Can Dems come up with an Iran strategy?

[eridani]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/68396/

Sometime in March 2008, soon after the Democratic presidential nominee is identified by the presidential primaries, we should expect the Republican drumbeat about Iran to crescendo and the Republicans in Congress to promote an Iran resolution much like the one they foisted on the Democrats in October 2002, shortly before the 2002 midterm elections, where they crushed the Democrats. They will claim the resolution will not specifically authorize war against Iran, that its purpose will be to strengthen Bush's hand in negotiations with Iran, but which will be broad enough in its terms to be used for an attack on Iran by Bush/Cheney. Democrats will whine and moan, but the more conservative Democrats, approximately 75 in the House and 25 in the Senate, fearing accusations of not being "strong on defense," will cringe and crumble and sign on with the Republicans. A charade of "negotiation" will ensue, punctuated by claims insurgents in Iraq are being supplied by Iran, and perhaps even that Iranians are moving into Iraq, and in late fall 2008 (my guess is Oct. 1) Bush will authorize an air attack on Iranian targets to (1) protect our soldiers in Iraq and (2) reduce the Iran nuclear threat (a still-unproven threat). Act One in this drama already has occurred, with the Republicans promoting a resolution (Kyl-Lieberman) in the Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organization" (the first time a part of any national army has been so branded). Predictably, 25 Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, voted for this resolution and it passed 76-22. The resolution was nonbinding, but the exercise displayed for all to see the inherent weakness and lack of self-confidence of Democrats on national security issues.

Attacking Iran would not protect American soldiers in Iraq. Almost certainly, it would have exactly the opposite effect. American soldiers already are stretched to the max in Iraq; replacements and reinforcements are not available. According to Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton (ret.), who was commanding general in the Office of Security Transition in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004, even without the added pressures of an attack on Iran, the current "15-month tours will break the Army." Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said last week that "the answer to dealing with Iran will not be found in a military operation. The U.S. is currently bogged down in two wars. Our military is terribly overburdened, and we are doing great damage to our force structure and readiness capabilities."

<snip>

Democrats cannot outbid, outspend, outcowboy or outhawk the Republican hawks; if Democrats play the "tough on Iran" military card, they will be chasing Bush/Cheney all the way into another unwinnable, war. From a strategic game-theory standpoint, those who are posturing "tough on Iran" are putting control of the game totally in the hands of the opponent. Isn't this the one lesson from the runup to the Iraq war that every Democrat should have learned? Democrats need to get ahead of this issue, not continue passively to respond to hawkish initiatives, like the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which accept all the hawk assumptions and set the table for war.

<snip>

Three months ago, I attended a two-day Democratic Party policy discussion. The featured luncheon speaker on the second day was famed Democratic strategist James Carville, whose topic was the 2008 elections. Carville provided a rousing, rosy picture of Democratic opportunities in 2008, but missing from his discussion was any mention of national security contingencies. During the Q & A, a major Democratic donor asked Carville how the Democratic Party would respond to a major act of terrorism or a manufactured security event, such as Iran. With Nancy Pelosi sitting nearby, Carville answered, "I don't have a clue; that is way above my pay station."

If the Democrats hope to avoid another crushing, demoralizing defeat in a presidential election, as well as prevent America from digging an even deeper hole in the Middle East, they will need more than a clue, they will need a coherent strategy about what to do about Iran, and the sooner the better.

[Froward69]

1. Biden already has an Iran

strategy.

[eridani]

2. Is it based on the common sense observation that Iran is not an urgent threat? n/t

[Froward69]

3. Yes

it recognizes Iran is free to pursue what ever energy policy it chooses. however if Iran develops a nuke and puts it on a delivery platform such as a missile?.. then take it out. however in the mean time try to show the Iranian leadership that things like wind and solar are far healthier.

[eridani]

4. Why would Iran having a nuclear missile be a threat?

This is seriously stupid. We survives a cold war with an opponent with thousands of them. Iran couldn't use a missile on anybody without being instantly obliterated as a country. Therefore Iran, even with a couple of nuclear-tipped missiles, is not a threat.

[Froward69]

5. your forgetting

nuclear obliteration, is nothing to fear to them. as everyone goes straight to heaven. (except the infidels of course) the proliferation of nuke capability is a scary prospect. as time goes by we as humans forget how generational damaging atomic detonation really is. Iran has announced years ago it will actively seek the obliteration of Israel. even if no one shoots one off, a regional cold war is not favorable. not to mention what to do with the additional nuke waste, from their power plants??

[eridani]

6. You are forgetting that not everybody in the country is nuts

--and that the supreme ayatollah has declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Iran has announced nothing but its wish for "regime change"--which is what we are hoping to do in 2008. Iran has not in fact waged an aggressive war against any neighbor since the Sassanid dynasty nearly 1000 years ago. Do the US and Israel have equally good records?

I'm not pro-nuclear power myself, but it's pretty idiotic to slaughter millions in order to prevent some other country from acquiring it.

[Froward69]

7. I did not know about the fatwah

and insofar as aggressiveness, are you forgetting the violent takeover of the US embassy in 1979? Iran is not that peaceful. their clandestine aggression is legendary. Their human rights record is abysmal.

on edit,
lets say for a minute iran only goes for nuke power? where and what to do with the waste? And why Is iran rejecting alternative sources for power? Wind, solar, geothermal. All are cleaner and more viable.

[eridani]

8. That embassy happened to be located in Iran

It is not an aggressive invasion of another country. Their clandestine aggression is negligible compared to that of a country with 700+ military bases all over the world. There is no conceivable threat even a nuclear armed Iran poses to anybody. I don't consider threats to resist US bullying and domination to be real, as those things are not only morally and ethically vile, but a distraction we can no longer afford from the task of inventing the next energy economy.

[Froward69]

9. this is going no where

an embassy is SOVEREIGN to the nation it represents. and insofar as bullying, under repuke rule thats exactly what happens. let's say for instance the united states intervened in Darfour. would that be bullying? or counteracting Islamic aggression? Iran has been looking for the means to become a world power as they view themselves. They and you view having nukes puts Iran on that stage. It will only escalate until someone sets one off. then all the double speak, paid off for Iran. ANY nuke power poses a threat to their neighbors. Including the US.
you still haven't addressed where or what to do with the waste. as well you just admitted Iran plans to build a BOMB.

[eridani]

10. Bullying is strictly bipartisan

Both parties support continuing to have 700+ military bases around the world, which are for dominating the rest of the world and not defending the US. The notion of Iran as a world power is so utterly stupid that I can't believe any informed person would buy it. China, India, Pakistan and Russia are potential world powers, not Iran. (Pakistan is pretty borderline, though.) I don't know if Iran is actually going to go through with its bomb program, but if they did, so what? They are totally surrounded by the nuclear powers of Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, and have been threatened and bullied by the US and Europe since the 1954 overthrow of their democratic secular government. They have a right to self defense like any other country.

If we were currently trying to build down our nuclear arsenal and help other countries to do the same, we'd have some credibility for pushing Iran in that direction also, but we aren't. However undesirable more nuclear waste from Iran would be, it's pretty chickenshit compared to the total output of existing nuclear powers.

We aren't going to interfere in Darfur because it has nothing our ruling class wants to steal. In any case, a multilateral process is far superior to going it alone.

Attacking an embassy is bloody well not equivalent to landing in Boston Harbor and heading westward burning and pillaging. Iran has not been an aggressor in that sense for a very long time, period.

[Froward69]

11. wow, I got a bridge in NY to sell ya.

"Both parties support continuing to have 700+ military bases around the world"
and
"ruling class"
"Iran has not been an aggressor in that sense for a very long time, period."


why are you here? and if you do not feel you are in the "ruling class" you need to change your attitude. otherwise you will continue to allow yourself to be oppressed. and insofar as Iran they have felt they are a world power. and deserve to be. i really do not think Iran will be as cautious where they set off a nuke, as other countries. the Idea that their nuke program is for power alone is shortsighted ,trusting and false.

just because Iran hasn't made the papers does not mean they have not supported aggression, been aggressive nor a Peaceful nation. not by a long shot.

[eridani]

12. The point of being on DU is to fight for most of us against the 1 percenters

You know, the "American" corporations who move to the Bahamas and Dubai in order to avoid paying taxes for their protection--you certainly don't think all those military bases are to protect the general US population, do you? I'm fighting them, not allowing myself to be oppressed. A citizen of a country with a worldwide gulag of prisons has a lot of gall accusing Iran of "aggression."

Your opinions of Iran are strictly emotional, based on believing MSM bullshit. Me, I'm way more afraid of Pakistan, home to A Q Khan and his nuclear supermarket and far more unstable right now than Iran. And there's always Russia, with 10,000+ nukes and a very badly deteriorated command and control system--at very high risk for accidental launch. I don't get why you are falling for the same kind of propaganda that got us into Iraq,