To the post below, TPM Reader AB responds thus …
Sorry — completely disagree with your post on Iran policy. Democrats and the media were too scared/naive/stupid to put up any serious questions about going into Iraq before the war. (for bias interpretations, I was with Dean on this, but it didn’t matter.) So there really was no substantial debate. But that was the point of Iraq.
The really important point here is that the neocons wanted into Iraq regardless of WMD. They wanted the inspectors out before it became obvious that the main rationale for the war was fictional. They never guarded any of the potential WMD sites (probably) because they were pretty sure that the WMD case was way overblown. This was about democracy dominos in the Gulf. Draining the swamp. With our troops there to protect our interests (oil, Israel) and put a massive stake in the aground against our enemies (terrorists, Iran, Syria…).
Remember this? ‘One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the invasion, âEveryone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”‘
But Iran is something completely different now. It’s closer to N. Korea in its ability to defend itself. Very large army, WMD, and a president who just might be itching for a war.
More importantly (to your point) the neocons are out of power on foreign policy. We don’t have the ability to confront Iran on the ground. We’re talking sanctions or special forces/air strikes either by ourselves or Israel.
The public setting is so different now that the Bush admin does not have the free reign it had in 2003 with Iraq.
My point? An Iran policy in the abstract is exactly what we should be talking about because the choices are so limited and the administration is so hamstrung. With strong involvement by the democrats and the media (due in large part to the polls on Iraq — backbone supplied by voters) we may actually force the administration’s hand on how to deal with Iran. They’re already doing the diplomacy thing even if Iran is unimpressed.
The starting point should not be the incompetents of the Bush administration. It should be level headed ideas on what would work.
Hope you can find someone who’s got some of those ideas…
Regards,
Andy
I wrote back: ‘I’m really not sure how this contradicts anything I’ve said. Did you think I’m saying we just shouldn’t discuss Iran at all?’
I’m printing this response because perhaps others are thinking the same and I wanted to address the point.
My point is certainly not that we should be digging our heads in the sands or refuse all discussion of the matter because President Bush is in office. My point is that the correct policy can’t be arrived at without taking the implementer into account. Say you have a certain physical infirmity. The best thing to do is to have an operation. But what if there’s no surgeon? What if the best you can do is round up someone who once took college anatomy? Maybe then surgery isn’t such a good idea. Yes, this is a broad brush analogy. But this is the sort of calculus I’m getting at.
Meanwhile, another TPM Reader KB says …
You know I’m one of your biggest fans, but I have to disagree with your early throat-clearing on the “Iran Question.” Why? Because it really is not a question. That is how the GOP and the White House want it framed, and I’m afraid you are buying into that framing. The truth is much simpler: Iran will have the bomb if they want it. It’s a done deal. There is no realistic military option. None. We’re stretched too thin. There are no good sites to bomb that would insure we could deny them the bomb. Their program is too hidden and dispersed. It would be an endless campaign of bombing and lead to endless war and terror attacks on us. The question is not how to stop Iran. They will get it. The question is: Who lost Iran? How did it come to this? Who left us in the position? Who ignored the REAL threat? That’s what the White House doesn’t want you asking. Please don’t become Joe Leiberman on this “Iran Question.” There is no question. They will get the bomb and there’s nothing we can do except learn to live with them and contain them, as we did the Soviets.
I’ll leave this for another post.
