Clark and Simon against attacking Iran
Richard Clarke and Steven Simon have a very significant op-ed in today's NYT that argues forcefully against the idea of the US bombing Iran in attempt to halt the Iranian nuclear program.
The piece is significant mainly because of these two men's credentials. Clark is the fairly famous guy who was national coordinator for security and counterterrorism in both the Clinton and the early GWB administrations, and Simon was senior director for counterterrorism in the Clinton-era National Security Council.
They build on the experiences they both went through dealing with the Iran issue in the mid-1990s, noting that on that occasion: "In essence, both sides looked down the road of conflict and chose to avoid further hostilities."
And they conclude this about the present situation:
Now, as in the mid-90's, any United
States bombing campaign would
simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process. Iran could respond three
ways. First, it could attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers —
as it did in the mid-1980's — which could cause oil prices to spike
above $80 dollars a barrel. [Or,
much more ~HC]
Second and more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field. The Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has a global reach, and has served in the past as an instrument of Iran. We might hope that Hezbollah, now a political party, would decide that it has too much to lose by joining a war against the United States. But this would be a dangerous bet.
Third, Iran is in a position to make our situation in Iraq far more difficult than it already is. The Badr Brigade and other Shiite militias in Iraq could launch a more deadly campaign against British and American troops. There is every reason to believe that Iran has such a retaliatory shock wave planned and ready.
No matter how Iran responded, the question that would face American planners would be, "What's our next move?" How do we achieve so-called escalation dominance, the condition in which the other side fears responding because they know that the next round of American attacks would be too lethal for the regime to survive?
Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control.
Good judgment there, guys. You don't have to "love" the mullahs who rule in Teheran to reach this conclusion... You just need to have some basic grasp of the realities of regional and global power dynamics.Of course, what they didn't do in their article, which I wish they had done, was point out that even if using a bombing campaign or other major military escalation against Iran is a really, really bad option-- still, there are other options which might help people deal with concerns they (we) still have about the Iranian nuclear program.... As I have noted here on a number of occasions, there are a number of urgent diplmatic paths that need to be followed. One is working intensively through and with the IAEA. Another is opening diplomatic talks with Teheran with an open-ended agenda to include the nuclear question along with others...
Do I think these are the kinds of "diplomatic" options that the Bushies are now pursuing? No, sadly, I don't.
Well, the problem is, both NYT authors are basically Clintonites. We know how neocons treat them :-(
Helena:
Is Hezbollah really a terrorist group? I've read that there is no hard evidence of them actually being involved in terrorism. Seriously. I read that they weren't formed until 1985, so they could not have been involved in the bombings of the Marine barracks and American Embassy. The former CIA officer Robert Baer gave an interview in which he flatly said, "I don't agree that Hezbollah itself is a terrorist organization." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html]
Also, there was a 1993 interview with an Israeli General--quoted in Chomsky's World Orders--in which he also said, "Hezbollah is not a terror organization. It is a legitimate resistance group." This was at the time of Israel's Grapes of Wrath campaign. There was some other interesting stuff in Chomsky's book. For instance, a study that showed a pattern of Israeli bombing and then Hezbollah retaliation, contrary to the newspaper accounts of unprovoked Hezbollah attacks.
I'm not defending Hezbollah's extremist rhetoric, but the idea that they're "the A-Team of terrorists" seems to be based on propaganda by people who don't like the fact that Hezbollah actually fought back against Israel and won. What do you think?
Sean,
I am acquainted with several Israelis who served in Lebanon, and who take great exception to any suggestion that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. They, too, consider it a legitimate resistance group. They, too, have pointed out that Hezbollah targetted the Israeli military inside Lebanon, and only launched rocket attacks on Israeli targets in retaliation against Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.
Correction"
"and only launched rocket attacks on Israeli targets"
And only launched rocket attacks on targets inside Israel
"...that argues forcefully against the idea of the US bombing Iran in attempt to halt the Iranian nuclear program."
Helena, according to Hersh's article the real objective is not to halt Iran's nuclear program but rather regime change by humiliating Iran's government. Somehow I think the neocons will find a rational for the most violent action.
SImon and Clarke write
"Second and more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world..."
I have read that the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight was actually arranged by Iran as payback for the U.S. downing of its airbus. I also read an article arguing that Iran was responsible for the crash of a U.S. military plane in Canada. This was supposed to be revenge for some sort of U.S. treachery during the Iran-Contra affair but I have forgotten the details.
Sean, I've written quite q bit qbout Hizbullah. You can find a big piece from Feb 05 linked to on the sidebar of the main page of JWN-- or scroll further on down there and click on the 'Lebanon' category