"Cole in Salon:
The GOP's Iran option is off the table
My column in Salon.com, "The GOP's Iran option is off the table." The subhead is: "Rudy Giuliani was counting on Iran as a weapon of mass distraction in the '08 race. But the flailing Republican right has just been disarmed." Excerpt:
' Republicans have used the alleged nuclear threat posed by Iran to scare the American public and to turn attention away from Iraq, economic troubles and Republican scandals. But the NIE findings have pulled the rug out from under the Grand Old Party.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani initially dismissed the NIE, but on Sunday he backtracked substantially on "Meet the Press." He said of Iran, "And of course we don't ... want to use the military option. It would be dangerous; it would be risky." . . .
This is, of course, the same Rudy Giuliani who while campaigning has all but pledged to bomb Iran if elected. It is a "promise" and not a "threat," he has said, that if Tehran appears close to getting a bomb, he will "set them back eight or 10 years." While Giuliani hasn't specified how he would do so, he likely means launching military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities such as the one at Natanz. That message has been accompanied by bluster from Giuliani worthy of a World Wrestling Federation ham in spandex: "We will not beg to negotiate with them. We're going to make them beg to negotiate with us." Such Hulk Hogan-style boasts may play to the Republican base, but Giuliani now seems more aware of the possibility that the war-weary public may not embrace his reckless bravado if he wins his party's nomination for the general election. '
Read the whole thing.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/11/2007 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
With Giuliani disarmed (Hey, NY is a gun control state, now it's a loose cannon control state.) and Romney's moral mumblings hindering his ascension, it looks more and more like Huckabee's our man.
But wait. Do we really want a President who believes Adam and Eve kept pet dinosaurs?
Perhaps the timing of the release of the NIE report is with a design to assist the Republican presidential candidates by trying to get the focus on domestic issues, since the polling strongly suggests that Iraq and Iran remain as significant concerns for voters. Or the release may be a decoy for newer information on Iran that would be timely released for next September and November to demonstrate that Republicans are stronger on national security than Democrats.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119734172703720416.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1146212420071211
Wait.
Fox news owned Wall Street Journal is reporting that Iran restarted the Nuke Weapon Program in 2004.
Great article, Dr. Cole, about what we really have to be thankful for this Christmas. Enjoyed reading it over at Salon.
Using an intelligence report as justification for or against a policy begs the question of the policy.
The game of intelligence is in play. My guess it will unfold this way: first, 'kill the messenger' to show who is boss. Second uncover new intelligence. Third, debate the new intelligence. Fourth, declare the debate over due to a crisis. Fifth, enact the policy as justified by new intelligence.
Having subscribed to the 'winning' issue of an intelligence report, those who signed on will have trouble canceling the next installment.
Just my guess. Time will tell.
There were more than a few of us right-wingers pleased as punch at the new NIE since it deflated the neocons' war balloon and seemingly has spared another destructive and senseless war.
And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?
I wouldn't be surprised at Bush and Iran making some sort of deal - such things have happened before, notably under Reagan who got himself elected President that way.
But a deal in which Iran stops supporting Iraqi terrorists in exchange for something has one minor flaw - Iran hasn't been supporting Iraqi "terrorists," if you mean those that were blowing up American troops. Iran has been supporting Badr, which has also been the most reliable of America's Iraqi quislings.
The Iranians and the Americans have a common interest in the continued occupation, just for different reasons. As long as there are lots of American troops in Iraq, they're convenient hostages against an American attack on Iran, they keep weakening the empire much as the Syracuse expedition wor down Athens in the Peloponesian War, and they weaken Iraq to Iran's benefit.
There may turn out to be no US attack on Iran. But the US power elite cannot envision a 2008 electoral decision that is not driven by a debate about how to confront one Satan or another. There has to be some enemy to hate, fear, and distract voters from domestic issues. Iran affords both Republicans and Democrats with a target for hostile language and symbolic threats. Yes, the Ayatollah regime must, depending on transation, either be "wiped off the map" or "vanish from the page of time." Candidates can trim the rhetoric according to the audience or occasion. Few know or care a darned thing about the country, but that hardly matters. 16th century Europe got apoplectic with fear of witches without ever finding one. But everyone heard of ceremonies to consort with Satan or whip up brews of mass destruction. Now every candidate who steps up to the lecturn must either attack Iran, warn of doom, or be dismissed as a non-contender or "naive" on world affairs.
Post a Comment
<< Home