Target Iran: The Will
What prevents the US from attacking Iran? It is not that we lack the military means to do so; it is that our cultural and political leaders seem to lack the will for military action. The Bush administration in particular seems to have been so beaten down politically by criticism of the Iraq War that they will need bipartisan support--and even bipartisan
political pressure--before they regain the confidence to act.
That support may be on its way. Today's New York Times reproduces Niall Ferguson's column (which I linked to in the LA Times last week) describing a fictional future historian's account of a nuclear war started by Iran, which could have been prevented by pre-emptive military action. The Times also reports that Senators Lieberman and McCain are calling for military action.
"Lawmakers Push for More Action on Iranian Nuclear Standoff," Brian Knowlton, New York Times, January 22. 2006:
" 'There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option,' Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said, 'and that is Iran having nuclear weapons.'… Senator McCain's call for an accelerated approach on Iran was echoed by a senior Democrat, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2000. 'It's good that we're working with Britain, France, and Germany,' Senator Lieberman said, listing the European nations that have led American-backed negotiations with Iran, 'but their pace is too slow.'… Senator Lieberman, who is considered a hawk on military matters, said not only that the United States should keep the military option alive but that it also had the military capability…. After the enormous controversy over what critics said was the Bush administration's failure to secure adequate international backing before invading Iraq, some Republicans and Democrats now accuse it of relying too heavily on diplomacy."
Target Iran: The Way
When it comes to military action, Peter Brooks spells out the options in the New York Post. Brooks's review is both more thorough and more concise, but the overview below from the New York Times is more significant culturally. The tone of this article--especially its title--is an indication that the mainstream left may be open to military action against Iran.
The reporter's rehearsing of the negatives, however, is telling, because the "risks" of an attack on Iran are not military consequences but rather "political fallout," which the New York Times fears the US could not handle. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy--because newspapers like the New York Times are always at the forefront in delivering the
"political fallout" from any US military action.
"Why Not a Strike on Iran?" David E. Sanger, New York Times, January 22, 2006
"Diplomats around the world keep repeating the mantra: there is no military option when it comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb…. 'It's a kind of nonsense statement to say there is no military solution to this,' said W. Patrick Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency…. But…it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government…. 'Could we do it?' one administration official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq invasion said recently. 'Sure. Could we manage the aftermath? I doubt it.'… 'Elimination of the nuclear program is not possible, but with the right strikes you could decisively set them back,' said Ashton B. Carter…. Given the track record in Iraq, however, there is always the risk that those facilities will turn out to be a watch factory, or, worse, a schoolhouse."
What prevents the US from attacking Iran? It is not that we lack the military means to do so; it is that our cultural and political leaders seem to lack the will for military action. The Bush administration in particular seems to have been so beaten down politically by criticism of the Iraq War that they will need bipartisan support--and even bipartisan
political pressure--before they regain the confidence to act.
That support may be on its way. Today's New York Times reproduces Niall Ferguson's column (which I linked to in the LA Times last week) describing a fictional future historian's account of a nuclear war started by Iran, which could have been prevented by pre-emptive military action. The Times also reports that Senators Lieberman and McCain are calling for military action.
"Lawmakers Push for More Action on Iranian Nuclear Standoff," Brian Knowlton, New York Times, January 22. 2006:
" 'There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option,' Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said, 'and that is Iran having nuclear weapons.'… Senator McCain's call for an accelerated approach on Iran was echoed by a senior Democrat, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2000. 'It's good that we're working with Britain, France, and Germany,' Senator Lieberman said, listing the European nations that have led American-backed negotiations with Iran, 'but their pace is too slow.'… Senator Lieberman, who is considered a hawk on military matters, said not only that the United States should keep the military option alive but that it also had the military capability…. After the enormous controversy over what critics said was the Bush administration's failure to secure adequate international backing before invading Iraq, some Republicans and Democrats now accuse it of relying too heavily on diplomacy."
Target Iran: The Way
When it comes to military action, Peter Brooks spells out the options in the New York Post. Brooks's review is both more thorough and more concise, but the overview below from the New York Times is more significant culturally. The tone of this article--especially its title--is an indication that the mainstream left may be open to military action against Iran.
The reporter's rehearsing of the negatives, however, is telling, because the "risks" of an attack on Iran are not military consequences but rather "political fallout," which the New York Times fears the US could not handle. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy--because newspapers like the New York Times are always at the forefront in delivering the
"political fallout" from any US military action.
"Why Not a Strike on Iran?" David E. Sanger, New York Times, January 22, 2006
"Diplomats around the world keep repeating the mantra: there is no military option when it comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb…. 'It's a kind of nonsense statement to say there is no military solution to this,' said W. Patrick Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency…. But…it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government…. 'Could we do it?' one administration official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq invasion said recently. 'Sure. Could we manage the aftermath? I doubt it.'… 'Elimination of the nuclear program is not possible, but with the right strikes you could decisively set them back,' said Ashton B. Carter…. Given the track record in Iraq, however, there is always the risk that those facilities will turn out to be a watch factory, or, worse, a schoolhouse."
No comments:
Post a Comment