Foreign Policy In Focus

Edward Luce, Washington columnist and commentator for the Financial Times, waited to the next to the last paragraph of his description of lunch with his friend, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to drop a bombshell. As they finished off their lasagna and taglierini, and after he recorded that the former U.S. National Security adviser is worried about China and President Obama, the subject of the next presidential election came up.

During the interview at Washington’s Teatro Goldoni restaurant, Brzezinski admitted to having voted for Republicans a couple of times (one being George H.W. Bush).  “A good election is one that would shape out in an intelligent victory by Obama,” he said, adding that, however, “There is no sign of that from the other side.” “Which means Obama will win,” asked Luce. Well, not at all, says Brzezinski. “My fear is that two or three weeks before the election something will happen – an October surprise. If Iran were struck by Israelis during October, the negative effects would not be felt until late November and December. The first effect would be, ‘Ah, how wonderful. Let’s get behind the Israelis.’ Then all bets would be off.”

Now, Brzezinski is no peacenik, and most of his policies are not something any progressive could support. The bloody mess in Afghanistan is largely his fault. But when you read his writings or hear him speak you come away confident that he is, for the most part, sane and sensible. His comment about Iran should have made the front pages of the big newspapers – and gone viral on the blogs.

Nobody I know who pays attention to such things imagines that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu would launch a strike against Iran without at least the tacit okay from Washington. If Brzezinski thinks it might, that’s scary news.

However, on January 14, the Wall Street Journal reported  “U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.” According to the paper, the alarm grew to the point last week that President Obama got Netanyahu on the telephone and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was dispatched this week to Tel Aviv.

“U.S. officials briefed on the military's planning said concern has mounted over the past two years that Israel may strike Iran. But rising tensions with Iran and recent changes at Iranian nuclear sites have ratcheted up the level of U.S. alarm,” said the Journal.

The article’s authors, Adam Entous, Juliane Barnes and Jay Solomon, went on to suggest obliquely –and I think unlikely –that the reason the U.S. is uncertain about Israeli intention is a spy problem. “Some American intelligence officials complain that Israel represents a blind spot in U.S. intelligence, which devotes little resources to Israel,” they wrote. “Some officials have long argued that, given the potential for Israel to drag the U.S. into potentially explosive situations, the U.S. should devote more resources to divining Israel's true intentions.”

Now that’s really scary.

Over at Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn takes up the questions, “Will Israel attack?  Is Obama, coerced by domestic politics in an election year, being dragged into war by the Israel lobby? Will he lunch the bombers? Is the strategy to force Iran into a corner, methodically demolishing its economy by embargoes and sanctions so that in the end a desperate Iran strikes back?”

“As with sanctions and covert military onslaughts on Iraq in the run up to 2003, the first point to underline is that the US is waging war on Iran,” writes Cockburn. “But well aware of the US public’s aversion to yet another war in the Middle East, the onslaught is an undeclared one.”

Still, that’s not the same as a military attack – and its inevitable catastrophic consequences. But Cockburn makes a good – and frightening – observation when he cites former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey saying to him, “Note also that this is one of those rare but dangerous moments in history when Big Oil and the Israelis are pushing the White House in the same direction. The last such moment was quickly followed by Dubya’s invasion of Iraq.”

Carl Bloice, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, is a columnist for the Black Commentator. He also serves on its editorial board.

I'm as guilty as the next progressive of thinking that if men are from Mars and women are from Venus, progressives are from earth and conservatives are from Pluto. In fact, I confess to wondering if they are, indeed, humans. But, it was just 50 years ago, during the Eisenhower years, when only its fringes were obsessed with giving corporations free reign to maraud across the land and with crushing programs like Social Security.

Occasionally, a conservative, though he may still strike progressives as hawkish, swims upstream against other conservatives. But the last place you think you'd find one engaging in such behavior is at WINEP. According to IPS Special Project Right Web:

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is one of a handful of influential U.S. policy institutions—sometimes referred to as the “Israel Lobby”—whose central aim is to push an Israel-centric Middle East agenda. Many of WINEP’s current and former scholars have been closely associated with neoconservatism.

Patrick Clawson (also profiled at Right Web) is the director of research at WINEP and head of its Iran Security Initiative. A quote machine for the mainstream media, he also recently authored a WINEP Policy Note: An Iranian Nuclear Breakout Is Not Inevitable. The title should clue you in that, were he not ensconced at a top right-wing think tank, he'd be in danger of being drummed out of their corps. For Clawson is no Iran hawk. In his carefully considered and well-written paper he, according to the WINEP blurb, "argues that we have time, both tactically and strategically, to prevent a breakout."

Clawson writes, "Perhaps the most progress will come from encouraging geopolitical developments. Whereas a few years ago Iran's star appeared to be rising and that of the United States fading, today that is much less the case." As you can see, like conservatives, as well as realists, he's married to the concept of a zero sum game. That said, cognizant that few Focal Points readers would read a lengthy paper by a conservative, however moderate, we'll present some excerpts. We'll begin with his introductory remarks.

… Iran’s closest—arguably, its only—regional ally [Syria] is in deep trouble. … Iran’s support in the “Arab street,” so prized by the regime, has slipped badly as Tehran is seen as backing a brutal dictator, while the wave of history is with popular protests against authoritarians. [This] encouraging geopolitical scene creates a better environment for the steps that Western governments can take to turn up the heat on Iran’s nuclear program. Those steps can be grouped in four large baskets: sanctions, diplomacy, soft power, and  harder measures. [Emphasis added.]

Beginning with sanctions …

The more impact the sanctions have on Iran’s economy and its nuclear program, the stronger the argument that Iran’s nuclear program has incurred a heavy cost for  little advantage. After twenty years, Iran is still not nuclear capable, much less in possession of a nuclear weapon, and it has paid quite a price in its relations with both Europe and the United States. In addition, the nuclear impasse has brought increased attention to Iran’s other policies, such as its support for terrorism and its human rights abuses.

What's more:

… over and above any impact the sanctions have on Iran, those sanctions may be useful for forestalling imitation of Iran’s approach by other countries. … Many states might find the acquisition of nuclear weapons attractive if no cost were associated with the process.

Next, diplomacy. Clawson writes: "The prospects for resolution of the problems with Iran by diplomacy are poor." Why?

If nothing else, Iran’s fractious internal politics will undermine the ability of any politician in Tehran to win broad acceptance among his peers for a deal with the international community, no matter the content of the deal.

But, diplomacy, Clawson explains, like sanctions, is for the benefit of other states, as well.

… reaching an agreement with Tehran is only one reason—and by no means the most important objective—for U.S. diplomatic initiatives aimed at the Islamic Republic. … If, for example, U.S. actions regarding Iran can reinforce European and other allies’ conviction that Washington is a responsible international actor, such an impact would be more important than any impact of diplomacy on Tehran. 

In other words …

The primary objective of U.S. diplomacy toward Iran should be to persuade governments and peoples around the world that the West is being reasonable and Iran’s regime is the impediment to resolving the nuclear impasse, thus advancing U.S. interests globally.

Again, as a conservative, he's more concerned with what benefits the United States than regional security in the Middle East, except as it affects the United States. Now, soft power.

Vigorous condemnation of Iranian human rights abuses serves multiple U.S. interests: pressuring Tehran more forcefully, promoting international understanding of Iran’s ruling regime, lending moral support to Iranian democrats. … The experience of recent decades shows that civil resistance movements can succeed against brutal dictatorships [but] the role of outsiders is modest [such as facilitating communication by, say] breaking through the “electronic curtain” that has closed off Iran. … The U.S. government can learn much from the successful U.S. experience with public broadcasting through outlets such as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. What works best is independent government-supported organizations, not government sources like VOA.

As for harder measures

Too much of the discussion of harder measures potentially aimed at the Iranian nuclear program assumes a black-or-white scenario: a massive air campaign or nothing at all. In fact, harder measures come in a wide spectrum of grays. For some years, the dark gray covert action of spurring defections and engaging in sabotage, cyber warfare, and targeted killings has been used to slow Iran’s nuclear program. … And more can be done, such as the enactment of more assertive military exercises and military cooperation.

As Clawson said in the New York Times on Thursday (January 12), "I often get asked when Israel might attack Iran. … I say, 'Two years ago.' " Meanwhile, about Israel he writes:

To reduce the risk of Israeli action that is premature from a U.S. perspective, the United States needs to speak frankly with Israel about what it requires to be confident that it can act against Iran’s nuclear program if compelled to do so. Presumably, Israeli needs will include accurate and detailed intelligence, means to defeat Iranian defenses, and the capabilities to inflict devastating damage on the Iranian program. By providing Israel with more robust capabilities in all those domains, the United States can affect the Israeli debate about whether to strike Iran’s nuclear program.

Clawson seems to be saying that Israel, if supplied with even more conventional weapons and greater intelligence, might then feel secure in waiting until a later date -- when or if the smoke from Iran's nuclear gun became truly unmistakeable -- to mount an attack. One can't help but wonder, though, if the ability of Israel to cause internal havoc in Iran at the present time suggests its intelligence might be more comprehensive than that of the United States. The point is: Clawson counsels patience.

For now, some time remains. … Postponing the nuclear program may look like only a delay, but a delay could be a victory because the Islamic Republic may not last forever. … Khamenei … is preoccupied by the threat of Western cultural invasion and the possibility of a “soft overthrow.” His regime looks a lot like the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev: it no longer rules on the basis of an idea and, therefore, is becoming increasingly hollow and corroded. [Emphasis added.']

Clawson reiterates:

Using a vigorous combination of sanctions, diplomacy, soft power, and harder measures offers good prospects that Iran can be deflected from its current nuclear path.

But Clawson is not necessarily optimistic. At Yahoo's The Envoy, Laura Rozen writes that Clawson told her

… he didn't think prospects for a deal look promising. "I think it's heading towards confrontation," Clawson said. "The whole point from the beginning is if we put pressure on the regime, the Iranians will crack at some point. [Right now the] Iranians are screaming and yelling and upset and threatening," … So why isn't that a sign that the U.S. strategy is failing?

"It's a lot better to have a fight" that Iran provokes, Clawson replied, before adding: "Better to enter World War II after Pearl Harbor, and World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania."

Note that's not his own viewpoint but, as was pointed out to me, what Clawson imagines is that of the Obama administrations. Meanwhile, one can only hope that his paper is read widely by conservatives and that they take it under advisement.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been in the headlines recently, courtesy of a late Tiger Woods-esque charge in the Iowa caucuses which saw his campaign team declaring “victory”. In point of fact, he placed a narrow second to Mitt Romney, but hey, when you lose by just eight votes, that’s a victory, right? Even here in the UK, Santorum has gone from being a virtual unknown to “the name on everyone’s lips.”

Santorum’s views on the issues are not yet well known on my side of the Atlantic, but I suspect if people did know, their jaws might hit the ground. I’ll just stick to his comments on foreign policy, which can be summed up as follows: scary, ignorant and, occasionally, just plain weird.

Let’s start with the scary part. Santorum is a super-hawk when it comes to Iran, and has accused President Obama of appeasing the regime in Tehran. His solution to the quandary of what to do about Iran’s controversial nuclear program is very simple: bomb them! As he stated on NBC’s Meet the Press on January 1^st, if he were president he “would be saying to the Iranians you either open up those [nuclear] facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities through airstrikes and make it very public that we were doing that.”

Santorum is a fervent supporter of Israel, which goes a long way to explaining his rampant hostility towards Iran. One Israeli he might want to listen to is Meir Dagan, the former chief of Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, who in May last year described the idea of launching airstrikes on Iran as “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.” He observed that not only would airstrikes be illegal, but the pilots might fail to destroy all the facilities and, furthermore, the sequel would be a regional war. Altogether, this is a very disturbing and credible assessment of the dangers inherent in such an operation.

The former senator has also shown an ignorance of the facts when it comes to foreign affairs. In the aforementioned interview with Meet the Press Santorum declared that he would use covert means to put an end to Iran’s nuclear dabbling, prompting the interviewer, David Gregory, to correctly point out that such operations were “already being done.” While acknowledging that the Israelis were involved in covert action against Iran, Santorum declared that “there’s no evidence the United States is at all complicit in working at that.”

In light of these comments, we must assume that Santorum was so focused on his campaign in December that he didn’t hear about the American Sentinel spy drone, operated by the CIA, that went down over Iran. And he was presumably daydreaming during a debate he attended in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15^th when fellow presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Rick Perry lambasted President Obama for showing “weakness” and saying “pretty please” to Iran once the drone had been lost.

Likewise, Santorum must be unaware of the 2010 Stuxnet cyber attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which is widely assumed to have been carried out by the US and Israel.

Historical accuracy has also eluded Santorum on occasion. For instance, speaking to the media before a campaign event with the Republican Jewish Coalition in Sioux City in June, he criticized President Obama for putting Israel “in a vulnerable position.” How exactly? Because “he supports Israel going back to the borders [of June 4^th, 1967]...prior to when they were attacked and were able to take some ground as a result of being attacked.”

Santorum is by no means the sole public figure to have provided such a version of the events of June 1967. The reality, however, is different: it was Israel that launched a pre-emptive air strike on Egypt to begin the Six Day War.

That Santorum has his facts wrong about who attacked whom in 1967 is not in the least surprising, given his ardent backing of Israel. Indeed, he even goes so far as to deny that the West Bank is occupied, and has stated that “all the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians.” Indeed, according to Santorum, “there is no Palestinian.”

Finally, consider this truly bizarre remark. In Palm Beach, Florida in November the former senator was asked whether he would support a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program. Answering in the affirmative, Santorum came up with one of the most unlikely comparisons you’ll ever hear. “Imagine,” he said, “if Honduras has been making noise about, you know, trying to destroy the United States, and that they were developing a nuclear weapon, and we had a report saying that they were within a few months of having a nuclear weapon.... Would we sit there and allow them to do that?”

So this is how we decide if Israel has the right to bomb Iran, by considering what would happen if a small Central American nation declared it wished to destroy the USA? OK....

To conclude, it’s too early to say with confidence who will win the Republican nomination. I doubt that Santorum can pull it off, but if he does, you’ll find me in the US volunteering for the Obama campaign.

Michael Walker has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. 

Wouldn't it be nice if the heads of our own national security agencies spoke truth to power like this? Tamir Pardo, head of Mossad, had this to say to a roomful of Israeli ambassadors last week:

"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely." 

Not only is Pardo going on the record to say that this language, favored by the very Prime Minister who appointed him to head Mossad, is overblown, but he did it in front of a roomful of Avigdor Lieberman's people. This takes guts: Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently found himself in trouble for going off message on Iran when he suggested that Israel is not the sole motive force behind Iran's nuclear talk. 

Unfortunately in the U.S., the national security agencies have been relatively quiet over Iran since the IAEA's latest, and misinterpreted, report on Iran came out (for a debunking of such misinterpretations, see here). The 2011 NIE, which has not yet been made available to the public, reportedly concludes that "the [U.S.] intelligence community has not determined that Iran has made the strategic decision to build a nuclear weapon, it is working on the components of such a device." 

But as Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray remind us, Leon Panetta is no Mike Mullen when it comes to standing down American chickenhawks, or Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister.

The danger today, I believe, is less that Israel will act unilaterally, but that the U.S. will launch a preemptive war on Iran because Obama will be convinced he has no other choice because of the mounting pressure from both conservative and liberal hawks (not to mention neocons) over his Israel and Iran policies in an election year. 

Hopefully, voices such as these will increasingly be heard over those clamoring for regime change and airstrikes within and without the administration. So far, though, Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv are all off to a bad start in 2012. 

Paul Mutter is a Fellow at Truthout and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

At the Daily Beast, Newsweek's Eli Lake, previously of the Washington Times, writes about

… new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers—called “red lines” in diplomatic parlance—would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

What exactly constitutes a red line (as, presumably, in "don't cross" or as on a tachometer, as in "Slow down, Iran. You're going too fast.")? Lake cites a Foreign Affairs article by Matthew Kroenig, who recently served in the Defense Secretary's office.

He argued that the U.S should attack Iran’s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.

But Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon doesn't seem to believe that the United States has the will to attack Iran. Lake quotes a recent speech of his.

“There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West, saying, ‘this is not a real option,’ saying, ‘the price of military action is too high.’”

Perhaps that's a reason that Israel may act unilaterally. Lake again.

Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.

Thus is the United States left guessing.

Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. 

At Counterpunch, Dave Lindorff sums up the absurdity:

What other country can you name which is almost totally dependent upon the US for its military, yet can nonetheless make threats to use its US-supplied weapons to start a potential global war (by invading Iran), with Washington left pleading with it not to take such an action? 

The United States needs to make it clear that it would not come to Israel's rescue if the latter mounted an attack and found itself unable to cope with the thousands of missiles raining down on it from Hezbollah. Perhaps that would induce Israel to ease off the gas pedal and bring the RPMs of war back down below the red line. It's disturbing to see the United States acting like a classic enabler by refusing to put its foot down on Israel's bad behavior and resigning itself to cleaning up the mess Israel makes afterward.