Rene — Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War
Topic(s): Iran | Comments Off on Rene — Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next Warantiwar.com
January 22, 2005
Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush’s Next War
by Joshua Frank
By now you have probably heard about the Bush Administration’s secret plan
to attack Iran and how US Special Forces units have been operating in the
country for some time. Seymour Hersh, the maverick journalist for The New
Yorker, broke the story earlier this week.
“The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least
temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other,
equally purposeful, motives at work,” writes Hersh. “The government
consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions,
have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead
to a toppling of the religious leadership.”
It is a scathing indictment. The Bush Administration, which has avoided
going through Congress to initiate its covert operations, is conducting this
potential invasion much differently than the invasion of Iraq. The reasons
may be political in nature. The US public, or at least those who opposed the
Iraq war, made it somewhat difficult for Bush to instigate war against
Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Gathering in the streets, and later on Capitol Hill, they forced a public
discussion, carefully scrutinizing Bush’s motives. Now that many of Bush’s
claims about Iraq’s WMD program and ties to al-Qaeda have been disproven
(though Bush might beg to differ), Bush and company may be struggling to
garner sufficient support to justify waging another war with an already
strained military.
But the Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for
round two. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt
with militarily.
Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said
he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.
As Obama told the ChicagoTribune on September 26, 2004,”[T]he big question
is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear
program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they
do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military
action?”
He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal
position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand,
having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is
worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not
be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the
Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the
[Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I
said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.”
Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the
Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The
Forward quotes Dean as saying, “The United States has to … take a much
harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they’re funding terrorism.”
In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean contended that President Bush
had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS’ Face The
Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that “[President Bush] is beholden
to the Saudis and the Iranians.”
Foreign Policy expert Stephen Zunes wrote of the Democrats’ platform in
Foreign Policy in Focus on August 12, 2004:
“One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is
Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention
by stating that ‘a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our
allies.’ No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing
nuclear arsenals of Iran’s neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has
called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to
reject, apparently because it would require America’s regional allies to get
rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans,
believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control
treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear
apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons
and which countries cannot.”
So are we really supposed to believe the Democrats will ever offer up any
significant opposition to Bush’s military dabbling in Iran?
Not unless by “opposition to” you mean “support for.”
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=4521