Let's be clear -- the chance of Congress authorizing military action against Iran is zero. Zilch. None. Bush will not even consider asking for it. Everyone must know this. How could they not? The ONLY reason Bush can even contemplate action against Iran is - surprise - BECAUSE WE ARE IN IRAQ! You want to stop military action against Iran? Then work like hell to get us out of Iraq. This is too obvious. How could these smart people not see this?In comments, he goes on to say that Speaker Pelosi would never propose giving Bush an authority to attack Iran and that Dems like John Murtha would never support such a proposal in any case. Not that Bush needs any more authority - as Col. Pat Lang points out the leading U.S. command pointed at Iran is StratCom and the authority for the president to use that command is enshrined in Cold War history. Col. Lang says "It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."
In any case, the idea that if we get out of Iraq the wardrums against Iran will cease is simply a non-starter. There's certainly a massive amount of impetus in neocon circles behind the idea that the debacle in Iraq can be solved by a war with Iran but thinking that this is the only reasion for the Iran war narrative is incredibly naive and ignores a lot of history.
Many American hawks, whether rightwing or not, have had a hard-on for Iran since the embassy hostage crisis stirred up their nationalistic pride and let it over-ride their common sense. Some have even called it an invasion of American territory, which it was in only the most technical sense but in a sense which surely stops short of being a reason for massive invasion - as the "sainted" Reagan obviously understood.
Yet even before the intelligence was fixed around the policy of invading Iraq, the story was always that "real men go to Tehran". Even in July 2003, with the invasion of Iraq just recently a "mission accomplished" and the debacle of the occupation not yet underway, the idea that Iran was "only a year away" from nuclear weapons and so was next on the list had widespread currency among U.S. hawks. John Pike of GlobalSecurity.Org told Salon way back then:
"We're on a collision course with Iran...I think this administration believes a policy of perpetual war is a good one. The notion that they're going to be gun-shy from here -- many are arguing that now, but it's not evident to me that those who have their fingers on the triggers share that view. I think they believe they have a rendezvous with destiny."Nor is this pursuit of vendetta solely the territory of the uber-right. We've probably all read by now John Edwards double-talk on the subject. Joe Biden was, in 2002, telling audiences that he believed America should facillitate regime change in Iran, albeit without bloodshed and invasion if possible. Hillary Clinton, with the backing of AIPAC, has had Iran in her crosshairs since at least this time last year. Nancy Pelosi, according to one of her aides who talked to Raw Story in April 2006, believed in "keeping all options on the table". Raw Story reported at the same time that most other Dems were ducking the issue.
So no, I'm not at all confident about Democrat opposition to a "use of force" authority over Iran. Many are scared of appearing "weak on national security" thinking it will lose them votes. Others want to hear the ka-ching of the AIPAC ATM dropping campaign cash into their coffers. I'm not at all confident that enough of them would put sanity before these considerations. And I don't think the narrative for war with Iran would go away if we withdrew from Iraq.
That's why this new meme is so worrying. It is self-delusion and wishful thinking of the highest order. The narrative for war with Iran will not go away - all the more so unless progressives ensure, by speaking out, that Dems realize their base will not support such a thing. That's especially true for presidential hopefuls. So go tell them.
No comments:
Post a Comment