Nick Kristof: The False Debate About Attacking Iran

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-false-debate-about-attacking-iran.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

The False Debate About Attacking Iran
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 24, 2012


I WONDER if we in the news media aren’t inadvertently leaving the impression that there is a genuine debate among experts about whether an Israeli military strike on Iran makes sense this year.

There really isn’t such a debate. Or rather, it’s the same kind of debate as the one about climate change — credible experts are overwhelmingly on one side.

Here’s what a few of them told me:

“I don’t know any security expert who is recommending a military strike on Iran at this point,” noted Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton University professor who was a senior State Department official earlier in the Obama administration.

“Unless you’re so far over on the neocon side that you’re blind to geopolitical realities, there’s an overwhelming consensus that this is a bad idea,” said W. Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle East affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

“Most security experts agree that it’s premature to go to a military option,” said Michèle Flournoy, who has just stepped down as the No. 3 official in the Defense Department. “We are in the middle of increasing sanctions on Iran. Iran is already under the most onerous sanctions it has ever experienced, and now we’re turning the screws further with sanctions that will touch their central bank, sanctions that will touch their oil products and so forth.

“So it has been bad for them and it’s about to get worse,” Flournoy added. “The overwhelming consensus is we should give some time to let that work.”

Granted, American officials are deeply alarmed about Iran’s nuclear program, although the fear is not so much that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel or anyone else. Iran apparently developed chemical weapons to respond to Iraq’s chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war, and it showed restraint with them. Rather, the biggest fear is that if Iran tests and deploys nuclear weapons, other countries will follow. These could include Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, setting off another round of nuclear proliferation.

snip//

So as we hear talk about military action against Iran, let’s be clear about one thing. Outside Netanyahu’s aides and a fringe of raptors, just about every expert thinks that a military strike at this time would be a catastrophically bad idea. That’s not a debate, but a consensus.

[leveymg]

1. Sanctions or war - another false choice, like Center-right or Extreme Right. The frame is so skewed

that this is no real choice. It's built upon myth and falsehood, such as the assumption that Saudi Arabia would pursue the bomb if Iran got one. This is absurd given the fact that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program, and are already a de facto nuclear power.

I hate being lied to, even by those who think they're on the side of reason and conscience. They totally buy into the program that sanctions are not only necessary, that somehow they promote peace and goodwill. Quite the opposite - it's just a "feel-good" way of paving the road to war and provoking Iran into doing something desperate and stupid, which is the real objective.

[babylonsister]

2. So you think sanctions are foolhardy. What in your opinion would

appease everyone involved? And I hate being lied to also.

[leveymg]

3. I don't think its wise to appease anyone. Both Israel and Iran need to be put on notice that if

either party, or any third party, starts a war in the region that would be treated as a threat to U.S. national security and world peace. Appease nobody. Be an honest broker, an aspirational role we've apparently abandoned along with even a pretense of even-handedness.

[joshcryer]

4. That does nothing about nuclear poliferation.

[leveymg]

5. That's a genie that's been out of the bottle since 1967 (Israel) and 1987 (Pakistan).

No sense in pretending that it can be put back in or that acquisition of nuclear capability by Iran will significantly upset the existing balance of power in the region. It won't.

[joshcryer]

6. So you're pro-poliferation?

What a progressive view.

[leveymg]

7. No, I'm anti-war, a progressive view, not pro-regime change, a neocon view.

I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran -- something that many reasonable strategists have said is possible -- than to escalate regional tensions and the threat of war in an effort to prevent that outcome, which is probably inevitable, anyway.

[joshcryer]

9. What does anti-poliferation have to do with pro-war or pro-regime change?

A state is not defined by its aspirations toward nuclear power.

[leveymg]

12. Proliferation is the pretext for threats of war and efforts at regime change against Iran

That much is rather plainly stated, and your question must be rhetorical.

[joshcryer]

16. No it isn't. That's preposterous. Anti-poliferation is handled through...

...trade restrictions. Don't sell someone something that can be used to make nukes. Simple.

edit: You're buying into totalitarian propaganda that not doing trade with you or telling others not to is an act of war. This is an old hold over from Soviet propaganda, where the Soviets would happily trade with western states as their people starved, and if the western states didn't trade, they'd call it an imperialist blockaid or whatever. It's typical double-think, imo.

Now, I could agree with the idea that not trading is in actuality a way to strengthen a regime. But to call not doing something an act of war is preposterous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Are you saying Pakistan would use nuclear weapons at Saudi Arabia's command?

If not, what does "already a de facto nuclear power" mean? I think it's far from clear that Pakistan would follow requests from the Saudis to use nuclear weapons.

[leveymg]

13. Were you not aware of the strategic alliance and extremely close military ties between the two?

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:30 AM - Edit history (4)

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations

Saudi Arabia funded most of Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1970s and 1980s with US intelligence acquiescence after the "Safari Club"/BCCI deal with GHW Bush. Please, see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280 The Agency's BCCI operation may have previously involved former CIA Director Richard Helms and predated 1977, when Bush was appointed director of Joe Allbriton's First American Bancshares. That Texas-based bank was linked to the CIA, the Saudis and BCCI by Newsweek, reprinted here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1992/12/06/the-bcci-cia-connection-just-how-far-did-it-go.html

It doesn't have to be a command, Pakistan willingly acts as a proxy. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan is Saudi Arabia's nuclear and paramilitary auxiliary. This extends to common efforts today against Iran and Syria, and to suppression of a simmering Shi'ia uprising in the Gulf states. Please, see, http://www.wvpakistan.com/Editorial/PakistanA%20new%20proxy%20battle%20ground%20for%20Saudi%20Arabia,%20Iran.htm

With the third-party help of the CIA, the Pakistani ISI and Saudi GID intelligence agencies jointly ran the Mujahadin against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and later in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chenchnya.

As early as 1969, British and US-trained pilots of the Pakistan Air force flew the aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force to help fend off an invasion from South Yemen. In the 1970s and 1980s, about 15,000 Pakistani soldiers were stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the country's oil fields. Against the backdrop of the recent uprisings in the Middle East and the Arab world which led to the ouster of several autocratic rulers of the Muslim world, Pakistan had played a key role in the region by supporting Saudi Arabia to preempt a possible revolt against the Saudi kingdom.

Besides placing two army divisions on standby to help Riyadh should any trouble break out, reportedly the Pakistan government helped the Saudi kingdom with the recruitment of thousands of ex-Pakistani military personnel for Bahrain's national guard. Please, see, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/bahrain-calls-mercenaries-silence-protestors-5689

Islamabad receives more financial aid, both open and covert, from the Saudis than any other country. Pakistan is an extremely poor country and effectively bankrupt, without large reserves of hard currency of its own to have funded the purchase of its nuclear warhead and missile development programs from China. The source of that finance was Saudi Arabia: http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3532&tx_ttnews[backPid]=192&no_cache=1

A more likely candidate as a source for future Saudi missile purchases is Pakistan. According to a number of press reports, including those regarding the 1994 defection of a Saudi diplomat, Saudi Arabia has been funding Pakistan's nuclear and missile program purchases from China. The money certainly had to have come from somewhere, as Pakistan has been bankrupt for years and the Chinese are not known for their easy payment plans. In May 1999, following the Pakistani nuclear tests, Prince Sultan toured the uranium-enrichment plant and missile production facilities at Kahuta. Sultan may also have been present in Pakistan at a May 2002 test launch of the nuclear-capable Ghauri missile. If these reports are correct, what in essence has happened is that Saudi Arabia has given money to China for Pakistan's missile and nuclear programs. If so, Saudi Arabia could be buying a nuclear capability from China through a proxy state with Pakistan serving as the cutout. If Riyadh's influence over Pakistan extends to its nuclear programs, Saudi Arabia could rapidly become a de facto nuclear power through a simple shipment of missiles and warheads.

Those in Riyadh who favour the preparation of an open nuclear programme for military uses in cooperation with Pakistan include Saudi Defence Minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, and its former intelligence chief, Turki Bin Faisal. The de facto nuclear capability of Saudi through Pakistan has been presumed for decades.

[Redneck Democrat]

8. durec

Thank you for posting, 'sister!

[Cosmocat]

11. I have been saying this since it started to get hot

Rs trying to find SOMETHING to outflank BO on with going to war, doubled down by the HARD right element in Israel.

I think I have read where most of Israel is NOT in favor of strikes at this point.

Unless it gets to the absolute point where Iran can produce actual nuclear material AND has the capacity to deliver it in some way, Israel will not do anything without the US signing off.

The timeline is not there this year, and BO is a patient guy. He won't check off on it until it is absolutely the only remaining option, and double this down with the election.

Just a bad mix of our jerkoff Rs trumping up something that is being pushed by the hard right in Israel.

[polichick]

14. Shows how much ground religious zealots have gained in the U.S.

Dominionist thinking has been adopted on the right by "leaders" like Santorum.

[nickinSTL]

15. "Outside Netanyahu's aides..."

This is the problem, isn't it?

From what I've heard from a friend who closely follows Israeli news, Israel (read Netanyahu) is pretty much determined to attack Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capability.

If Israel attacks, the US will follow, regardless of whether it's a "catastrophically bad idea". Which I agree with, btw.

[and-justice-for-all]

17. A highly informative documentary about Iran...

http://iranisnottheproblem.org/