New CFR Iran Hysteria is a Distraction- Walt (Blair Illegal Iraq War Inquiry)
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: New CFR Iran Hysteria is a Distraction- Walt (Blair Illegal
Iraq War Inquiry)
Date: Jan 27, 2010 8:08 AM
BELOW
=======================
This CFR Hysteria is meant to be a
distraction from the illegal Iraq
War inquiry going on in Britain:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-7
http://www.ArrestBlair.org
Oh, and be sure to recommend me for
Queen uh duh HomeLames:
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.htm
KMDickson (You can refer to me as
"Dear Fearless Science Leader, Safe
Keeper of the *SUPER* Races and Queen
of Mother Earth")
==========================
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/25/nothing_more_dangerous_than_a_recovering_realist
Back in 2002, the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored a book by
Kenneth Pollack (subsequently director of research at the Saban Center
for Middle East Studies at Brookings), entitled The Threatening Storm:
The Case for Invading Iraq. The book argued that Saddam Hussein was
irrational and undeterrable and that the United States had no choice
but to remove him from power. Part of the book’s effectiveness derived
from Pollack’s portrayal of himself as a belated convert to preventive
war: he had opposed using force in the past, he said, but was now
convinced—oh so reluctantly—that no other course was prudent. The
book provided intellectual cover for all those liberal hawks who were
looking for some way to justify supporting the war, and thus played an
important role in a great national disaster.
Last week, CFR president Richard Haass appeared to be channeling his
inner Pollack in a Newsweek column calling for regime change in Iran.
Describing himself as a “card-carrying realist,” he sounded Pollackian
notes of reluctance and resignation. He says that he normally thinks
that “ousting regimes and replacing them with something better is
easier said than done,” and adds that he previously backed the Obama
administration’s decision to try diplomacy first.
But now, he says, he’s “changed his mind.” He’s convinced that Iran
is trying to acquire the capacity to build a nuclear weapon (a
carefully worded phrase, by the way, as having the capacity to build a
nuke is not the same as actually building one and Iran may merely be
seeking a latent capacity akin to Japan rather than an actual nuclear
arsenal). He also thinks -- from his lofty perch in New York City --
that Iran “may be closer to profound political change than at any
other time since the revolution that ousted the Shah thirty years
ago.” Although he doesn’t call for a U.S. invasion (which we don’t
have the forces for anyway), he wants the U.S. and its allies to be
more vocal about Iranian human rights violations and advocates
slapping targeted sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Meanwhile,
neither senior U.S. officials nor congressmen should have any dealings
with the Iranian regime, and we ought to push hard for sanctions on
refined petroleum products at the U.N. (where they won’t be approved).
Somewhat inconsistently, he thinks “working-level negotiations on the
nuclear question should continue,” even though he must know that
there’s hardly any chance that they will succeed while we are doing
all the other things he advocates.
While there is no question that Haass’ piece will help fuel America’s
sense of self-righteousness -- look, we’re defending freedom! -- the
course of action he lays out is foolish. No one in the United States
can be confident that Iran is close to “profound political change”; we
simply don’t have enough information to know what is happening in
Tehran, and authoritarian regimes often hold on to power for decades
despite widespread domestic discontent.
Moreover, as I’ve noted before, key members of the current opposition
are strongly supportive of Iran’s nuclear program, which means that
there is little reason to think that Iran will abandon its nuclear
program even if there is some sort of regime change. So if that's
what's really bugging him -- and it appears to be -- then his
prescribed course of action will just reinforce Iran's desire for a
deterrent of its own. Acting as Haass prescribes could also weaken the
opposition rather than strengthen it, by allowing the regime to
discredit their adversaries as foreign puppets. He says the clerics
and Revolutionary Guards are doing that already, but why give them
more ammunition for the fight?
There are at least three other reasons why Haass’ new position is
misguided.
First, after acknowledging that “ousting regimes and replacing them
with something better is easier said than done,” he assumes that
anything would be preferable to what we have now. Maybe so, but our
track record in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, and
elsewhere suggests that U.S. meddling often makes things worse. Like
the liberal interventionists he has sometimes sparred with in the
past, Haass simply cannot imagine leaving well enough alone, and
letting Iran’s own people determine their own political future. A
hands-off approach is not an endorsement of the clerics or the brutal
behavior of the Revolutionary Guards; it is merely recognition that
further meddling on our part might be counterproductive.
Second, as Richard Silverstein points out on his blog, Haass’ approach
lacks patience. Repairing the troubled U.S.-Iran relationship cannot
be accomplished in a month or even a year, and the kind of posturing
and pressure that Haass is calling for is more likely to retard
progress than advance it. Ordinary Iranians are already convinced that
the United States has long interfered in their affairs for various
nefarious purposes -- and with some reason -- and putting on the full-
court press isn’t going to reduce those concerns. Indeed, it will
surely exacerbate them.
Third, a policy of “regime change-lite” puts us one step closer to
actual war. Haass is saying in effect that Iran’s government has no
legitimacy or standing and that we ought to help bring it down.
Attacking Iran is not a practical goal right now, but getting rid of
the regime ought to be. So what happens when sanctions and speeches
and ostracism don’t work, and Iran continues to develop its enrichment
program? Wait another year or two, and Haass will find himself
sounding even more like Kenneth Pollack, telling us that he has ever
so reluctantly concluded that we have no choice but to bomb.
One would hope to see better analysis from the Council on Foreign
Relations, especially in light of the fiasco in Iraq. And if it is a
harbinger of things to come, look out.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci