As we noted on this blog yesterday, the New York Times published an op-ed yesterday by Alan J. Kuperman calling for war against Iran.
Marc Lynch, blogging at Foreign Policy, has an excellent and important response. He notes that
The New York Times [publishing a piece advocating for war] is a serious step towards mainstreaming the idea, akin to how Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman’s support for the invasion of Iraq persuaded a lot of centrists and liberals. It’s as if we as a country have learned nothing from the Iraq war debate.
Lynch then breaks down the inanity of Kuperman’s piece one step at a time.
Does he rule out the alternative policy by default? Yes he does! “peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work.”
Does he reduce the policy options to two extreme positions, one of which is guaranteed to be rejected? Yes he does! “the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”
Does he warn that Saddam, um, Ahmedenejad will give WMD to terrorists? Yes, yes he does. “if Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb.” (the “neighborhood bully” is a nice touch.) Will, pray tell, the smoking gun be in the shape of a mushroom cloud?
Does he exaggerate the prospects for success? Yes, he does. Well, first he says “As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work.” But he quickly moves on from that, since that will not do. Oddly, his main example of success comes from Iraq, where he claims that the first Gulf war led to the uncovering of the Iraqi nuclear program — not the Osirak raid — which is accurate, but rather completely contradicts his argument.
Does he minimize the risks of military action? Yes, he does. “Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway.” Try telling that to U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, or to leaders in the Gulf, who are slightly less cavalier with the lives of their people.
Does he suggest that if all else fails regime change would be easy and cheap? Yes, dear lord, he does. “If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.” Truly, this was the lesson to be drawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m still marveling over how easily we overthrew Saddam and the Taliban and got out of Iraq and Afghanistan more or less costlessly. That was special. On the other hand, as Matt Duss helpfully points out, “if we don’t have an Iran war, how are we supposed to have an awesome Iran surge?”
Does he accuse those who oppose military action of appeasement? Yes, yes, of course he does. “in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement.”
Lynch’s response is important and we will continue to watch for and push back on op-eds like Kuperman’s.
– Ben Katcher
I have hard time reading your blog with safari browser, you should update your blog
Much as I do not want to be seen as a spokesperson for the Leveretts, I think WigWag makes a flawed argument to suggest that the object of this blog is to call on the president to follow Nixon’s approach to China.
I have been reading this blog for a while and I have not heard much about Nixon or China.
What I hear is a reasoned approach to resolving the tension between the United States and Iran.
As far as I am concerned, the only way forward on this matter is for the United States to shed the undue influence from the Israeli and other lobbies and begin to have a cordial and meaningful relationship with Iran.
The United States will be more likely to influence the actions of the Iranian government that way than through threats of sanctions and violence.
Another issue that WigWag raised is the human rights situation in Iran. Surely, it should be all right to comment when one feels the rights of others are being abused.
But, I have noticed that it gets very tricky sometimes. How would WigWag and others feel if the Iranian government expressed concern when Ahmadou Diallo was murdered in a hail of bullets?
It’s obvious that Mousavi did not win the vote. That is what all the polls were showing and that is why Tehran was the only city in Iran with major demonstrations protesting the results. In the rest of the country as well as in South Tehran people were satisfied with the outcome (whether we like them or not). Those in the US who assume the vote was rigged, without providing real evidence, only say so because they are hostile towards Iran. Ironically, they are against democracy because the vote didn’t go their way…and, of course, Lysander is absolutely correct.
Wigwag believes in Israel right or wrong. Having followed his comments for some time, I can assure you that he is very predictable: any enemy of Likud/Kadima is an enemy of Wigwag. Leverett and Leverett Mann do not espouse Likud’s view of Iran, therefore they are “crack cocaine realists,” and their credibility must be undermined.
Wig Wag, are you hiding your hatred for Iran behind the protesters? If the US or Israel were to attack Iran and kill those same 10 protesters…along with 10 thousand others would…you be equally indignant? And are the concerns of the anti-government protesters the same as yours? If the opposition takes power and institutes democratic reforms, but maintains Iran’s current foreign policy, as is most likely, would you be happy?
I think not. Had Musavi won the June elections, the anti-Iran voices in this country were prepared to malign him as the prime minister in 1983 and therefore the one responsible for the Marine Barrack bombing. The sanctions would have stayed in place and the drumbeat for confrontation would have continued (although fewer would join along) The same is true if Musavi were to take power now.
Apparently the butchers in the Iranian Government have chosen the ‘Ashura holiday to murder and maim Iranian protestors. The New York Times is reporting that 10 are dead and hundreds wounded. Government thugs have made a martyr of the nephew of the rightful President of Iran, Ali Mousavi. A taboo has been breached and now thousands are chanting “Death to Khamenei” and “Khamenei is a murderer.” You Tube is replete with videos highlighting the hatred in the country for the “Supreme Leader.”
Who is it that Leverett, Mann Leverett and Katcher want the United States to ally our nation with?
Ayatollah Khamenei.
Can someone remind me again why that’s a good idea?
Who are you Chris?
Nothing in my comments here suggests “uncontrollable hatred for the Leveretts.” There isn’t anything I’ve written from my perch in obscurity that is any more severe than critiques of the Leverett’s views from well-known pundits like Andrew Sullivan. It was their friend and colleague, Steve Clemons, who called them “crack-cocaine realists.” I can assure you that despite this characterization, Clemons holds them in high regard.
For the record, I don’t hate the Leveretts. While I don’t know them, I am sure that they are fine, generous and decent people. I just disagree with them and my comments, as inartful as they are, express that disagreement. Reasoned debate is what the comment section of a blog is for, isn’t it? Mr. Leverett and Ms Mann Leverett are obviously both highly intelligent and successful and I appreciate their willingness to let me express my point of view on their site without censoring what I have to say.
As long as we are on the subject, I also think Ben Katcher is a highly capable young man. I look forward to reading his invariably intelligent and well-written posts at this website and at the Washington Note. I just wish that Katcher would learn something from Clemons, Leverett and Mann Leverett about the appropriate way to dress when a photograph is taken to be included in a prestigious blog like this one. The Washington Note is adorned with the picture of a nattily dressed Steve Clemons. The photos on this blog of Leverett and Mann Leverett make them both look like the consummate professionals that they are. Katcher’s photograph, with his open collar and his tee shirt sneaking out, makes him look like he’s still dressing the way he did while making the rounds from the Bullock Dormitory, to the Goddard Library to the General Store and then to his “Intro to Something” class in Jonas Clark Hall. He should upgrade his picture here to make it more appropriate to his high level of intelligence and erudition. It’s hard for me to believe that Clemons, Leverett and Mann Leverett have all been reluctant to make this suggestion to him.
You’ve made clear, Chris, that you find my “counter-arguments” to be “ignorant” so it is probably a waste of time for me to try to encapsulate for you what I object to about the major thesis of the Leveretts, but I am vain enough to try anyway.
The Leveretts and Katcher suggest that President Obama should follow the precedent established by President Nixon when he reached out and negotiated a “grand bargain” with China. I think the argument is flawed because the differences between China in the 1960s and Iran in 2010 are too numerous to mention. But even if ad arguendo you accept the analogy the Leveretts postulate between China and Iran, their argument still fails.
The Leveretts are mistaken in thinking that Nixon’s policy towards China was a success; in fact, it was a failure. Virtually every communist nation that the United States opposed during the Cold War has a far more liberal government today than it did then. Most of our former Warsaw Pact adversaries are true democracies today and Russia, while not a true democracy, is a far more liberal nation than it was during the Cold War. The three Baltic Nations, the Ukraine and Georgia once had the same relationship with the Soviet Union that Tibet has to China today. Those former Soviet colonies are now all free; Tibet is not.
Nixon’s policy towards China exempted China from the Cold War between the United States and the Communist world. The result is that China is a far less free nation today than either Russia or the Warsaw Pact nations. The former Soviet colonies unlike China’s colonies have been liberated.
Nixon’s policies towards China also set the stage for the extraordinarily dysfunctional economic and financial relationship that the United States and China suffer from today. In no small part the recent worldwide financial breakdown was facilitated by the two headed monster of the United States as the world’s largest debtor nation and China as the world’s largest creditor nation. Would the housing bubble that preceded the world-wide financial collapse have even occurred but for China’s huge surpluses that made them anxious to finance U.S. debt at extraordinarily low interest rates? The bizarre and unhealthy economic relationship that developed between the United States and China might very well never have occurred but for Nixon’s decision to exempt China as an American adversary during the Cold War.
Nixon’s China policy was a failure. Recapitulating that policy with Iran would be a big mistake.
How does that old adage go?
Isn’t it something like, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it?”
If one looks at events in Iran more carefully, it seems pretty clear that in general the demonstrations are not taking place outside of Tehran (the funeral in Qom was for the most part nonpolitical and the protesters were mostly from Tehran). Significantly, the demonstrators in Tehran are mostly from more affluent neighborhoods and the south of the city has been completely quiet. In addition, over time, the protestor’s numbers have been dwindling as the protests become more violent.
what is stunning about the writing of the Leveretts and Katcher is the extent to which they go to ignore what is happening on the streets of Iranian cities. reading this blog, you would not know that thousands and millions of Iranians are demonstrating against the regime. why? simply because acknowledging this fact is inconvenient to the Leveretts’ thesis. i am truly underwhelmed by their and katcher’s level of expertise.
Who are you WigWag?
What I find striking about your comments in not your “counter arguments” but your ignorance. Plus, your uncontrollable hatred for the Leveretts.
As usual, Ben Katcher selects his quotes in a highly selective fashion. In the Lynch post that Katcher cites, Lynch ridicules Kuperman for “defending the U.S. non-response to the genocide in Rwanda.” In fact, Lynch quotes with approval Alison Des Forges’ suggestion that Kuperman played “word games to rationalize the West’s ignominious failure to halt genocide in Rwanda.”
Crack cocaine realists that they are, I wonder what Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett thought the United States should do when confronted with genocide in Rwanda. Being that the United States had no interests in Rwanda other than humanitarian interests, and knowing what true believers in realist doctrine believe about humanitarian concerns, the Leveretts almost certainly felt the same way about Rwanda as Kuperman did.
That being the case, if Lynch thinks Kuperman’s position on Rwanda suggests that we should take his position on Iran less seriously, shouldn’t we also take the Leverett’s position on Iran less seriously because they undoubtedly agreed with Kuperman on that subject?
Lynch has now added an addendum to his post citing several other commentators who have also criticized the Kuperman position (Matt Duss, Heather Hurlburt, Joe Klein, Steve Saideman and Dan Drezner). Every one of these pundits joins Lynch in assuring us how dangerous an attack on Iran would be for the United States. They assure us that Iran has the ability to make terrible trouble for the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan; they raise the specter of Iran using its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah to threaten the United States, Israel and perhaps America’s Sunni Muslim allies; they insist that Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan and that it has the means to resist American military intervention.
All of this is highly entertaining in light of Hillary Mann Leverett’s assessment of Iran’s capabilities. Just four days ago (December 22, 2009) Ms Mann Leverett published a post at the “Race for Iran” entitled “U.S.-Iranian Rapprochement Enhances Regional Security for All.” This is how she describes Iran’s military capabilities,
“To this day, the Islamic Republic is deficient in conventional military power. Literally, Iran has no ability to project conventional military power beyond its borders. Moreover, Iran shares borders with 15 states. Not one of these states is a natural ally of Iran, and several have been overtly hostile to the Islamic Republic.”
It seems that Ms Mann Leverett doesn’t see the same military peril in an American attack on Iran as the other Kuperman critics do. They think an attack is fraught with military risk; apparently Mann Leverett disagrees.
As for the threat that if the United States attacks Iran it will unleash its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah; the only reasonable response is “so what?” Hamas was demolished by Israel in a few short weeks earlier this year. But for the incoming Obama Administration’s insistence that Israel’s military action cease by the time of the inauguration, Hamas would have been even more damaged than it was. The military threat they pose is non-existent. As for Hezbollah, they were so deterred by the massive damage Israel imposed in South Lebanon during the 2006 War that they took no action to assist their allies during the Gaza Campaign. If Hezbollah made the unwise decision to launch attacks on Israel in response to an American attack on Iran, South Lebanon would again be obliterated. I wonder how popular Hezbollah will be in South Lebanon after inciting yet another round of carnage inflicted by Israel’s F-16s.
I think it’s a fair criticism that Kuperman is an ideologue who used his New York Times Op-ed to hype the benefits and minimize the risks of an American bombing campaign in Iran. But Leverett, Mann-Leverett and Katcher are Kuperman’s doppelgangers. They are also ideologues who use the “Race for Iran” to hype the risks and minimize the benefits to cutting Iranian aspirations down to size.
In a few days, the Shia will be celebrating the ‘Ashura holiday. They will be reflecting on the meaning of Hussein; they will be expressing regret that they were not personally present to assist him at the time of his martyrdom; they will be bemoaning the historical event that guaranteed that they would always be a minority in the Islamic world and many will be engaging in self-flagellation.
Perhaps this would also be a good time for reflection by the Leveretts and Ben Katcher. They could start by reflecting on how much like their ideological opponents they really are.
Or, if ‘Ashura is a little too religious for the Leveretts and Katcher, they could harken back to their other heroes; the Chinese. After all, the Leveretts are always telling us how Nixon’s outreach to the Communist Chinese provides a model for how Obama should reach out to the Iranians. Ben Katcher might be too young, but surely the Leveretts remember the penchant of the Chinese Communists for “self-criticism.”
Maybe after a little self-criticism, the proprietors of this blog might make their arguments in a little more nuanced fashion. They might find that presenting the strengths and weaknesses of their own views makes their analysis stronger, not weaker. They might also find that caricaturing the views of those who disagree with them doesn’t really serve the interests of robust debate.
People in the Middle East generally believe US power is on the decline and that the American armed forces are already overstretched without trouble with Iran. Hence, few believe that the United States has the ability to defeat Iran in any conventional war, especially as the country is far stronger and can provide much greater resistance than eneything we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the US government must be praying that the Iranians will not make life difficult for them in Afghanistan as things stand, otherwise, failure there is almost certain. Ironically, President Obama’s only chance for a degree of success in Afghanistan is to prevent US/Iranian relations from deteriorating further.
Jim Lobe on Lobelog.com has discovered an op-ed by Kuperman from 2001 or 2002 in which he argued AGAINST preemption in the case of Iraq. Someone should get Kuperman on record as to why he now favors preemption in the case of Iran.
I am baffled by the Times publishing this op-ed; it indeed goes far to “mainstreaming” or legitimizing the idea of a strike on Iran. The Times ought to tell us why it decided to publish the piece. I’ve speculated that the Times is a player in a good cop-bad cop game being played at the behest of someone in the U.S. government, but I’m just guessing. If the Times is indeed throwing its weight behind military action, I would have to believe we are much closer to war than I had previously thought.
I published an article, “Engage Iran” in Liberty magazine in early 2007; in it I referenced F.L.’s NYT piece, which had really impressed me. It was my hope that Obama’s election would bring about a change in U.S. perception of Iran’s importance as a partner and strategic pivot in the Middle East-Central Asia; unfortunately it seems events may be moving beyond the administration’s control. I remain convinced that a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement would have immense benefits for the U.S., while a conflict between the two would be an unmitigated disaster.