David Kenner over at Foreign Policy has compiled a list of political analysts who are advocating that the United States bomb Iran.
The list includes Middle East Forum Director Daniel Pipes, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow John Bolton, Commentary Editor at Large Norman Podhoretz, Foreign Policy Institute Fellow Joshua Muravchik, U.S. Air Force Retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, and Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot.
It is striking that many of these analysts are the same folks who advocated “regime change” in Iraq. Despite the horrific consequences of America’s ongoing occupation of Iraq, these analysts are now advocating bombing Iran.
Kudos to David Kenner for putting together this important list. His full article is available here.
– Ben Katcher
Now you know perfectly well Fiorangela that your most recent comment is illogical. There is a dispute about whether the recent election was stolen. People disagree about that; some people think that the vote count was rigged and that the election results are a fraud; others believe that the election results are a legitimate reflection of the desires of the Iranian people.
The Leveretts believe the latter and as evidence they cite the polls from the University of Tehran and a few other polls as well that suggest Ahmadinejad was the legitimate victor.
If you believe that the Iranian polls are right and do in fact prove that the election was not stolen, than you have no reason to believe that the plethora of polls suggesting that Americans would support the bombing of Iran are an inaccurate depiction of the desires of the American people.
You may believe that propoganda can motivate people to adopt positions that are not in their interests, but that would be equally true in both nations.
Polling is either legitimately viewed as a reasonable data point in judging public opinion or it is not.
You can’t have it both ways and maintain your intellectual integrity.
WigWag, the plethora of polling seems intended to eliminate ‘intellectual’ activity from the calculus; disintegrating intellectual activity is certainly the intent of hasbara, which instructs hasbarists to use emotional appeals rather than reason and logic.
The ultimate poll is the vote. In Iran, the people voted and Ahmadinejad won. Many people — many westerners who did not vote in Iran, do not have the right to vote in Iran, and have scant knowledge of Iran — have rejected that outcome. Is that “intellectual integrity?”
If the vote of the people is not to be trusted, how much trust should one vest in a random poll involving small samples of people of questionable knowledge and understanding of the situation other than the opinion that legions of propagandists have skillfully and deliberately “imprinted” upon them?
Well there is one thing we know Fiorangela Leone, while you may be a skeptic of public opinion polls, Fynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are not.
After all, it was just a few days ago that they were citing the results of a poll taken in Iran which they said proves the fact that the Iranian regime was not only legitimately elected but was also relatively popular.
Rejecting polls that disprove your preferred thesis while championing polls that lend support to your preferred thesis doesn’t show alot of intellectual integrity does it?
Yes, Fiorangela, that is exactly what the polling data is telling us . . . .
to John Harrison: the polling data is “telling,” but what is it telling? That the campaign to demonize Iran is achieving the desired outcomes?
I wonder if any of the polls cited included questions such as, “What part of the Arabian peninsula does Iran occupy?” “Is Dubai the capital of Iran?” “Which is the largest ethnic group in Iran?” “Is birth control forbidden by Islamic law?” “Is Iran ruled by a monarch or a prime minister?” “Is Saudi Arabia ruled by a monarch or a president?”
figures don’t lie but liars sure do figure.
re WigWag’s polling data: Straight from the hasbara manual, 2002 version:
“BANDWAGON
Most people, when in doubt, are happy to do what other people are doing. This is the bandwagon effect. People are happy to be part of the crowd, and subtle manipulators can play on this desire by emphasizing the large size of their support. Although it is reasonable that people are given a chance to find out how many other supporters a speaker or movement has, often it is possible to create the impression of extensive support – through gathering all supporters in one place, or through poorly conducted opinion polls – in an attempt to persuade people who are keen to follow the crowd.
“Israel activists can commission opinion polls amongst groups who favour Israel, and use these to give the impression that Israel is the ‘team to support’. [sic]
{snip}
“Remember that playing with perceptions of numbers supporting a cause can be problematic if this means that genuine supporters become complacent.” http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
Iranian wrote: “It would be wise to remember … that the Persian Gulf along with Central Asia are far more sensitive regions that the eastern Mediterranean region.”
Germany and Israel – unlikely allies – appear to be working together to cover untoward eventualities in the Persian Gulf.
~Seduced by guilt and geld, Angela Merkel’s Germany is simultaneously assisting Israel in enhancing its submarine fleet and investing in new transportation modes in Arabian Peninsula.
Germany is supplying Israel with the 6th German vessel in in Israel’s German-made submarine fleet. This last one is said to be capable of retrofitting with nuclear missiles; Israel has stated that it plans to deploy the sub to Persian Gulf.
Germany is also embarking on massive investment in Saudi Arabian railways to bypass Persian Gulf and enable transit via Red Sea.
The stats WigWag provides are telling. A majority of the American people buy the premise that Iran is a threat that must be curbed, even if military force is required. Clearly, the neocons and their allies have imprinted their views on public opinion. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the U.S. media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel and in favor an “activist” U.S. foreign policy.
This will not cause Obama to use force against Iran. But it does tell the Israelis that they wouldn’t be risking the support of their main ally should they choose to strike. In recent weeks I have been predicting that Israel will indeed hit the nuclear facilities in 2010 or 2011. The recent revelations of problems in the Iranian program probably make this a less urgent matter for the Israelis. However, I still think the odds better than 50-50 that we will see Israeli action before the next presidential election. Only if it appears Obama is sure to be defeated will they wait, hoping that a more trigger-happy president will be elected in 2012.
In any case, the American people will be the losers. They will discover this after the bombs fall. Whether they will ever recognize the advantages of a strategic partnership with Iran is, perhaps, unlikely. And if they do so too late, well, the time for it will have passed.
Part of the problem, I think, is that if Iran gets to choose where to market its energy resources outside of US “protection,” others will want to do the same. In a bidding war, China has lots of dollars. Or it could simply choose to barter oil for manufactured goods.
In such a scenario, the US would no longer be the “indispensable” party. It fact the rationale for all that military muscle would largely disappear.
WigWag – alarming stuff. Of course it proves one thing above all else: if the US population can be persuaded that Iran is making nukes, they will support war.
Thus the issue becomes making people believe that, rather than the reality of whether Iran is actually guilty, and that is something certain individuals think they can control.
Personally, I am heartened by the detailed and concerted attempts from a wide variety of people and institutions to take on the warmongers. It seems lessons have been learnt from Iraq, and there is a real “never again” theme to their work.
John – yes it is optimistic, and extremely unlikely. Your energy analysis is much more likely. It’s just that the opportunity exists if anybody is smart enough to take it.
I think the biggest problem for the US is bringing China or India into its orbit, because I don’t think these countries need to leverage themselves to the US, and will resist doing so. In Europe, I think historical ties will keep them on the same page as the US, but Russia looms larger and larger. Iranian gas is an alternative of course, and that I suppose is the key to it all as you suggest.
However, I just don’t think the US can maintain the control over the Persian Gulf resources it already controls in the medium term, let alone with the added difficulty of controlling Iran as well. Sooner of later the Arab dictatorships are going to be snuffed out by their own populations, and as we all know, democracy amongst them will not deliver a single pro-US government on current form. I think the US needs a policy that adapts to that eventuality.
Some of the commentators on this thread (Fiorangela Leone and Matthew Sutton) have asked for evidence that the American people would support military action against Iran. There are several pieces of evidence. First there’s the recent Gallup Tracking poll of President Obama’s performance.
Here’s the relevant data from the tracking poll released earlier this week. The data was collected February 1-3, 2010.
Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the situation with Iran?
Answer: Approve 42 percent; Disapprove: 50 percent.
He gets far better grades on foreign policy in general; approve/disapprove=51%/44%;
Afghanistan=48%/47%; Iraq=47%/48% and terrorism=48%/49%.
Americans, by an eight point margin, give Obama a failing grade on Iran not because he’s being too harsh with them, they give him poor grades because they don’t think he’s being tough enough.
Moreover, there is considerable additional data to back up the contention that Americans would support a strike against Iran.
•Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, January 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor military intervention if Tehran pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.
•Zogby International, October 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29 percent oppose such a step.
•McLaughlin & Associates, May 2009: asked whether they would support “Using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon,” 58 percent of 600 likely voters supported the use of force and 30 percent opposed it.
•Fox News, September 2009: asked “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” 61 percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed it.
•Pew Research Center, October 2009: asked which is more important, “To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action” or “To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” Out of 1,500 respondents, 61 percent favored the first reply and 24 percent the second.
Alan-your statement is optimistic. There are certainly signs that Europe and Japan are fed up with US unilateralism: NATO’s difficulty raising troops in Afghanistan, Germany’s separate deal with Russia for natural gas, Japan’s reluctance to agree to US terms for Okinawa, etc.
Though most of the world does not subscribe to the US ways of doing things, dismissing the US is easier said than done. Also, if the US ends up controlling the oil and gas producing states of the Persian Gulf, it will be in a powerful position to determine which countries join in the spoils and which don’t. For energy starved Europe, China, Japan and India, this is not trivial.
Perhaps because of this, the US seems to have Europe in its thrall on issues like Iran. I can’t think of any other reason Europe would be marching in lock step to the US position on Iran.
John – I just don’t think other countries subscribe to the US way of doing things any more, mainly due to the gangster policies of the last 10 years and the banking crisis. They don’t want the US as an enemy, but nor do they want them having undue influence over them. The stage is set for a more consensus based international order, if people make the right moves. It would be an awful lot cheaper too.
I think that “Iranian” has a point and that is another reason why the Obama administration’s policy of confrontation regarding Iran can lead to catastrophy.
The US is not as important as it used to be just a decade ago and I think it will become less and less influential in the coming years (the same is true for the EU). It’s rivals are growing too fast for it to be able to bring them under its wings. That is why the US needs to look for better relations with important countries like Iran so that they don’t move toward rivals like China, as they already seem to be doing as a result of extremist policies coming out of Washington.
I agree that this could be a kind of tipping point. The US wants to bring China and India under its wing as it did Europe and Japan. Now is the time, before China gets too big and prosperous and before Iran gets too deeply hooked into the Chinese economy.
The problem is that this is also a tipping point for the US economy. Military expenditures keep consuming more and more GDP, impoverishing the nation. As a result, we could–like Spain 400 years ago–have a world empire while people at home get poorer and poorer.
The demands of maintaining security at home and across the globe would be mind boggling.
John – absolutely true; this is the tipping point, right now. More of the same, or strategic shift? Escape the vice-like Israeli grip over Middle East policy, or let them carry on calling the shots? Continue to shore up sclerotic Arab dictatorships and run the risk the street will blow the lid off it, or promote genuine democracy amongst them? Can the US continue to maintain influence through force, or is it more likely to be able to maintain it through a greater engagement with the peoples of the region?
The US has a huge opportunity here.
Iranians know that the US military is overstretched and that the Iranian armed forces are better prepared for potential conflict than before. It would be wise to remember what happened to the Israeli’s in 2006 and to remember that the Persian Gulf along with Central Asia are far more sensitive regions that the eastern Mediterranean region.
It would be useful to bear in mind that the “bomb Iran” crowd includes not only the same old tired names, but also some new ones — notably Alan Kuperman, whose Christmas Eve op-ed in the New York Times shows that the legions are gaining recruits.
Alan, beautifully said, but John H has a point too. It will not be until the US realizes that it could have energy security and at the same time become a respectable member of the world community by putting an end to the exploitation of other countries’ natural resources for the benefit of big corporations and the military industrial complex and putting in place more egalitarian domestic policies. It is at this juncture that the Israeli and American interests meet under the current circumstances.
“The US wants energy security, which can be achieved through friendly relations.” But only if the US doesn’t want to be the “indispensable” party who controls the flow of resources to Europe, China, India and Japan. If the US is determined to provide “protection” and Iran is determined to be independent, there will be conflict.
It is also important to remember that Israeli and US interests dramatically diverge on Iran. The US wants energy security, which can be achieved through friendly relations; Israel wants the US creating enemies left right and centre in order to conflate their state security interests and leave the US bogged down in the region for decades.
If the US reaches any kind of accommodation with Islamic politics, the reality that the Israelis have no Islamic enemy is exposed, and the focus will turn to the real issue – the dispossession and barbaric oppression of the Palestinians.
Wig Wag, I think you just lost your credibility. Americans do not want another war.
The problem is “Israel” stupid !!
In America, “Obama” is in office, but “Israel Lobby” is in power.
From the late 1980’s to the present, The Israel Lobby has been in the forefront of a campaign to promote a US military confrontation with Iran in collaboration with Israel.
The Zionist military proposals gained tremendous momentum during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.
The Israel Lobby mounted an unrelenting mass media propaganda campaign demonizing Iran, fabricating and disseminating falsified accounts of its nuclear programs, infiltrating and occupying key positions in the US Treasury Department, aggressively bludgeoning other governments, industries, banks and investors to boycott Iran.
Zionist Treasury Department officials hope to strangle and weaken Iran’s economy in order to soften it up for a military strike.
No other single or combined force in North America, or, for that matter, any place in the world (except Israel) has played as big a role in promoting an offensive war against Iran as the Zionist politicians and officials in the US government.
They were aided and abetted by Jewish lobbies, Zionist propaganda centres, multi-billionaires and hundreds of Jewish community organizations.
The most important foreign policy of US and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East. Their objective is to protect Israel at any cost and in doing so; they do not care if they destroy Iran.
Their sole aim is to destabilise Iran’s government and replace it by a US puppet government that protect the US and Israel interests in the region, and not the interest of Iran or Iranian people.
USA and Israel are aware that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences”; instead, and for the time being ,The CIA and Mossad plan for Iran is an agenda to maintain division and instability.
They intend to Damage Iran economically in order to turn more people against their government, which in turn would destabilise and divide Iran. In other words, bloodshed and chaos equals control.
Kenner should make a list of the “news” organizations that gladly serve as megaphones for loonies like Bolton. Finding lunatics is easy. Getting them on the nightly “news” on a regular basis indicates strong USraeli pressure.
It’s the propaganda, stupid!
Quotable Quote:
“The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”
Sen. Barack Obama
If we don’t heed the lessons of history about the evil propaganda that Usa and Israel used against Sadaam’s none existent WMD, and if we ignore how sophisticated and evil the present PR campaigns are against Iranian government and Iran’s none existent nu-clear weapons, then we will have another tragedy in Iran far greater than Iraq.
This will be the catalyst for a million more tragedies in the years to come – the only difference being that you won’t see the deaths of those Iranian victims being broadcast on the BBC, Fox News or CNN, as the tragic death of Neda was for propaganda purpose.
When it comes to Iran, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.
Non-Stop lies and Ruthless propaganda” over Iran’s election and non-existent nuclear weapons is designed to turn the international public opinion against Iran. This will have catastrophic consequences.
The west must treat Israel, Iran or North Korea equally.
Crime is a crime, whether it is committed by Israel, Iran or North Korea, and the punishment and the sanction should apply equally to each one of them.
As Israel is already an illegal possessor of nuclear weapons and has a fanatical government that is capable of using them, crippling sanctions should be applied to Israel to force it to disarm and not to Iran.
The hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach; the West preaches democracy yet violates its fundamental principles.
President Obama sees stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons as his major calling. Whether Iran is actually developing the bomb is irrelevant here- Iran must be stopped!
What is the motivation here?
With Israel and Iran being the major rivals in the Middle East, one wonders why the president has kept completely quiet about Israel’s own clandestine nuclear project and Israel’s catastrophic human rights policies in Gaza. Yet, he seems fixated on similar issues in Iran.
What is the motivation here?
The unique quality of The Race for Iran website and the principals who post here is that their essays are fact-based.
WigWag, I challenge you to support your assertion that “a majority of the American public” favor bombing Iran.
My impression is that a majority of thinking Americans clearly see that the propaganda campaign against Iran follows closely in the footsteps of the Iraq propaganda war that preceded the hot war, and you know that old saw, ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Americans are awakening.
But I could be wrong.
You made the brave, categorical assertion. Now prove it.
I can’t come up with the “money quote” like Kenner did, but I’m almost sure that you can add Charles Krauthammer to the list and also Ralph Peters.
More importantly, you can almost certainly add considerably more than half of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives and a majority of the American public.
The number of people who oppose bombing Iran is dwindling by the day. Ben Katcher. Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett better figure out something that allows them to be more persuasive.
So far, they are losing the argument. Big time!
Overwhelming majority of Iranians wouldn’t care what this folks think or write, to this date they have not even heard of this folks. So whatever garbage they put out is for American internal consumption, arguably even the public opinion in US wouldn’t have made a difference if America was planning to attack Iran. It is all well known to the Iranian policy circle that the 07 NIE was meant to give a cover that why there is no need for a US military attack on Iran it was basically a face saving tactic. For those that want to attack Iran with or without sanctions, not only the situation has not got better but evidently has got worse. Iran’s recent message to the west with announcement of starting of the 20% enrichment is really to say ‘to put up or shut up” the rest is history
Nothing new here..