Discussion of military action against Iran is again taking center stage. It takes me back to a late September 2002 meeting, when I brought a former senior Israeli official to see the late Congressman Tom Lantos, then the ranking minority member of the House International Relations Committee. Our meeting focused on Iraq, with Lantos arguing passionately for pre-emptive U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein, who he compared to Hitler.
Lantos dismissed out of hand our Israeli visitor's suggestion that a war
might be destabilizing to the region and to Israel, telling us (and
this is close to a direct quote):
We were taken aback. One of the most powerful members of Congress -- a Holocaust survivor with unchallenged moral authority -- was saying, in effect, that the U.S. should wage war not to achieve a specific goal, but to shake things up, in the hopes that out of the chaos would emerge more attractive options.
Advocates of military action against Iran today are relying on a similar "shake the kaleidoscope" approach. Their arguments are predicated on the belief that all other presently available options are unacceptable. They believe that Iran is immune to pressure; that Iran will abuse diplomacy to run out the clock and go nuclear before the world can stop it; and that containment -- learning to live with a nuclear or even a "nuclear-capable" Iran -- is a non-starter.
Most war advocates concede that military action will at best delay -- not stop -- Iran's nuclear program. Most admit that it will probably kill many innocent Iranian civilians -- the same civilians whose human rights many of them also claim to defend (AIPAC's simultaneous campaign for human rights in Iran, and its campaign for an ever-harder line on Iran, culminating in the current effort to get the Senate to adopt a pro-war resolution, is a prominent example of this phenomenon). And most acknowledge that an attack on Iran could be profoundly destabilizing to the region and could threaten U.S. interests around the world.
Yet their conclusion is that military action is nonetheless both desirable and inevitable. Why? Is it because they hope that shaking things up will lead to regime change? Or because they hope a new pro-U.S. Iranian opposition will rise from the ashes of war? Or because they hope the U.S. can leverage an Iran war to engineer a dramatic pro-West regional realignment?
This all sounds familiar. In Iraq, the results of exactly this kind of recklessly "hopeful" approach to war continue to play themselves out on the ground every day (and are in no small part responsible for the challenge that Iran poses today).
Now, as the 2012 election season shifts into high gear, Iran hawks in both parties (and their Israeli counterparts) are chomping at the bit. They will no longer be placated by ever-escalating sanctions -- sanctions that for many were perhaps never about achieving U.S. goals, but about checking off a box on the way to war. They are increasingly pressuring Obama to "prove" his anti-Iran (and, it is implied, pro-Israel) mettle, with the threat hanging over him that Israel may at any time force his hand. Having de facto acquiesced to an Iran approach defined by sanctions and saber rattling, Obama is now faced with the question: if sanctions have proven inadequate to the task of achieving U.S. goals when will the saber be unsheathed?
Back in 2002, my Israeli visitor was shocked by Lantos' cavalier approach to war, but didn't actually oppose military action against Iraq. Indeed, the Israeli national security community largely viewed such action as a positive for Israel. Today, in contrast, senior Israeli military and security officials -- including former Israeli Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Ephraim Halevy, former IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi and, reportedly, current IDF Chief of Staff Tamir Pardo, Military Intelligence Aviv Kochavi, and Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen -- are openly disputing the pro-war arguments. They join a chorus of voices from the U.S. military, national security, and intelligence community warning against a rush to war.
When Congressman Lantos talked about shaking the Middle East kaleidoscope, an image came into my head: a kaleidoscope filled with people -- Iraqi men, women, and children, U.S. soldiers -- shaken until their bodies broke, creating bloody designs on the kaleidoscope's lens. That gruesome image comes to mind again today, as the chorus of voices calling for military action against Iran grows louder.
Clearly, there is no easy path forward on Iran, but any discourse about war must be a sober one, weighing all options -- including the option of re-committing to serious, sustained engagement -- and taking into account the full range of possible consequences. It must be a discourse in which the voices of reason and wisdom from America's (and Israel's) own military and intelligence communities are not marginalized in favor of the kind of dangerous ideologues and fantasists who made the case for war in Iraq.
With all that is at stake, nobody can afford to let such a decision be hijacked by those who want to shake the kaleidoscope and hope for the best.
(By Lara Friedman, originally published by Foreign Policy, February 21, 2012)
The Middle East is like a kaleidoscope. If you pick up a kaleidoscope and look through it, you don't see anything special. But if you shake the kaleidoscope and look through it again, you see something more beautiful than was there before.
We were taken aback. One of the most powerful members of Congress -- a Holocaust survivor with unchallenged moral authority -- was saying, in effect, that the U.S. should wage war not to achieve a specific goal, but to shake things up, in the hopes that out of the chaos would emerge more attractive options.
Advocates of military action against Iran today are relying on a similar "shake the kaleidoscope" approach. Their arguments are predicated on the belief that all other presently available options are unacceptable. They believe that Iran is immune to pressure; that Iran will abuse diplomacy to run out the clock and go nuclear before the world can stop it; and that containment -- learning to live with a nuclear or even a "nuclear-capable" Iran -- is a non-starter.
Most war advocates concede that military action will at best delay -- not stop -- Iran's nuclear program. Most admit that it will probably kill many innocent Iranian civilians -- the same civilians whose human rights many of them also claim to defend (AIPAC's simultaneous campaign for human rights in Iran, and its campaign for an ever-harder line on Iran, culminating in the current effort to get the Senate to adopt a pro-war resolution, is a prominent example of this phenomenon). And most acknowledge that an attack on Iran could be profoundly destabilizing to the region and could threaten U.S. interests around the world.
Yet their conclusion is that military action is nonetheless both desirable and inevitable. Why? Is it because they hope that shaking things up will lead to regime change? Or because they hope a new pro-U.S. Iranian opposition will rise from the ashes of war? Or because they hope the U.S. can leverage an Iran war to engineer a dramatic pro-West regional realignment?
This all sounds familiar. In Iraq, the results of exactly this kind of recklessly "hopeful" approach to war continue to play themselves out on the ground every day (and are in no small part responsible for the challenge that Iran poses today).
Now, as the 2012 election season shifts into high gear, Iran hawks in both parties (and their Israeli counterparts) are chomping at the bit. They will no longer be placated by ever-escalating sanctions -- sanctions that for many were perhaps never about achieving U.S. goals, but about checking off a box on the way to war. They are increasingly pressuring Obama to "prove" his anti-Iran (and, it is implied, pro-Israel) mettle, with the threat hanging over him that Israel may at any time force his hand. Having de facto acquiesced to an Iran approach defined by sanctions and saber rattling, Obama is now faced with the question: if sanctions have proven inadequate to the task of achieving U.S. goals when will the saber be unsheathed?
Back in 2002, my Israeli visitor was shocked by Lantos' cavalier approach to war, but didn't actually oppose military action against Iraq. Indeed, the Israeli national security community largely viewed such action as a positive for Israel. Today, in contrast, senior Israeli military and security officials -- including former Israeli Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Ephraim Halevy, former IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi and, reportedly, current IDF Chief of Staff Tamir Pardo, Military Intelligence Aviv Kochavi, and Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen -- are openly disputing the pro-war arguments. They join a chorus of voices from the U.S. military, national security, and intelligence community warning against a rush to war.
When Congressman Lantos talked about shaking the Middle East kaleidoscope, an image came into my head: a kaleidoscope filled with people -- Iraqi men, women, and children, U.S. soldiers -- shaken until their bodies broke, creating bloody designs on the kaleidoscope's lens. That gruesome image comes to mind again today, as the chorus of voices calling for military action against Iran grows louder.
Clearly, there is no easy path forward on Iran, but any discourse about war must be a sober one, weighing all options -- including the option of re-committing to serious, sustained engagement -- and taking into account the full range of possible consequences. It must be a discourse in which the voices of reason and wisdom from America's (and Israel's) own military and intelligence communities are not marginalized in favor of the kind of dangerous ideologues and fantasists who made the case for war in Iraq.
With all that is at stake, nobody can afford to let such a decision be hijacked by those who want to shake the kaleidoscope and hope for the best.
(By Lara Friedman, originally published by Foreign Policy, February 21, 2012)
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Indeed the prospect of a nuclear Iran is frightening. But the idea of attacking Iran based on its suspected desire to create a nuclear weapon capability is terrifying.
Should either Israel or the US launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran the carnage could be incalcuable.
Iran and its proxies would unleash a campaign of rockets and other attacks, not just on Israel but on Western targets far and wide. The human cost would be so devastating that, at least in the Middle East, it would be a economic and human Holacaust.
Millins of innocent people would die, be maimed and rendered homeless.
We have countless Iranians who would like the regime changed and we would endanger their dreams.
Such a war is pur insanity.
I'm writing to you from Sydney Australia and I dispair at America's attitude to the so-called nuclear crisis. Does anyone in America ever ask the question, why can Isreal have nuclear weapons but Iran can't ? This whole situation is driven by Isreal's desire to militarily dominate the Middle East.
I dispair because I can see that America is again being drawn into a war on a false premise. Last time it was weapons of mass-destruction. This time its because Ahmadinejad has apparently claimed that "he wants to blow Isreal off the map". Are American's aware that he has never made this statement. What he did say, and don't quote me on this, was that 'the world should not accept aparthied countries like Isreal or South Africa'.
The Isreal's turned this statement around to imply that he was saying that Isreal doesn't deserve to exist. Quite frankly, I don't think, and most Australians would think, that aparthied countries like South Africa should not exist. I know that some people were investigating when this claim was first made about what Ahmadinejad said and apparently the first person to come out and say that he wanted to 'blow Isreal off the map' was someone called Mark Regev. I'm told that he's the minister for properganda for the State of Isreal.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad thinks because he has absolutely no control over the Iranian military. The ayottolah's control the military.
The whole situation just re-affirm's what a lot of Australian's think. America is a jewish colony. America does what Isreal wants. You need to wake up, otherwise Isreal will drag you into another useless war.
Robert, you state: "Does anyone in America ever ask the question, why can Israel have nuclear weapons but Iran can’t? This whole situation is driven by Israel’s desire to militarily dominate the Middle East." Also: "America is a Jewish colony. America does what Israel wants. You need to wake up..." First of all, you offer no disproof of the widely accepted belief that the Iranian leader does want to eliminate Israel, only your own assertion. Second, we do indeed ask about the difference between the two countries possessing nukes. Wanna know why? Israel, for all its flaws, is a democracy, and many of its citizens yearn for a peaceful two-state solution. Iran is run by religious fanatics who avowedly value death over life; its citizens are well nigh powerless. As for "dominating" the Mid-East, have you looked at a map? You think Israel wants to attack Egypt or Jordan? The fraying of any extant peace treaties is b/c of Israel or Muslim extremists? Have you thought about the fact that Israel was attacked by its neighbors the moment it became a state, and again in '67 and '73 (we'll forget for now the pogroms that occurred *before* statehood)? Israel needs to defend itself – who has designs on the Iranian landmass? Thus far your statements are merely naive, ahistorical, and stupid. But when you assert that the US is a "jewish colony" - that a devious and greedy Zionist cabal is pulling the strings - you cross the line into the uglier anti-Semitic tropes. Frankly, your ravings, aside from being unoriginal, are despicable. There are plenty of criticisms of Israel that aren't anti-Semitic - unfortunately yours aren't among them.
Oh, and an after-thought. The idea of Iran's leadership condemning apartheid is ludicrous. Have you looked into how Sunni Muslims are treated in Iran? How about Azeris? Baluchis? This is a piece of utter hypocrisy. Of course you, Robert, don't care about that - you're too absorbed in bashing the Jewish state.
On another note, I was struck by this statement: "When Congressman Lantos talked about shaking the Middle East kaleidoscope, an image came into my head: a kaleidoscope filled with people -- Iraqi men, women, and children, U.S. soldiers -- shaken until their bodies broke, creating bloody designs on the kaleidoscope's lens." Well, it's always good to vent your feelings, and your sensitivity to and preoccupation with your inner state is noted and appreciated. The difference between rational people and the opposite is the former realize that bracketing your emotions once in a blue moon doesn't mean you can't arrive at decisions that are not only rational but even compassionate.