Who decides whether we go to war with Iran

Excellent post by emptywheel at the Next Hurrah about the power struggle that will probably culminate in a US attack on Iran--unless the forces of sanity get their act together.

At this point, it's clear that the president and the vice president want regime change in Iran, not just an attack on Iran's nuclear program. Of course, Bush can't do the standard saber rattling because it's obvious that American forces aren't in any position to invade Iran. The troops aren't available.

Empytwheel makes a good case that the US is pursuing a deliberate strategy of provocation in order to set the stage for an invasion. The goal seems to be to goad Iran into a conflict, which--what do you know--can only be solved by marching to Tehran and unseating the Iranian government. I think Cheney hopes that if we trigger WWIII accidentally/on purpose, Americans will find some new enthusiasm for the clash of civilizations.

Comments

[Dirty Dingus]

Just a swift question. Why would you NOT want a change of regime in Iran?

I'm pushed to find anything positive about the current iranian regime (and no anti-americanism or anti-bushism is not ipso facto a positive). Now there is I agree a second point about whether the US or anyone else should make regime change a specific goal but given the repressive Iranian regime I don't have any problem saying I'd like to see the entire mullacracy overthrown with extreme prejudice

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Surely you see the difference between hating the Iranian government and advocating that the United States overthrow the government of Iran.

There are a lot of things that I wish were different, but I don't see the American military as the appropriate means to change them.

[Sanpete]

Empytwheel makes a good case that the US is pursuing a deliberate strategy of provocation in order to set the stage for an invasion.

Well, emptywheel more spells out the possibility than makes a case for it. There really isn't much evidence for such a plan. It's worth remembering that there was more than plenty of noise from both the administration and its supporters before both Afghanistan and Iraq. Long before the invasions happened, there was no question what was being planned. It's pretty hard to have it any other way. Right now relatively few neocons are trying to prepare the ground for any kind of military action against Iran, let alone invasion. Even bombing a nuclear installation, which some neocons may see as needed eventually, isn't likely anytime soon.

Of course, I could be wrong. Before the Iraq invasion became inevitable I was telling my friends that even Bush wasn't really stupid enough to do that ....

[bob mcmanus]

"Even bombing a nuclear installation, which some neocons may see as needed eventually, isn't likely anytime soon."

Iran is a different kind of target than Iraq or Afghanistan, one with some ability to make any attack much more difficult should an attack look imminent. The political consequence of oil hitting 100-200 dollars before the attack would be different than the consequences after we are committed. So Bushco has much reason not to telegraph this punch.

The economy, due to the end of the housing bubble, is likely to crash in 2007, actually go negative GDP, which hasn't been seen in America for a generation. There will be very strong advantages to covering that or distracting with an attack on Iran, especially if it results in immediate American casualties, domestic or in Iraq. After and while Iran has killed and is killing Americans, it will be tricky to say "All Bush's fault." Good luck.

[Sanpete]

I have paranoid tendencies, but they don't extend as far as those of many do. I really don't put much stock in the "wag the dog" kinds of scenarios, not when American lives are in the balance. I'm not inclined to see Bush and Cheney as evil, just misguided. What you describe would be evil. Fortunately, I also don't see the coming crash that's the premise of your scenario.

I agree that there could be reasons to keep an attack secret until it happens, though I'm not sure oil prices soaring after instead of before would be a major factor. It still seems unlikely without even an abstract case being made by administration allies, and without some leaks. Not to mention the fact that even a bombing strike, to be effective, would require killing many Iranians, and would thus commit the US to a long war against our troops in Iraq that we can't afford to get into as long as we're there. We're barely managing (if you can call it that) now. I'll admit that part requires giving Bush and his advisors credit for some ability to guage reality, which isn't the strongest ground.

[Damien]

> I'm pushed to find anything positive about the current iranian regime

Here's one: it could be better than what would replace it after a forced "regime change", just as Saddam Hussein was arguably better for Iraq than what's going on now. It's not enough to say "I don't like it, let's change it"; you have to consider what happens next.

And I can give some specifics: despite the various clothing and morality restrictions, it's better to be a woman in Iran than in places such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan (before or after we hit the Taliban); they can vote, be in Parliament, hold professional jobs, etc. Not as good as women under Saddam Hussein, but easily with room to be worse.

Also, the current constitution is this bizarre hybrid, where they have somewhat fairly contested elections for a democratic government with no real power because the clerics make the real decision. So Iranians get democratic practice, under a repressive lid; if they popped the lid off on their own it'd be instant democracy. This *might* mean they could be "rebuilt" after a war in a manner more like Japan and Germany (with social cohesion and democratic experience) than Iraq, but is it worth the risk?

And then of course there's the interesting choices we make, of isolating Cuba and Iran while "engaging" with China...

[Damien]

I sympathize with resisting the temptation to demonize one's opponents as evil. OTOH, I have to wonder: given the existence of sociopaths/psychopaths, people who are completely amoral selfish bastards but capable of being somewhat rational about it, and who allegedly are 1% of the population (as are the delusional paranoids), what would it take to convince one that some elected politician was in fact a sociopath?

[Sanpete]

what would it take to convince one that some elected politician was in fact a sociopath?

Just evidence to that effect (reports of wanton pet abuse, for example). I don't doubt that some politicians have been that way, though in democracies they probably are more liable to discovery before they reach high office, not least by their associates. What I've seen of Bush and Cheney doesn't suggest that to me. Now, Karl Rove .... no--just kidding.

I keep in mind that some of my own family and friends support Bush to the hilt, and have the same views to a great extent. And hardly any of them are sociopaths!

[Dabodius]

During the Reagan years -- which, I remind you, we survived (although Heaven knows we didn't have to) -- I regularly heard that the U.S. was about to invade Nicaragua. I thought it would have been a stupid thing for Reagan & Co. to do, and they seem to have thought so too: why take on a permanently hostile population directly when the U.S.-sponsored Contra terrorism was so much cheaper? Then I blamed the frequency of the rumors of invasion on the paranoia of my earnest CISPES friends and the left generally, and of course the warranted paranoia of the Sandinistas (it's not paranoia when the Contras are trying to kill you.) I have since come to wonder whether Reagan & Co themselves ignited and fanned the rumors as a Psy Op against the Sandinistas.

Now, I don't think Bush & Co. intend a large-scale War in Iran. They may fan the rumor of one both to placate and titillate the WWF mentalities of their barbarian base, who crave human sacrifices, blood and the savor of burning flesh as salve for their weenie problems; in this entertainment age, to titillate thse appetites and anxieties is to placate them, and the placated respond by buying more of the product: here, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration. Wartalk rouses the rubes and gets them cheering that sad little clown they think is their champion.

But the bigger payoff, I think, is being sought elsewhere. It's Bad Cop to the European and Russian Good Cop. There will surely be a limited campaign against the inchoate Iranian nuclear weaponry, but only if diplomacy fails. There will be no invasion (except perhaps some special forces operations) -- it isn't feasible. The U.S. may seek regime change through exploiting the sanctions that are sure to come by next year if Teheran persists, and perhaps from a massive propaganda effort at the Iranian people. Meanwhile it's scary bluster while diplomacy convinces the Iranians that one way or another they will have to give up on acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Count Zero]

"Just a swift question. Why would you NOT want a change of regime in Iran?"

I would like to say, sure, but you can't change the regime if a majority of that country support it. They would just get overthrown in a short period of time and that would be the end of it. I would love to see a regime change here in the U.S. as well, but we can't just march down with help from some foreign government to accomplish that could we? First, it would be wrong, since we would be forcefully disfranchising others right to elect leaders, and in the end wouldn't have full support of the country, or even those that might support your beliefs otherwise. In the end, all that can be done successfully is negotiations, manuevering the government into a position where it's more favorable for them to listen to you, than to not. It's that thing known as diplomacy.

"I'm pushed to find anything positive about the current iranian regime (and no anti-americanism or anti-bushism is not ipso facto a positive). Now there is I agree a second point about whether the US or anyone else should make regime change a specific goal but given the repressive Iranian regime I don't have any problem saying I'd like to see the entire mullacracy overthrown with extreme prejudice"

The facts are it would be unfeasible for us to militarily help overthrow and maintain a puppet leadership in Iran as well as Iraq. Our current military is already worn out, so it would mean drafting more soldiers. Most of America would probably not support it - which would create even more of a backlash against warmongering. Monetarily, we would have to increase taxes and expect inflation to go up to support the war - China would probably relent in buying our bonds to help such an ill thought out pursuit, so no new money would be coming in from that channel. Also, we would be alienating countries who we are barely able to maintain relations with as it is, namely Russia and China. In order for us to get help from the United Nations, we would have to have their support, none of which will be given if a majority of the members think it's a bad idea to invade Iran. Not only that, the additional difficulty in getting public approval to attack Iran would be quite difficult without it. Right now in the game of world poker, the U.S. has only a face card in hand, but really needs something stronger to win the pot. We aren't very good at bluffing due to the current leaderships obviousness in what they are pursuing, so that gives the advantage to the other major players at the table. If we keep going with this "all in" strategy, we're going to be walking away from the table early. Iran wants nuclear energy badly, as badly as North Korea, because they see it as a means of power and control. There are other ways of legitimizing this need, such as nuclear energy, which can also obvuscate the issue. I do believe they will end up obtaining it, despite being under the microscope.
They are buying time, desperately, in hopes to further their research just a little more, and there is no guarentee that an invasion would change this. I'm sure they are more than prepared to move any research they currently have to another country friendly to their cause in the event they were invaded - which could be an even greater problem, since then you have to worry about whose hands the research passes across.

In the end, there is no clear answer as to the solution of the Iran problem, but it doesn't lie in regime change. The cost would be far to great, and the dangers afterwards far greater.
There is going to have to be a realization at some point that there may be only one way of dealing with the situation, and that's of acceptance that Iran might accomplish nuclear power dispite everyones best efforts. The real question then becomes where do you go from there, and how does that effect the Middle East and our position on a world scale. So planning from that point might be a better move, than going for a short term, unadvantageous victory.

[Damien]

Note that AIUI it's our past support for an Iranian regime, the Shah, which is a large factor in Iranian anti-Americanism, such that even reformers who opposed the theocracy wouldn't want our intervention.

But I have cynically thought that invading Iran could be seen as a way of solving two problems: changing Iran and getting out of Iraq. I mean, nearly our entire army is in Iraq now, right? Exit stage east.

[Uncle Kvetch]

what would it take to convince one that some elected politician was in fact a sociopath?

Just evidence to that effect (reports of wanton pet abuse, for example).

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

I know it hardly rises to the level of puppy-kicking, Sanpete, but does this qualify?

[Count Zero]

"But I have cynically thought that invading Iran could be seen as a way of solving two problems: changing Iran and getting out of Iraq. I mean, nearly our entire army is in Iraq now, right? Exit stage east."

I think it's naive to think that is possible to just "change" them, like they are all going to go to some programming camp to be brain washed, thus change their way of thinking. It's not going to happen in the same way it didn't happen in Iraq. You can change the ruler, but you can't change the ideologies. It's actually similar to a chess problem. You attack one piece to remove it, but then open yourself up to a variety of other attacks that will result in a painfull loss, is the initial attack worth it? Whether we fell into a trap or trapped ourselves, we are in a process of damage control that won't be ending anytime soon. The best that they could hope for would be to pull the troops out to some nearby "friendly" country without having to completly exit the theatre. Turkey for example or possibly Afghanistan, though it isn't much friendlier to us than Iraq right now. However, I don't think they really have a good exit strategy right now for leaving the theatre, and maintaining a force in the area. Israel maybe? Boy wouldn't the Islamists love to see that - would be playing right into their hands. So maybe that's out. So what's left? About all I can think of that would be logical is either Germany or England or both.

[Sanpete]

I know it hardly rises to the level of puppy-kicking, Sanpete, but does this qualify?

Well, you decide, Kvetch. Bush's behavior is inexcusable and shows, I think, a lack of maturity that can be seen more or less across the board with him. I don't think it matches Dahmer-style animal abuse, but you may see it differently. Is Bush a sociopath, Dr. Kvetch?

I've seen many people show similar insensitivity, including liberals speaking about certain right-wing politicians, living and dead. I know people, on the Right and Left, who show flashes of shocking disregard for human life and feeling, but who are normally more compassionate. I've started reading blogs and see the vilest contempt for the humanity of opponents rewarded with hurrahs, on all sides. Maybe they're all sociopaths. What do you think?

[Uncle Kvetch]

I've seen many people show similar insensitivity, including liberals speaking about certain right-wing politicians

Would these "liberals" you speak of happen to be people in positions of power comparable to that of the President of the United States, Sanpete? Or maybe they're agenda-setting pundits who show up on cable TV on a regular basis, like, say, Ann Coulter? Or are they just some schmuck commenting on a blog? If it's the latter, the comparison is really kind of specious, isn't it?

[Sanpete]

If it's the latter, the comparison is really kind of specious, isn't it?

Only if there are different diagnostic criteria for sociopathy depending on position of power.

[Count Zero]

At what point does apathy become sociopathy? Does sociopathy require absolute apathy? If so, is there really a difference, other than the position?

If you're a child who beats puppies, or a megalomanic who commits genocide, there is still a lack of regret in ones action, one is just on a more massive scale, though both lack the conscience to stop such an action. I do think that demonizing your opposition can quickly speed up such a process to absolute apathy, though to some it's just innate.

[Paul-Andre Panon]

A story about George Bush attributed to Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine". I don't know if it screams "this guy is a psychopath", but it sure screams Keep this guy away from power.

Compassionate conservative. Yeah, right.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14011992/#060724

The guy is a graduate student at one of America's most prestigious business schools.

The guy is the leader of his class basketball team.

The game was tight. The other team's captain, Gary Engle...went up for a shot. The guy slugged him — an elbow to the mouth, knocking him to the parquet. "What the hell are you doing?" Engle remembers saying. "What, you want to get into a fistfight and both of us end up in the fu**ing emergency room?" The guy just smiled.

Moments later, at the other end of the court, Engle went up high for a rebound and felt someone chop his legs out from under him. The guy again. Engle jumped up and threw the ball in the guy's face. The two went at it until two teams of future business leaders leapt on their captains, pulling them apart. Engle, angry and vexed by what had happened, began wondering why the hell the guy would have done what he did. He lost his composure, and his team lost its leader.

A few years later, Engle...bumped into his brother, a governor....Engle, a Republican contributor, had thought from time to time about his game against the guy. Nothing like that had happened to him before or since. This was his chance to get a little insight about it. He told the story. The governor kind of laughed, Engle recalled. "In Texas, they call guys like the guy 'hard case.' It wasn't easy being his brother, either. He truly enjoys getting people to knuckle under."

[greensmile]

...Surely you see the difference between hating the Iranian government and advocating that the United States overthrow the government of Iran....

Dingus, Lindsay: I think Count Zero is on the right track [and its strongly related to why Iraq has turned out to be such a f**ked up fiasco]...what may be contemplated and sold as government or regime change will, when reality is visited upon our daydreams of empire, turn out to be culture change as well. And it ain't going to work as advertised, not at all. Iran has as badly split a personality as does the US. Huge youth population, decent literacy rate for a developing nation, democratic impulses which have been snuffed out several times [as when CIA installed The Shah Reza in ousting Mossadegh] and a pall of fundamentalism placing its lid on the whole bubbling society. Dingus, don't believe everything you read in the papers. I spent a month in Teheran in 72. My wife grew up there. In some parts of town the fashions, the shops and the mad traffic were more like Italy than anything else, but go to the old markets in blue jeans or miniskirt and a crowd would gather and start tossing tomatoes at you. My point is that a very significant portion of that population likes the crap Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouts. That is also why Pat Robertson gets to embarrass us all so often: because he does have a following.

The regime change we need more and could accomplish sooner is in the US. That change is within reach because our fundies, while well connected with the current president, are neither a majority nor fiercely focused on the fear/security pitch bush has milked so effectively in getting us in over our heads in Iraq.

When we get rid of our insane administration, we will be in a better position to start the diplomatic programs that exploit Iran's own internal fault lines. That will be a long process but vastly less costly in lives, dollars and the world's opinion of us than any quickie regime change could ever be. Killing a give set of leaders and a given number of troops is easy for the US, something much more solid than our wishful thinking is then required to fill the resulting vacuum.

[Trystero]

Just a swift question. Why would you NOT want a change of regime in Iran?

Well, this is an idiotic bit of rhetoric. I want a million dollars. Who doesn't want a million dollars? And while I'm at it, I want to have sex with movie stars. Who doesn't? And everyone gets a pony!

But the bigger payoff, I think, is being sought elsewhere. It's Bad Cop to the European and Russian Good Cop.

Don't be so sure about Russia. I suspect they are playing a very subtle game to diminish US power. They appear to have given Iran the capability to sink the US fleet in the Gulf.

[Count Zero]

I read that article Trystero, very scary.