The Blue State

Clinton is reckless when it comes to Iran

This quote from Hillary Clinton earlier this week was overlooked:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attackIran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's"Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during whichthey might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we wouldbe able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's aterrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understandthat because that perhaps will deter them from doing something thatwould be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Reckless, irresponsible, naive, undiplomatic and absolutely reactionary.  Might as well call her Hillary Cheney.  She is unfit to ever be commander-in-chief.

Editorial: Something much more serious than Iran

This weekend, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency and suspended constitutional law.  In a nutshell, that means martial law has been enacted.  The military cut off phone lines, shut down independent media and isolated parts of the capital of Islamabad.  Pakistan's judiciary were escorted out after the Chief Justice was fired, and the recently deposed Prime Minister spoke from exile in Saudi Arabia.

As it all boils down, Pakistan represents a much greater problem than Iran, and it is disappointing that the Bush Administration took their eyes completely off the ball in the east.  While we were busy attacking Iraq, al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouped along the border region with Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Now, terrorism is so out of control there that Pakistan's president is taking matters into is own hands, as the military regime is on the verge of falling.

Why is this significant?  Pakistan has nuclear weapons -- Iran does not.  If Musharraf's regime collapses, nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of right-wing religious fundamentalists that are staunchly anti-US.

On NBC Nightly News last night, Lester Holt outlined how serious this matter is:

Correctly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this sudden suspension of constitutional law on the part of Bush's ally Pervez Musharraf.  However, unilateral rhetoric is not enough.  The United Nations Security Council would be wise to convene immediately.  The US has over-extended itself, and does not have the diplomatic experience at the helm of any foreign policy-related department to solve this problem on its own.  The international community needs to get involved immediately -- that means the hawkish war rhetoric on Iran needs to be put on the back-burner until this matter is defused.

Hagel's letter to Bush

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will not run for reelection in 2008.  Before his term expires, he plans to do everything to prevent a war with Iran.  In a private letter (.pdf) to President Bush, secretly obtained by the Washington Note blog, Hagel begs the President to engage in direct, unconditional talks with Iran to prevent the neocons' biggest fantasy from coming true:

The President

The White House

Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with thepermanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and otherkey states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director Generalof the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomaticstrategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported yourefforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remainsone of our most effective levers on Iran.

In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq,Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regardingthe situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iranhas continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue isimportant.

I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategyis stalling. There are growing differences with our internationalpartners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives isregime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects forfurther action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appearincreasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financialpressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions,both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leadersappear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the UnitedStates.

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselvesin a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months.I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking willproduce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability tosustain a united international front will weaken as countries growuncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontationwith Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when andhow to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran.The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies onfinancial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctionsresolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countrieswho share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA DirectorGeneral ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide anopportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across theboard to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confidentto stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including toughersanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iranrelations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility ofbetter relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogueprocess with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts,as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks untilall other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it couldwell be too late.

I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

Thank you for considering my views.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H.

Chuck Hagel
United States Senator

cc:   Condoleezza Rice

Robert M. Gates

Stephen J. Hadley

At least he is ending his career with this aggressive attitude.  Remember, the Republicans used to be the party of isolation.  Ron Paul is trying to fill that vacuum.  Speaking of whom, Ron Paul appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno earlier this week.

Bill would require Congressional approval for war with Iran

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced legislation this week that requires President Bush to seek Congressional authorization before going to war with Iran:

Standing behind him are liberal anti-war groups, which have expandedtheir focus on Iraq to include a drumbeat of protests against apotential war with neighboring Iran.

"Every day now, it seems that theconfrontational rhetoric between the United States and Iran escalates,"said Sen. Robert Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"President Bush needs to understand that theCongress will not be kept out of the loop while his administrationplots another march to war," said Byrd, D-W.Va.

The question is when Bush and Cheney disobey that order and go to war will Congress actually stand their ground for the first time since winning back majority in both houses last November?

Bush moves towards war rhetoric with Iran

From the liberal point of view, if only time could speed up a bit and this presidency could reach its conclusion.  Though, the reality is that we still have more than one year left -- plenty of time for the Bush Administration to launch a unilateral war with Iran.

Due to the fires in California, the media overlooked what years from now might be considered Bush's most significant speech on Iran.  The President claimed on Tuesday that Iran's missiles could hit the United States by the year 2015, hinting at preventive military force to remove the Iranian capability:

Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreignassistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missilecapable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015.  If itchooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps toprevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability.  And we need totake it seriously -- now.

This is pre-Iraq war spin all over again. 

Hillary confronted about Iran vote

During a campaign stop over the weekend in Iowa, Hillary Clinton was asked by an audience member about a recent vote on Iran that critics say may have secretly authorized war.  After Clinton dodged the question, the man kept challenging her on it, and Hillary got rather edgy:

Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this smalltown in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on himfor a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a questionabout Iran.

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for aresolution urging the Bush administration to label the IranianRevolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpretedthat measure as giving Bush authority to use military action againstthe Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you thatthe premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain thatto you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she saidstressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions againstIran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "whatyou read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

 

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.

This needs to be a much bigger issue.  I would like to see Richardson, Obama and Edwards bring this up more.

Guest Column: Pre-empting the Next War

By Paul Rogat Loeb

With the Senate embracing the reckless Kyl-Lieberman amendment,we've moved one step closer to attacking Iran. But there's still timefor Congress to assert itself against yet another needless war withmassive destructive potential. By defining Iran's Revolutionary GuardsCorps, a core branch of the Iranian military, as a foreign terrorist organization,Kyl-Lieberman put the U.S. Senate on record as vindicating theBush-Cheney line that Iranian proxies are part of a global conspiracy,linking Al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and any otherenemy the administration wants to list. The bill now makes it fareasier for Bush to manufacture some Tonkin Gulf-style excuse, then useit to justify an attack. No wonder Senator Jim Webb called it Cheney's  fondest pipe dream.
      
But this vote also gives opponents of this astonishingly reckless patha chance to push back, and draw a line against a unilateral war. LastMarch, Senator Webb introduced Senate Bill 759,to prohibit military action against Iran without explicit Senateapproval. The Foreign Relations Committee has bottled up Webb's bill sofar, but he's working to move it to the floor. When the Senators votedfor Kyl-Lieberman, most claimed, with echoes of Iraq, that they reallyweren't giving Bush permission to go to war. Webb's bill gives them achance to back up their rationalizations with their votes.

This past July, Colorado Congressman Mark Udall  introduced a companion measure, House  Resolution 3119,with identical language.  I'm suggesting they both go even further, toinclude a pledge to initiate or support impeachment proceedings if Bushinitiated such an attack without explicit Congressional authorization.In the House, such a resolution wouldn't even need Senate ratification(or overcoming a Republican filibuster or Bush veto), since the Housecan initiate impeachment proceedings on its own. While such aline-drawing Senate bill could be vetoed or filibustered, it can stillassert a fundamental constitutional prerogative, with a commitment tofollow through if Bush violated it.   

You might seeLieberman-Kyl as an indication that bipartisan jingoism against Iranhas reached such a fever pitch that none of this could happen. But ifthey hear from their angry grassroots base, the 28 Democratic Senatorswho voted for it just might start looking for a way to cover themselvespolitically, and distance themselves from the Bush-Cheney doctrine ofreckless preemptive wars. Even co-sponsor Jon Kyl claimed"this is not intended to be an authorization of military force againstIran.”  So with enough popular pressure, even Senators who justcapitulated might turn and vote for a pre-emptive resolutionreasserting that Bush is not the sole decider.

Not all theDemocrats supported the Kyl-Lieberman, of course. Although thoseshamefully backing it included Hillary Clinton and much of theDemocratic leadership, John Edwards blasted her for her stand, andBarack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson all opposedthe bill (though Obama missed the vote when Reid scheduled it earlierthan he'd previously indicated while Obama was stuck campaigning in NewHampshire). So  didnewly elected Democratic Senators Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown,Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobacher, and Bernie Sanders, and RepublicansChuck Hagel and Richard Lugar. But the majority got stampeded onceagain.   

Convincing them to switch course and reassert theirright to make such a fundamental decision as whether to go to war withIran will require a major popular outcry: petitions--from groups likeMoveOn, TrueMajority, Working Assets, and Democracy for America--thataren't just mailed in, but publicly delivered by the basket.  It meansmarches, rallies and endless phone calls and visits to Congressionaloffices. It probably means people sitting in some of these same offices(and I bet similar efforts around Iraq convinced my own Senator,Washington State's Maria Cantwell, to vote the right way in this case).We can say these kinds of efforts have so far failed to halt the Iraqwar, but they've certainly fed the Congressional resistance, and it'salways easier to stop wars before they start. We're also demanding afar more modest initial goal of Congress and the Senate simplyreaffirming their constitutional right to make fundamentalwar-and-peace decisions in the first place. So it should be an easiersell.

It seems inconceivable that the Bush administrationcould even contemplate a military attack, given the massive globalbacklash it would create. But this administration feeds off a world ofits own illusions, so we'd be wise to heed those, like Seymour  Hersh,   Daniel Ellsberg,  and former CIA analyst Ray  McGovern,who warn that an attack is likely. Working to stop it doesn't meansugarcoating Iranian President Ahmadinejad's more questionableproclamations, though as University of San Francisco Middle East expertStephen Zunes has pointed out, even some of those are (or have been)misstated. Ahmadinejad's oft-quoted threat to "wipe Israel off the map”was in fact a mistranslationof a 20-year-old quote by Ayatollah Khomeini, and Ahmadinejadexplicitly told a group of American religious leaders that it was “notIran’s intention to destroy Israel.”    We can point out that Iran'sfundamental decisions on foreign affairs get made not by Ahmadinejad,but by the far more cautious Council of Guardians. And we can suggestthat those itching to attack try viewing the world through the lens ofthe Iranians, who remember, as we do not, that we've already onceoverthrown an elected government of that country, in the 1953 CIA coupthat deposed elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in favor of thebrutal Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Ahmadinejad might not even havebeen elected to office had Bush not rejected a major 2003 initiative byAhmadinejad's reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, that included accepting peace  with Israel and tighter nuclear inspections, and backing off from supporting Hezbollah.    

Butthe campaign against a new Iranian war doesn't even have to demandagreement on Iran policy at all. It just has to reassert the right ofCongress to be the final arbiter of whether or not we go to war. Forall their cravenness in the face of Bush's demands, I doubt that mostSenators would launch into attacking Iran while we continue to be mireddown in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Pushing for a resolution assertingCongressional rights would provide a concrete focus for those of usworking to stop such a war, while placing CongressionalRepresentatives, Senators, and Presidential candidates explicitly onrecord about whether to grant Bush the power to take this immenselyreckless action. The voters could then respond to those unwilling tosign such a pledge.

Kyl-Lieberman is unquestionably asetback, giving Bush and Cheney still more latitude in proceedingtoward global conflagration. But the now-more-likely war we're tryingto stop is not inevitable. It's still up to us and the pressure we cancreate to stop it before it starts. Demanding Congress go on recordabout who decides would be a critical step.

(Paul Rogat Loeb has been writing guest-columns on and off for this web site since late-2004.  You can visit his web site at PaulLoeb.com)

Editorial: Ahmadinejad benefited from Iraq war

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in the United States next week -- no, not to meet with George W. Bush.  The Iranian ruler will give an address at the United Nations in New York City, and will be greeted by throngs of protesters.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is calling on the United Nations to expel Ahmadinejad from the global body of nations.

Then again, maybe people like Mitt Romney should consider the impact that the Iraq war is continuing to have on Ahmadinejad's ability to hold onto power despite a struggling Iranian economy.  Before the US invaded Iraq, it was assumed that the right-wing religious government in Iran would be overthrown by the young, liberal, pro-democratic movement, which is strongest on college campuses in that country.

But the threat of war with Iran, including the fact that foreign (US) troops are just miles from their border, has increased nationalist sentiment among Iranians, giving Ahmadinejad an excuse to purge the government of all political opposition.  It is less likely, more so than before the war, that Ahmadinejad will be overthrown.  Maybe that is something Mitt Romney needs to think about.

This is anything but a simple war

I have been harping on this point since 2005, and so have other bloggers.  Even if the violence all over Iraq suddenly subsides, we will always deal with a border dispute in the north.  Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran all want independence.  Turkey and Iran have been working together over the years to turn the Kurdish population against one another.  But with the fall of Saddam Hussein, and are implementing an even more aggressive policy against this stateless nation.

Thousands of Turkish troops have amassed on the border region.  Within the last few days Iranian forces began shelling Kurdish towns:

Iranian artillery shelled villages in the Qandil mountains that arehome to various Kurdish militant groups, one of which — the Party for aFree Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK) — is waging a guerilla insurgencyagainst the Iranian government. Though hundreds of villagers fled theirhomes and two women were wounded, such cross-border violence isbecoming a regular feature of life in the north. But yesterday's attackcould also be a prelude to a larger struggle.

Iraqi Kurdish media are reporting that the Iranian military is massingat the main border crossing into northern Iraq, possibly for anincursion against PEJAK. Clashes between PEJAK and the Iranians havebeen increasing steadily, and Iraqi Kurdish officials say that about 40Iranian soldiers were killed on Saturday.

The situation in Iraq is extremely complex.  When the Bush Administration determines that the surge is working just by citing events taking place in Anbar Province, it does a disservice to the nuanced situation that we face.  There are so many factors to this war.  Anbar is only one.  Another is the ongoing violence along the Sunn-Shia mixed neighborhoods in and around Baghdad.  Another factor is the chaos in the suburbs of Diyala, which is just a mess.  Another is the battle between Shiite gangs in Basra over the oil wealth.  Another is Moqdada al-Sadr, who is an even bigger player today in Iraqi politics than he was six months ago.  And then we have the security concerns in the north, as I mentioned.

So this is not by any means a cut and dry war.  It is a multi-layered, super-dimensional war within a war.  Different parts of Iraq have their own issues.  Dick Cheney said it himself in 1994:

That's a veryvolatile part of the world, and if you take down the central governmentof Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off:part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it --eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over itfor eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurdsspin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten theterritorial integrity of Turkey.

Good points all around, Cheney.

Editorial: Why we need Condi more than ever

John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Scott McClellan, Harriet Miers, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Karl Rove, and now Tony Snow.  Surely I left a few out.  These are the major faces that said 'no' to staying on for the remainder of Bush's second term.  As most progressives would agree, these individuals were beyond a doubt corrupt, and helped dismantle a US political system that was supposed to be based on checks and balances.

Then again, who are we left with?  All of those people were influential figures.  Bush listened to them.  Sometimes they helped off-set the influence of Dick Cheney -- which is really the key issue here.  With all of them gone, the only person standing in the way of Dick Cheney is Condoleezza Rice.  As inept as she is at understanding the complicated world we live in, she is at least calling for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear standoff.  This month, several worried Administration officials leaked to the press that Dick Cheney is pressing Bush to strike certain targets in Iran.  I would not be surprised if the leakers came from inside Rice's State Department.

Really though, think cause and effect.  If we strike Iran, other than making it harder for us in Iraq, Ahmadinejad will attack Israel.  If Israel gets attacked, Bush will help them fight back.  Middle Easterners will view it as a holy war, possibly forcing moderate governments like Jordan to pick a side, and then all bets are off.

Getting back to the larger point, this is the one and only downside of all the Bush loyalists leaving the Executive Branch.  Bush is closer to Cheney than ever before.  The only dissenting voice standing in the way is Condoleezza Rice and the US State Department.  The actions we take against Iran will have huge foreign policy implications for the next generation.  And I don't feel any better about things now that more cabinet members are resigning.

In politics, not just foreign affairs, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  It's mentally exhausting to even think this -- but Condi, you go get 'em girl!