Iran: Can Do, Can’t Do
By Kevin | Related entries in IranMy latest post on Iran and the Netroots is up at The Van Der Galien Gazette. Please go check it out, and here is a snip:
In the past, “Liberal Hawks†such as me have been accused of being vapid and disingenuous regarding a possible attack on Iran. This accusation has always puzzled me, since even a cursory glance around the blogosphere makes it pretty clear that the Netroots and other neo-progressives are all over the place regarding Iran. If you were to read some of these bloggers, you would perhaps be left convinced that only Dick Cheney and the dreaded (and often mythical) Neo-Cons were behind this “war narrative.†Not only is this disingenuous, but it borders on deceitful. As Matt Stoller lamented today, Senator Obama in fact takes the Iranian threat quite seriously. He supports a federal and state divestment plan, and has also weighed the possibility of a military strike on the regime. We’ve heard similar rhetoric from the Clinton campaign, and even the populist John Edwards has agreed to keep an open mind about an attack. Indeed, survey data shows more of a mainstream concern over Iran, a concern obviously not shared by the neo-progressives.
This obsession with Dick Cheney & Co. not only gets us nowhere, but it prevents us the opportunity to objectively dissect our policy decisions towards the Republic. For example, there’s the recent post at FP Watch by the astute and thought-provoking Jeb Koogler, addressing the recent terrorist designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) by the State Department. According to Jeb, a mobilization for war could be the only possible outcome from such a maneuver. This is sheer exaggeration, to put it lightly. While such a labeling would likely be used in any justification for an attack, it can also be used to strengthen a case before the United Nations, which could in turn lead to stronger sanctions or a UN approved embargo. Whatever the motive, if the far Left chooses to hyperventilate every time the U.S. makes an effort to curb Iran’s activities, then they in fact risk marginalizing themselves in the conversation.
You can read the rest here.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 2nd, 2007 and is filed under Iran. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
One of the most unfortunate casualties of the war in Iraq is the erosion of support to deal with Iran. Far more dangerous to our national security and the
security of the world is Iran, but the Iraq war has served to sicken the American people on any evasive action even if it is legitimate.
Instead of bolstering America’s resolves, Iraq has made Americans more wary and cautious of any military intervention and for good reason. It has compromised our militaries readiness and capability to handle “real” threats, threats which are genuine and very serious.
But it is not just our militaries readiness that has been comprised it is America’s ability to assemble and bring together the world on our side, never has the United States been more hated abroad than it is today. We’ve managed to fall for the very thing our enemies desired, to appear as though we are the agressor brutes of the world, pushing our culture and demands on a world that is feeling unimportant and insignificant.
America might again return to the world’s darling, but it isn’t going to happen as long as we have these war mongering, greedy corrupt “god fearing” men running our country. It will happen when we realize military solutions should remain a tool instead of a means.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
It boggles the old mind that the same outfit that lied its way into a war with Iraq is now gearing up for a possible was with Iran. An item in the Huffington Report this morning says the Pentagon has chosen 1200 targets in Iran for possible attacks.
To put this in context the United States has diplomatic relations with China which is a far bigger threat to America than Iran will ever be. Let’s try the U.N. and direct diplomacy pronto.
Hope you’ll look me up at http:neilmckenty.wordpress.com
September 4th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Far more dangerous to our national security and the security of the world is Iran…
Was that so before 2002?
it is America’s ability to assemble and bring together the world on our side, never has the United States been more hated abroad than it is today. We’ve managed to fall for the very thing our enemies desired, to appear as though we are the agressor brutes of the world, pushing our culture and demands on a world that is feeling unimportant and insignificant.
Indisputable. It started with “You are either for us or against us…”
Kevin, far more damning than any criticism by the American electorate is the commentary of now retiring British commanders from both the “Shock and Awe” and “Reconstruction” campaigns. Most prominent is General Sir Michael Jackson –
“Retired Gen. Sir Mike Jackson said former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s approach to the invasion was “intellectually bankrupt” and that his claim US forces “don’t do nation-building” was nonsensical, according to quotes excerpted from his autobiography and published by The Daily Telegraph…
“All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste,” Jackson wrote. For Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters “it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition soldiers would be accepted as a liberating army.” “
I seem to recall many others who thought so.