Stopping The March To Iran

Over the past couple days some big hitters have come out and warned the Administration not to continue to threaten war with Iran. Zbig Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft made the case in the Washington Post that war is unnecessary and the constant tough rhetoric is unhelpful.

"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."

"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a [nuclear] weapon."

He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We never have a conversation in this country about the consequences of both our talk and action. Clearly a country like Iran, which sees US troops on its borders in neighboring countries, which sees nuclear-capable nations treated with respect and incapable nations treated to bombing, understand the role nuclear weapons can play, especially given continued threats. And Scowcroft rightly explains that the Iranian economy is dependent on the world community right now and thusly more susceptible to a negotiated settlement.

Similarly, Gen. John Abizaid's comments were level-headed and reflected some actual thought beyond a knee jerk over how to respond to Iran.

Although he didn't say it outright, General Abizaid's implicit view seemed to be that the world would not be able to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that we would have to learn to live with it. He questioned whether war with Iran to stop that eventuality would be a wise idea "at this particular time" not only because world oil flows would be shut down and turmoil would spread across the Middle East where Iran's Shia allies hold sway, but also because the US armed forces lacked strategic flexibility, bogged down as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan with "our ground forces tapped out."

What, then, when they get the bomb? "I don't believe Iran is a suicide state," he said. "Deterrence will work with Iran. It is a country of many different power centers that are competing. Despite what their crazy president says, I doubt seriously whether the Iranians are interested in starting a nuclear war." [...] We should be talking to Iran, according to Abizaid, just the way we talked to our other enemies in the past. "We need to make it very clear to the Iranians, the same way we made it clear to the Soviet Union and China, that their first use of nuclear weapons would result in the devastation of their nation."

The pat conservative response to this is that people like Abizaid don't understand the nature of the threat (despite being on the ground in the Middle East for years) and that Iran is not a rational actor, but this is not borne out by their actions to this point. Their current first-strike capability doesn't exist, and beyond words there has been no meaningful action. I don't know if I agree with Abizaid that Iran will eventually get the bomb, but certainly we have the deterrence capability to deal with that if it happens, and even more capability to stop the threat through international pressure before we come to that.

The neocons, I believe, are of a different opinion. But the good news is that a bipartisan movement against pre-emptive war is building. H.R. 362, which would have called for a blockade around Iran, is stalling out in Congress, thanks to some better-informed legislators (Wexler, Cohen, and Frank) taking their names off the bill. The House leadership needs to put this to bed once and for all. J Street has a petition on this.