Bomb Iran

Remember the late '70s?

August 14, 2005

Anyone old enough to remember 1979-80? Americans were held hostage in Iran, and Jimmy Carter crashed like a lead balloon. Anti-Iranian sentiment flowed like wine. Someone re-recorded the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" with the lyrical hook, "Bomb Iran". Pee Wee Herman duped reticent police into action in a Cheech in Chong movie by telling them the alleged villains were Iranian. Within minutes, the hotel was surrounded by cops. Jingoistic rage flowed freely, and Ronald Reagan rode it all the way into the White House.

Flash forward 25 years. Cold War crusading neocons metamorphosed into War on Terror neocons, and conned us into invading Iraq. And only since Bush declared "mission accomplished" onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln has Iraq become a cornerstone of the war formerly known as the War on Terror. In the meantime, Iran and North Korea, two countries that really do sponsor terrorists, are both making nukes. Of course, the problem is that the administration that cried wolf won't be able to convince anyone we have proof of Iran's WMDs, much less muster the resources to take any effective action whatsoever. Nevertheless, what good is a right wing nut who can't talk tough on Iran?

MYTH: The US should pursue regime change in Iran

According to the Washington Post, the newest edition of the classified National Intelligence Estimate includes a revision of the prevailing view in the intelligence community on the Iranian nuclear program. Whereas the consensus had been that Iran was five years or fewer from building nuclear weapons, the new thinking suggests that, while the mullahs are certainly wedded to the pursuit of such weapons, they may actually be closer to ten years away.

Set aside, for a moment, the point that the American intelligence community's record on predicting such things is, to put it nicely, less than perfect. Let's take it at face value that Iran is ten years from going nuclear. What does that mean for U.S. strategy toward the Islamic Republic?

In short, it means the case for pursuing regime change in Tehran is as strong, and perhaps stronger, than ever….

To review: the Iranian government is America's enemy, and the ally and sponsor of terrorists. Hezbollah has long enjoyed Iranian sponsorship as they killed Americans in Beirut in the '80s and at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Tehran almost certainly provides some direct support for elements of the insurgency in Iraq, including the Shiite radicals who probably murdered journalist Steven Vincent earlier this week. There is evidence of al Qaeda taking refuge in Iran, as some in the Bush administration warned immediately after the end of major combat in Afghanistan, and even reports of more intimate connections between Tehran and al Qaeda….

A full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran, with all that the American military has to contend with at the moment, is impractical, so military action would mean bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to delay their progress. Such an operation would not be "clean"; the regime has been careful to place many of its nuclear facilities so as to maximize civilian casualties. An attack would stoke nationalist anger at America and cost the goodwill of the Iranian people, which is the best thing we have going in the country.

 -- John Tabin, “Moving on the Mullahs,” The American Spectator, 8/5/05

On Tuesday, The Post published a front-page story by Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, who reported that according to the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, the regime is 10 years away from "manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon," doubling the most recent estimate of five years -- the amount of time estimated in the last NIE on Iran, which occurred in 2001. Just so no one missed the point that the Bush administration has exaggerated the Iran threat, the Post added that the assessments "contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions."

-- Editorial, “The Post’s dubious Slant on Iran,” The Washington Times, 8/8/05

REALITY

Isn’t it amazing how easily the words “regime change” just roll of the tongue these days? If you don’t like the actions of a sovereign nation—“regime change”! If you don’t like the socialist actions of a populist dictator—“regime change”! If you don’t like the management of your losing baseball team-“regime change”! Oh, wait, that last bit might get in trouble with Sean Hannity, who might think you are trying to equate a baseball manager with Saddam Hussein….How un-American is that?

Anyway, back to the very important and distressing topic at hand—Iran. Two issues emerged this week, in terms of the US’ current and potential stance against Iran. As the above Washington Times editorial points out, the newly released National Intelligence Estimate on Iran recently came out and contained a very interesting piece of information. As originally reported in The Washington Post, “a major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.”

Is it significant that the Bush administration has been peddling the 5-years till blast-off theory around town, when in fact this estimation was wrong? Yes and no. A quick Google search of “iran, 5 years, nuclear” brings up a couple of interesting links: in 2002, Israel projected that Iran would have nukes in 5 years; in 1995, London’s Sunday Telegraph stated that Iran could have nukes in 5 years; and, also, in 1995, The Nonproliferation Review asserted that Iran could have nukes in 5 years. Obviously this idea is not new or novel. Still, the question remains—how long has the US intelligence service theorized the 10-year window versus how long has the Bush administration peddled the 5-year theory? The Post article cited earlier does point out that the Bush administration had been basing its 5-year projection on a general observation of Iran, as opposed to intelligence data. Therefore, perhaps it is valid to give Team W a pass on this one—as long as they do not continue to put forth the 5-year myth now that they have intelligence data stating otherwise.

Aside from the discussion of the 5-year versus 10-year nuke program for Iran is the issue of the Right’s suggestion that the US investigate a “regime” change of Iran. Another National Intelligence report was put forth in 2002 and commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a "slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials.” Three years ago, the US intelligence community tells the US to back-off Iran, but now the right continues to suggest that a regime change is the best thing. Why? Is Iran really such an imminent threat?

What this debate all comes down to really is whether the benefits stemming from a regime change are at all comparable to the costs that would be entailed. We here on the left don't want a nuclear Iran anymore than Paul Wolfowitz does. The question is what is the best method of preventing this. Unfortunately Team W has lost all credibility at home and abroad. The Iraq misadventure has hindered our resources with regards to Iran, to say the least. As stated above and as any thinking person would be able to project, if the United States somehow scares up enough troops to march into Tehran and overthrow the government, the US will feel the wrath of the Arab world unlike ever before. The United States would potentially have two insurgent-ridden governments right next each other. Throw Afghanistan into the mix and you have a recipe for the largest terrorist recruitment drive yet.