time Magazine)
....Why the latest round of commentary about an attack on Iran? It isn't because there are new arguments out there. Gerecht's long Weekly Standard piece is typical of the genre, and could have been written any time in the last decade (and in the case of the Weekly Standard has been, repeatedly): we must bomb Iran because there are no other policy options which guarantee success; the risks of an attack are exaggerated; the benefits of an attack are great; and Iranians and Arabs secretly want us to do it. Nor have the rebuttals changed: other policy options are available, which at least slow down Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon even if they do not provide the kind of epistemic certainty which hawks crave; the risks of an attack are many and real; the benefits of an attack are likely to be less than advertised; and it is exceedingly doubtful that Arabs or Iranians will in fact rally to support an Israeli or American attack. These arguments are now as familiar as wallpaper, from the arguments over Iraq from the 1990s-2003 through the long years of arguments about Iran.
I suspect that the real reason for the new flood of commentary calling for attacks on Iran is simply that hawks hope to pocket their winnings from the long argument over sanctions, such as they are, and now push to the next stage in the confrontation they've long demanded. Hopefully, this pressure will not gain immediate traction. Congress can proudly demonstrate their sanctions-passingness, so the artificial Washington timeline should recede for a while. The Pentagon is now working closely with Israel, it's said, in order to reassure them and prevent their making a unilateral strike, which should hopefully push back another artificial clock. That should buy some time for the administration's strategy to unfold, for better or for worse. An attack on Iran would still be a disaster, unnecessary and counterproductive, and the White House knows that, and it's exceedingly unlikely that it will happen anytime soon. But the real risk is that the public discourse about an attack on Iran normalizes the idea and makes it seem plausible, if not inevitable, and that the administration talks itself into a political corner. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Read full article....
Reader Comments (12)
Scott,
Thanks for posting these. I saw the FOR POL piece very early this morning but was busy with other things. :-)
I did think it was strange that Lynch thinks the Klein article is solid ("Joe Klein had a solid article in Time last week arguing that the U.S. is reconsidering a military strike on Iran.") - especially after you showed all the holes it contains. But he makes up for this with a solid conclusion: "..the real reason for the new flood of commentary calling for attacks on Iran is simply that hawks hope to pocket their winnings from the long argument over sanctions .... the real risk is that the public discourse about an attack on Iran normalizes the idea and makes it seem plausible",
On this note, have you heard anything about yesterday's meeting on Iran convened in UK's Parliament: Iran: "Which way Forward?"
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jul/1172.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jul/1172.html
Catherine,
Stuck in Birmingham, did not know of Parliament meeting. Will chase up....
S.
"An attack on Iran would still be a disaster, unnecessary and counterproductive, and the White House knows that, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that it will happen anytime soon."
********
Probably, but are the other states in the region (and int. community as a whole) willing to live with a snowball effect of nuclear proliferation? That's what happened when China built its first bomb. India responded because it felt vulnerable to China's nuclear ambitions. Pakistan felt it had to respond to its neighbor and followed suit. The Saudis could start their own nuclear program. If more nuclear proliferation efforts follow, other countries will probably respond. Japan and Germany come to mind, and those countries exercise a great deal of discretion in foreign affairs.
Tom Lehrer's 'Who's Next', an EA favorite, comes to mind.
Dave
Have a read of this article re just this thing
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-rethinks-tactics-for-muddle-east/story-e6frg6ux-1225894758043" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-r...
Barry
I think over the past year we have seen a steady buildup of forces in the region close to Iran, and that's probably the reason for all the speculation. American missiles were moved to Diego Garcia, two aircraft carrier strike groups were moved nearby, and military exercises have taken place. American officials have been open that they are building up regional defenses, just as the IRI has also strengthened its forces, with its new ballistic missiles, speedboats, and a destroyer ship.
I think if we love the people of Iran, we have to be honest that there are real indicators that a military option is out there as a possibility. I trust that Obama is doing everything he can to avoid war, but should it come to that, he's prepared. I don't think Obama would have positioned these resources in the area if he wasn't seriously considering a need to use them. Obama's not a war profiteer, so if he's preparing for war I don't think it's a bluff to increase somebody's profits.
War has always been a possibility, but it's not inevitable. If Iranian leaders come back to the table, make a deal, and stick with it, Obama would not fabricate an excuse to go to war. He's not a cowboy. He's not going to make a decision based on a newspaper opinion piece. But the people have a right to know that it's not all hype, the danger is very real.
In long-term goals, they are hoping to talk the administration into a corner.
In short-term goals, it is just another tool in the midterm box of tricks, with the all-important fear card.
I've lost the article, and my information may not be right, but I believe that the carrier group was a rotation. Also, back in 2006 and 2007, I saw this play before - an attack was "certain." Same with war games. I'm not saying it doesn't *doesn't* mean anything. The Diego Garcia shipment, I also believe, was a shipment denied to Israel, and instead used to send a message, like you said, a bluff (or maybe I'm conflating two things, as I'm running off memory now).
I share your wariness, I do. But even with this drumbeat among media hawks; as Juan Cole noted, it took the Bush Administration around a year to build and sell the war in Iraq. I don't hear administration talking points of "mushroom clouds" here just yet. Israel? That's different. But, if Bush gave them the red light, I would hope that Obama could stop even Bibi (here's where I get a little more wary).
Still, it never hurts to pay attention to rising tensions and signals. And yes, it is a possibility. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Dave, if you've never read Bob Baer's "The Devil We Know", he gets into some of the issues regarding Abu Musa and the Gulf Sheikhdoms you speak of.
One of the possible ironies of a nuclear Iran, could be a much closer Saudi-Israeli relationship, though it is to some extent now, "on the down low" as it were. At least, this is what Fareed Zakaria postulated, FWIW. It may not turn out this way at all. I must wonder why the Saudis would pursue a weapons program for, though. What Muslim nation would dare nuke the land of the Prophet? That would be a very audacious move. As a deterrent to conventional attack (without a 5th Fleet there), there arises the question of if a nuclear weapon would be allowed on Saudi soil based on religious grounds, even. Perhaps. If they can get around usury, they can probably do this. I'm just saying that it's not a necessarily given domino effect, as was the infamously precipitous Sino-South Asian case.
Rachel B
I believe that the reason these US forces are there - is simply to be "ready". Not ready to start a war ( too much paranoia in this forum) - but to be ready in case Iran does something "silly". The Persian/Arabian Gulf is such an important part of the world (in terms of oil exports from the region) and Iran is so close to it, that the Americans cannot leave it unprotected. The Iranian Regime has been both provocative and belligerent for a long time now. If they were to do something "silly", and all US Forces were asleep back in the US, the impact on the entire world (but especially the US) would be enormous.
Barry
Kurt
"What Muslim nation would dare nuke the land of the Prophet?"
It is inconceivable to me -- but perhaps one which is eager and impatient for the return of the Mahdi??
Barry
Kurt,
Look for Iran to help raise the Republican temperatures heading into the US mid-term elections by making lots of defiant statements, milking everything they can from the Bushehr nuclear plant start-up planned for September, and passing legislation such as the current bill that allows them to enrich uranium to 20% and inspect ships in the Persian Gulf the minute their own ships are inspected because of sanctions. All this to make Obama look "weak" on Iran. The hard-liners want to play hard ball, and Obama is just starting to try his hand at it, but it doesn't come naturally to him.