Not too long ago, John McCain considered Chuck Hagel to be one of the leading voices on national security and foreign policy in the Senate. “I’d be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity,” McCain said in 2006. Although the two had disagreed about Iraq policy for the past [...]]]>
Not too long ago, John McCain considered Chuck Hagel to be one of the leading voices on national security and foreign policy in the Senate. “I’d be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity,” McCain said in 2006. Although the two had disagreed about Iraq policy for the past three years, with McCain calling for a counterinsurgency strategy (“surge”) and Hagel increasingly leaning toward withdrawal, “they remained friendly and respectful colleagues, who disagreed without rancor,” according to Mark Salter, McCain’s former Chief of Staff and a senior adviser to his presidential campaign. Last week on CNN, however, McCain described Hagel’s view “that (the) surge in Iraq would be the greatest blunder since the Vietnam War” as “bizarre”.
Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the most conservative Republican in the Senate, has stated that despite their personal friendship, he and Hagel “are simply too philosophically opposed on [certain] issues for me to support his nomination.” Immediately upon hearing rumors of Hagel’s impending nomination, Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) claimed that Hagel had “long severed his ties with the Republican party” and blamed Obama for putting forward “an in your face nomination…to all of us who are supportive of Israel.”
Another Republican SASC member, Roger Wicker, has declared, “I am strongly opposed to the President’s nomination of Sen. Hagel…His views and positions on the Middle East and Israel are contrary to the Administration’s own stated policies, and there are concerns from members of both parties about this nomination.” And David Vitter (LA) has already decided he will be voting “no” in the Armed Services Committee and on the floor. “Given Chuck Hagel’s statements and actions on a nuclear Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, I think his confirmation would send exactly the wrong message to our allies and enemies alike,” he said.
A newly elected Republican appointed to SASC, Ted Cruz (TX), told Fox News Sunday during his show debut that ”Hagel’s record is very, very troubling on the nation of Israel,” and he’s already decided that he’ll be voting “no” regardless of what he might learn at the SASC nomination hearings. Cruz offered no evidence other than Hagel’s reference in an interview to “the Jewish lobby.” Kelly Ayotte (NH), who did not serve alongside Hagel in the Senate, saidshe is “concerned” about Hagel’s record and plans to to grill Hagel about Israel and Iran.
Just how far out of the mainstream was Chuck Hagel as his two terms in the Senate drew to a close? Well, Hagel’s Senate voting record on Defense issues was in fact mainstream, which makes the level of outrage that his nomination has generated in certain Republican circles curious. Indeed, Hagel’s record is very much in line with his former Republican colleagues who are now members of the SASC and who have already declared their staunch opposition or strong reservations about his nomination: Lindsey Graham; James Inhofe; John McCain; David Vitter; and Roger Wicker.
This assessment is based on 15 Senate votes between 2006 and 2008 for a number of Senate bills, amendments and resolutions that were selected for their substantive content and implications for policy.
1. Defense Authorization Bill, S 3001. Passed Senate 78-12, Sept. 17, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe Yes; McCain Did Not Vote (DNV ); Vitter No; Wicker Yes.
Republicans were split: Hagel voted with Inhofe and Wicker.
2. Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding, Unemployment Benefits Extension, and GI Bill, HR 2642. Concurrence vote passed Senate 92-6, June 26, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain DNV; Vitter Yes; Wicker Yes.
Hagel was well within the Republican — and Senate — mainstream in voting for the funding of both wars that the U.S. was engaged in.
3. Iraq Provisions Including a Troop Withdrawal, Senate Amendment 4817. Rejected 34-63, May 22, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain DNV; Vitter No; Wicker No.
Hagel was in the minority on this vote in favoring a troop withdrawal from Iraq. The amendment did not pass. But in a vote on another amendment the same day, Hagel voted with the majority in the Senate and the current SASC Republicans who are now complaining about his record.
4. Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senate Amdt. 4818. Adopted 70-26, May 22, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain DNV; Vitter Yes; Wicker (appointed to fill Trent Lott’s seat in the Senate Dec. 31, 2007) Yes.
5. Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, S Amdt. 3875. Rejected 24-71, Dec. 18, 2007. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.
Hagel’s vote was in accord with those of the SASC Republicans and the Senate as a whole.
6. The Senate passed HR 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, by a vote of 92-3 on Oct. 1, 2007. Numerous Senate amendments were proposed prior to its passage. The only Iraq-related amendment to it that passed was S 2997, proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (DE) giving the sense of Congress that “the U.S. should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based on the final provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions, consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders.” The amendment passed the Senate 75-23 on Sept. 26, 2007, with Hagel, Graham, Inhofe and Vitter all voting No. McCain did not vote.
Among the proposed amendments that failed:
7. Troop Reduction Amendment, S Amdt. 2898. Rejected Senate 47-47, Sept. 21, 2007. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.
8. Time Between Troop Deployments, S. Amdt. 2909, Rejected Senate, 56-44, Sept. 19, 2007. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.
The votes on these two amendments are among the relatively rare times that Hagel voted differently than his GOP colleagues.
9. Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees, S. Amdt. 2351, Adopted Senate 94-3, July 19, 2007. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Vitter Yes.
Hagel votes with the overwhelming majority in the Senate, as do his current critics.
10. United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007. Joint Resolution, Failed Senate 48-50, March 15, 2007. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain DNV; Vitter No.
In a close vote, Hagel voted with his Republican SASC colleagues.
11. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. PN 2191. Nomination confirmed, 95-2, Dec. 6, 2006; Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.
12. Military Commissions Act of 2007, S 3930. Passed 65-34, Sept. 28, 2006. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Santorum Yes; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.
13. National Security Amendment, S Amdt 4936. Motion rejected 41-57, Sept. 13, 2006. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.
14. Troop Redeployment Amendment, S. Amdt 4442. Motion rejected 13-86, June 22, 2006. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Santorum No; Vitter No. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.
15. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. 2006, HR 4939. Passed 77-21, May 4, 2006; Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics except for Vitter and the majority of the Senate.
And what about all those “pro-Iran” and “anti-Israel” votes that Republican SASC members are so upset about? They don’t appear to have occurred in the Senate during the last two years of the Bush administration, which were Hagel’s last two years in the Senate. Hagel was not among the 61 senators of both parties who co-sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S 333), a bill Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced on February 9, 2005. The bill’s stated purpose was “to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.” Among Hagel’s fellow Republicans who also chose not to co-sponsor the bill were: Lamar Alexander (TN); Wayne Allard (CO); Lincoln Chafee (RI); Thomas Craig (WY); Pete Domenici (NM); Michael Enzi (WY); Bill Frist (TN); Lindsey Graham (SC); Charles Grassley (IA); Orrin Hatch (UT); Richard Lugar (IN); Lisa Murkowski (AK); Richard Shelby (AL); Arlen Spector (PA); John Warner (VA).
The question of whether or not the bill would have brought freedom or support to the people of Iran is beside the point, since the bill died after it was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. Santorum reintroduced the bill in (S 3971) in Sept. 2006 with only 9 co-sponsors, but it died in committee without a vote. President George W. Bush signed an AIPAC-lauded House bill (H 282) instead. Since it never came the floor of the Senate for a vote, Hagel did not vote for or against the Senate version. While his decision not to sign on as a co-sponsor of he bill may have put Hagel in the minority, he was not “outside the Republican mainstream” — unless Graham was too.
Nor was Hagel among the 62 co-sponsors of S 534, introduced by Sen. Bill Frist (TN) on July 18, 2006 as a resolution that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors, while supporting Israel’s right to self defense. Neither were Graham, Inhofe or 33 other Republican senators. The resolution passed the Senate by voice vote.
It’s perhaps understandable that Graham — and New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (who has apparently gotten over it) — might have felt miffed that Hagel chose not to sign on to the Schumer-Graham letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The letter, dated Oct. 2, 2007, asked Rice to pressure Arab states to be more conciliatory towards Israel and Hamas to abandon the use of terror. But — guess what? There were other Republicans besides Hagel who also didn’t sign it: Lamar Alexander (TN); Bob Bennett (UT); Kit Bond (MO); Jim Bunning (KY); Richard Burr (NC); Thad Cochran (MS); Larry Craig (ID); Elizabeth Dole (NC); Mike Enzi (WY); Chuck Grassley (IA); Judd Gregg (NH); Orrin Hatch (UT); James Inhofe (OK); Trent Lott (MS); Richard Lugar (IN); Mel Martinez (FL); Richard Shelby (AL); Gordon Smith (OR); Arlen Specter (PA); Ted Stevens (AK); John Sununu (NH); Craig Thomas (WY); John Warner (VA); and Roger Wicker (MS).
Hagel’s critics are also complaining about his decision to not join the 88 senators who signed a bipartisan letter to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana that called on the EU to add Hezbollah to its terrorist list. The other 9 of the 10 Republican senators who didn’t sign the letter? Lamar Alexander (R-TN); Lincoln Chafee (RI); Tom Coburn (OK); Larry Craig (ID); Pete Domenici (NM);Michael Enzi (WY); Judd Gregg (NH); Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (IN); and the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John Warner (R-VA).
And here’s something that Chuck Hagel did co-sponsor during his last year in the Senate, along with 56 other senators from both parties: the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S 22), introduced by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb (VA) on May 7, 2008. Not among the co-sponsors were numerous Republicans — whose “support for our our military” apparently means supporting defense contractors, rather than our troops and veterans — among them Graham (who refers to himself as a “Gulf War veteran” even though he did not serve abroad in the Gulf War itself); Inhofe; McCain; Santorum; Vitter; and Wicker. President Bush signed it into law as HR 2642 on June 30, 2008.
McCain has now stated that he won’t block Hagel’s nomination and won’t keep it from reaching the Senate floor. Even Vitter’s vow that he will not support Hagel in the SASC or in the full Senate vote strongly implies that he expects the nomination to move forward from the Armed Services Committee to a full Senate vote.
“These recent attacks amount to a mix of revisionist history and political gamesmanship, not a substantive examination of his record,” a former staffer told Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin. “And I think most of his former colleagues know that.” Contrary to the staffer’s expectations, however, Hagel’s nomination doesn’t seem to have blunted the animosity of his attackers. Perhaps a review of their own voting records will?
Photo: Chuck Hagel shares stories with Army Sergeants during a 2008 visit at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan.
]]>With the widely touted shift in the public opinion polls after the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney is no longer an underdog. That being the case, his pronouncements are attracting some well-deserved scrutiny from mainstream media sources. Romney’s major foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute on Oct. 8 [...]]]>
With the widely touted shift in the public opinion polls after the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney is no longer an underdog. That being the case, his pronouncements are attracting some well-deserved scrutiny from mainstream media sources. Romney’s major foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute on Oct. 8 is being fact-checked — and castigated — by the Associated Press, CNN, and even by Fox News.
Among the more egregious calumnies in the speech is Romney’s mischaracterization of Obama’s response to the 2009 election in Iran.
… when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.
CNN has done a remarkably good job of laying out and scrutinizing Romney’s accusations, and the harsh Republican and neoconservative criticism of President Obama’s response to the Iranian election in mid-June 2009. Are Romney’s accusations factual? No, according to CNN: “During the first couple of days of the protests and violence, Obama did not weigh in publicly, but by a few days in, he was not “silent”– and a week later, took a tougher stance.”
As Glenn Kessler pointed out in a Washington Post article from June 19, 2009, “President Obama and his advisers have struggled to strike the right tone, carefully calibrating positive messages about the protests in an effort to avoid giving the government in Tehran an excuse to portray the demonstrators as pro-American.” Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi told Kessler in a telephone interview that she had no complaints about Obama’s response. “What happens in Iran regards the people themselves, and it is up to them to make their voices heard,” she said.
This past January, former GOP-nomination contender Rick Santorum also assailed Obama’s response to the post-election protests in Iran, as 2008 presidential rival John McCain had. Santorum’s Jan. 1, 2012 exchange with David Gregory on Meet the Press provides the blueprint for the charges Romney hurled at Obama at VMI. Whoever is prepping the President for the upcoming foreign policy debate might find Gregory’s tough, pointed and well-informed questions a useful model for dealing with Romney’s dissembling:
MR. GREGORY: Before you go, I want to ask you about foreign policy. You’ve been very critical of the president, particularly on the issue of Iran, which has been a big issue of debate here in Iowa. Let me play a portion of that.
(Videotape, December 7, 2011)
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: And this president, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. We saw that during the lead up to World War II. Appeasement.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: How can that possibly be accurate, if you’ve taken an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of President Bush?
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Number one, he didn’t support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election, I mean, excuse me, like with hours after the, the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that was–election was a legitimate one.
MR. GREGORY: But what would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Well, well, I understand why the president would, would understand that, you know, someone announcing the minute after the polls closed that he won, I mean, he comes from Chicago, so I get it. But the problem is that this was an illegitimate election. The people in the streets were rioting saying, please support us, President Obama. We are the prodemocracy movement. We want to turn this theocracy that has been at war with the United States, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s, that’s killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with IEDS. And the president of the United States turned his back on them. At the same time, a few years–a year later, we have the same situation where Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists are in the streets of, of Egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like Iran, but an ally of ours in Mubarak…
MR. GREGORY: I’m sorry. The question I asked you…
MR. SEN. SANTORUM: …and he joins the radicals instead of…
MR. GREGORY: Wait a second.
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: …standing with our friends.
MR. GREGORY: The–first of all, that’s patently contradictory. If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movement in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood got elected. So how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others?
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: I don’t, because, because…
MR. GREGORY: Which is inconsistent.
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: No. The Muslim Brotherhood is not–is not about democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood are going to impose Sharia law.
MR. GREGORY: They were popularly elected, I think. Isn’t that what democracy is about?
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: No. No.
The day after Santorum’s appearance on Meet the Press, FactCheck critiqued his claims:
Iran’s presidential election was June 12, 2009, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory — triggering protests in Tehran. On June 15, Obama said at a press conference: “We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.”
Obama issued a statement five days later again condemning Iran’s post-election “violent and unjust actions against its own people” and asserting that the U.S. “stands with all who … exercise” the “universal rights to assembly and free speech.” It was one of many such statements.
FactCheck also noted that the Washington Times had reported on June 27, 2009 that Obama was being cautious in what he said about the election results because he didn’t want to be accused of interfering and providing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a propaganda “tool.”
While other leaders have been more out front in their criticism, Mr. Obama has taken pains not to appear to meddle in the debate on the actual election results, arguing he doesn’t want his words to become propaganda for the Iranian regime. “Only I’m the president of the United States, and I’ve got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries,” he said at a press conference Tuesday.
Fact checkers Brooks Jackson and Eugene Kiely concluded that, in comparing Obama’s handling of the elections in Iran and Egypt, “Obama treated both cases similarly: condemning the governments’ use of violence against their own citizens and supporting the protesters right to protest.”
Progressives and conservatives can find many faults with the Obama’s administration’s handling of foreign policy in general and dealings with Iran in particular. The question in the upcoming election is whether Mitt Romney could or would do any better. Daniel Larison, a staunch conservative, doesn’t seem to think so. In “Mitt Romney’s Vapid, Misleading Foreign Policy Speech” Larison writes:
The failings of Romney’s foreign policy arguments are not entirely his. Boxed in by his party’s hawks and most Republicans’ unwillingness to acknowledge Bush administration blunders, Romney’s script was to some extent written for him before he became a candidate. Not being in a position to lead his party in a new direction on this or any other issue, he had already embraced the worldview that he found among Republican hawks in an effort to become acceptable to them. Unfortunately for the country, Americans could have used a credible opposition party and presidential candidate to hold the administration accountable for its real mistakes.
Amen.
]]>
With the annual policy convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) coming up in just a few days, many observers are expecting this to be the time when Israel pushes its hardest on the United States to take a more aggressive stance in its ongoing confrontation with Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.
With four days to go, it seems that the Israeli push is picking up steam.
Ha’aretz reports today that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to “publicly harden his line against Iran” before he meets with US President Barack Obama on March 5. This is an important piece of timing, as Obama will be speaking at the AIPAC conference on the 4th, the day before Netanyahu meets with him.
To an extent, then, Netanyahu is already making it clear to the AIPAC audience what they should be looking for in the President’s speech, as well as communicating a warning to Obama about what Netanyahu expects from him.
This is only one piece of the gathering pressure. Obama will be walking into something of a lion’s den at AIPAC, much more so than last year, when the President spent weeks after the conference dealing with the political fallout from wide, and often intentional, misinterpretations of his speech and his testy scenes with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Three of the four major Republican candidates – Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich–will also be speaking, and it is a sure bet that they will try to outdo each other in painting Obama as weak on Iran. The lone Republican candidate opposed to increased aggression toward Iran, Ron Paul, was not invited.
Other speakers will include key Iran hawks such as Senators Joseph Lieberman and Johnny Isakson, and neoconservative stalwarts Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol. Obama will have some supporters speaking as well, such as Senator Carl Levin, and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. But the mood in the Washington Convention Center is likely to be heavily pro-war.
It is no coincidence that just this past Monday, reports stated that Israel had made it clear to top US officials that they had no intention of warning the United States if they decided to attack Iran on their own. This news certainly heightened the tension level and increased the pressure on Washington to harden its own stance on Iran lest the Israelis take matters into their own hands.
Netanyahu went on the offensive last week, after General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested Israel ought not attack Iran. Complaints were registered by Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to every US official that they could reach, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Vice President Joe Biden. Dempsey backtracked after hearing of Obama’s displeasure at the remarks. But it seems clear he was speaking his mind the first time.
Netanyahu went even further in his meeting with a cadre of US Senators, implying that Obama was trying to “interfere in Israeli politics,” an ironic charge considering the activities of the very group whose conference Netanyahu will be speaking at in a few days.
That view was almost immediately parroted by Senator John McCain, who blamed Obama for the “…daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat.” McCain was in such tight lock-step with Netanyahu that the Jerusalem Post reported the following:
McCain sided with Jerusalem in the debate with the US over the time to act against Iran – whether it was only when the Iranians made the political decision to assemble a bomb, as Washington seems to maintain, or before they could fortify all their nuclear installations against military attack, as Israel argues.
“There is no doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred on the path of acquiring nuclear weapons,” McCain said.
That quote could easily have come from Netanyahu himself. So could this one, from Senator Lindsey Graham, who was also at that meeting: “People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately from America. I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny.” Or in other words, ignore what my country, which provides you with enormous financial and diplomatic assistance, often to its own detriment, has to say about a course of action that could deeply affect its interests.
Graham also referred to the present time as a “never again” moment, stoking the flames of Holocaust memory that are so effective at blocking out rational thought, for Jews and often for non-Jews too.
These steps are only the beginning, and the sense that, as Ha’aretz put it, citing officials in both Washington and Jerusalem, that there is “…a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” likely means a good deal of public jockeying is going to happen before the AIPAC conference.
Obama was made to look bad by Netanyahu last year, with far less at stake than there is now. He’ll have to be at least as much on his toes this year, as the wolves will be out for him at the AIPAC conference.
]]>*This week’s must read is “Obama’s Counterproductive New Iran Sanctions: How Washington is Sliding [...]]]>
*This week’s must read is “Obama’s Counterproductive New Iran Sanctions: How Washington is Sliding Toward Regime Change”. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution writes:
The Obama administration’s new sanctions signal the demise of the paradigm that had guided U.S. Iran policymaking since the 1979 revolution: the combination of pressure and persuasion. Moreover, the decision to outlaw contact with Iran’s central bank puts the United States’ tactics and its long-standing objective — a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions — fundamentally at odds. Indeed, the United States cannot hope to bargain with a country whose economy it is trying to disrupt and destroy. As severe sanctions devastate Iran’s economy, Tehran will surely be encouraged to double down on its quest for the ultimate deterrent. So, the White House’s embrace of open-ended pressure means that it has backed itself into a policy of regime change, something Washington has little ability to influence.
Also check out “Forgetting Iraq, Republicans Thirst For War Against Iran”, by John Tirman.
Mainstream Media and Pundits:
Washington Post: Using the “military option” against Iran and Mitt Romney get a plug from the WaPo’s hawk-in-chief, Jennifer Rubin. Perhaps more zealously than any other prominent media figure, Rubin has been agitating for war with Iran. Even before the most crippling Iran sanctions that have ever been implemented are in full swing, she is recommending that congress prepare for war while the administration educates the public about why it’s necessary. The more Obama gives to the Iran hawks, the more they demand:
The administration and the president specifically also need to begin a period of public education to explain why it is imperative that Iran not get nuclear weapons and why it is both advantageous (because of our military resources) and essential (because of our position as leader of the free world and guarantor of the West’s security) to do the job, if it becomes necessary, rather than let Israel do the heavy lifting. The duty to educate and prepare the American people is critical and in and of itself will enhance the credibility of a military option.
Wall Street Journal: Even while acknowledging that Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are desperate “bluster”, the hawkish WSJ editorial board urges the U.S. to act in ways which would likely be interpreted as provocation by the Iranians:
Meantime, the best response to Iran’s threats would be to send an American aircraft carrier back through the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible, with flags waving and guns at the ready.
Past and Present U.S. Officials:
Victoria Nuland: Yesterday, during the daily press briefing, State Department spokesperson Nuland (the wife of neoconservative Iraq war hawk Robert Kagan) said getting multilateral support for the U.S.’s latest sanctions against Iran “will be an important next step in the global effort to tighten the noose on their regime.” From the beginning the Obama administration has rejected adopting regime change as its official Iran policy, opting for sanctions and some limited diplomacy instead, so was this comment a Freudian slip from Nuland or does it signal something bigger? Nuland’s curious comments bring Maloney’s argument to mind.
Mark Kirk: The AIPAC-favorite senator who coauthored the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act imposing sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank wants the President to implement them no matter what. Obama said he would treat the provisions as “non-binding” if they interfered with his “constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations”, but Kirk said that wasn’t as important as crippling Iran’s economy. The push to sanction Iran’s Central Bank has been ongoing since 2008, but it reached its climax in the summer with heavy lobbying from AIPAC and hawkish members of congress. In October Kirk told a radio show that he had no problem with “taking food out of the mouths” of ordinary Iranians to take down their government, which sounds a lot like collective punishment. Kirk’s pressure on Obama is backed by the likes of prominent neoconservative analyst, Michael Rubin, and Commentary’s editor, Jonathan Tobin, both of whom opined about Obama’s non-binding comment this week.
Mitt Romney: According to former AIPAC-staffer M. J. Rosenberg, Romney’s hawkish stance on Iran (echoed this week at his Iowa Caucus speech) is the result of his many neoconservative advisers:
Fifteen of the 22 worked on foreign policy for the George W. Bush administration and six were members of the original neoconservative group, Project for the New American Century, that famously called on President Clinton in 1998 to begin “implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.” Its rationale: Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction.
A detailed examination of another Romney-adviser, Walid Phares, can be found here.
Rick Santorum: The Republican presidential hopeful said this week that if he was elected, he would go to war with Iran over its disputed nuclear program:
]]>And finally, I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes – and make it very public that we are doing that.
Condoleezza Rice continued her book tour this week talking with Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin. Rogin pushed Rice to share her reflections on the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and surprisingly, the former Secretary of State chose to distance herself from the right-wing talking point that the end of [...]]]>
Condoleezza Rice continued her book tour this week talking with Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin. Rogin pushed Rice to share her reflections on the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and surprisingly, the former Secretary of State chose to distance herself from the right-wing talking point that the end of year troop withdrawal from Iraq will dangerously strengthen Iran’s regional influence.
The go-to criticism leveled by GOP hawks doesn’t hold much water with Rice. She told Rogin:
The Iraqis are good armed forces; they’re buying a lot of our equipment. I think they’ll be able to defend themselves. They continue to need help on the counterterrorism side, and it would have been a good message to Iran. Although I think it’s easy to overstate the degree to which the Iraqis have any attraction to Iran — that’s a pretty lousy relationship, really.
Neocons and various Republicans harshly criticized President Obama for announcing that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year. Fred and Kimberly Kagan wrote that “it will unquestionably benefit Iran.” Newt Gingrich told an audience, “Don’t kid yourself, it is defeat. Iran is stronger.” Rick Santorum claimed “Iranians now have more sway over the Iraqi government.” And the Bill Kristol “letterhead organization,” the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) wrote, in anticipation of a withdrawal, that the U.S. must maintain a strong presence in Iraq to “help ensure Iraq remains oriented away from Iran and a long-term ally of the United States.”
While neoconservatives and GOP presidential hopefuls are eager to suggest that the Obama administration’s withdrawal from Iraq — in conformity with the Status Of Forces Agreement negotiated and signed by Bush — is a major win for Iran, the former Secretary of State is clearly not buying it.
]]>Amid the talk during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate about negotiating with terrorists like al Qaeda, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) dropped a doozy on his fellow candidates: “Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know [...]]]>
Amid the talk during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate about negotiating with terrorists like al Qaeda, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) dropped a doozy on his fellow candidates: “Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.” One of the candidates, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), quickly stepped up to defend the Gipper:
- SANTORUM: That’s not — Iran was a sovereign country. It was not a terrorist organization, number one.
[...] They’re — they’re — they’re a sovereign country…
PAUL: He negotiated for hostages.
SANTORUM: There’s — there’s a role — we negotiated for hostages with the Soviet Union. We’ve negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale. But there’s a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to a terrorist demand… then — then negotiating with other countries, where we may have an interest, and that is certainly a proper role for the United States, too.
But just the following night on Fox News, Santorum was singing a different tune. Asked by Bret Baier what President Santorum’s Iran policy would be, the former senator concluded:
- This government will not and cannot be negotiated with. They are radical Islamists. They are theocrats. They are mullahs who believe it is their destiny to fulfill the prophets and the 12th Imam’s vision of having global control of the world for radical Shia Islam.
Watch the video:
In the past, Santorum has called Iran “evil” and “Islamic fascists,” and in the same speech celebrated Reagan calling the Soviet Union the “evil empire.” At the debate Tuesday, he supported talking to both Iran and the Soviet Union as “proper” when there was a U.S. “interest” at stake. But when he wasn’t put in a position to defend Reagan’s actions, he leaned toward a more ideological position that precludes any talking irrespective of national interests.
]]>Wall Street Journal: Iran is called “aggressively defensive” by an unnamed U.S. official in an article about how a “direct military hot line” is being considered to prevent “miscalculations” after an escalation in “near-miss” military encounters between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic in [...]]]>
Wall Street Journal: Iran is called “aggressively defensive” by an unnamed U.S. official in an article about how a “direct military hot line” is being considered to prevent “miscalculations” after an escalation in “near-miss” military encounters between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic in the Persian gulf.
The U.S. is portrayed as being wary of engaging with Iran directly, but according to the official, it has a history of speaking to its “enemies”:
- We spoke to the Soviets when we had thermonuclear weapons pointed at each other.
According to the National Iranian American Council, this event is part of campaign by U.S. military leaders to open channels for direct communication with Iran.
National Review Online: Seth Leibsohn, a fellow at the Claremont Institute who served as a policy advisor for Rick Santorum’s political action committee (he runs a PR firm with his wife), attempts to alarm and infuriate readers by writing that
- This week, New York City — America — will play host to two tainting and tainted sets of affairs at the United Nations. First, the most dangerous man in the world heading the most dangerous regime in the world, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, will arrive here to speak.
He berates Columbia University for allegedly inviting Ahmadinejad to its campus, but Leibsohn, who boasts on his bio that he has “written speeches for and collaborated with candidates for national office and several former cabinet officials” didn’t check his facts on that one.
As shown by Columbia Professor Gary Sick, no invitation was extended by Columbia and no such event is being hosted on the campus. Leibsohn’s hot air is part of the “shoddy journalism” that surrounds Ahmadinejad’s New York visit.
Leibsohn also claims that the Iranian president shouldn’t be allowed to set foot on U.S. soil, which would amount to the Islamic Republic being barred from the United Nations headquarters even though it is a member state. In other words: isolate this extremely isolated country even more and make diplomacy less attainable than it already is.
For Leibsohn, the other “tainted set of affairs” that will take place this week is the Palestinian bid for UN state recognition.
Reuters: If you read any news articles about Iran on Monday you likely saw this quote by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
- Iran has continued to engage in a long-standing pattern of denial, deceit and evasion, in violation of its (nuclear) non-proliferation obligations.
Reuters reports that the U.S. and Iranian representatives “traded accusations” at a 151-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Monday. Iranian nuclear energy chief Fereydoon Abbasi is also quoted on Forbes saying that the reason Iran moved its Fordow nuclear power site underground is because of fears that it would be attacked by the U.S. and its allies if it was above ground.
A translated transcript of Abbasi’s speech to the IAEA (it does not include the quotes above) where he questions the IAEA’s impartiality and insists that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful can be found at Fars News Agency.
]]>By Juan Cole
One of the places foreign policy emerged in the GOP Iowa debate last night was an exchange between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum on Iran, as right wing analyst Thomas R. Eddlem has explained in detail.
Chris Wallace of Fox [...]]]>
By Juan Cole
One of the places foreign policy emerged in the GOP Iowa debate last night was an exchange between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum on Iran, as right wing analyst Thomas R. Eddlem has explained in detail.
Chris Wallace of Fox News asked libertarian Rep. Ron Paul why he was soft on Iran and opposed economic sanctions on Tehran. Paul replied that Iran is small potatoes as a threat, compared to what we went through with the Soviet Union, and that anyway it would be perfectly natural for Iran to want a nuclear deterrent, given that it is surrounded by nuclear-armed powers, including Russia, Pakistan, Israel, etc.:
- “Just think of what we went through in the Cold War when I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted into the Air Force, all through the Sixties. We were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles. Just think of the agitation and the worry about a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day.”
… That makes it much worse. Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and the Chinese had nuclear weapons, we tolerated the Soviets. We didn’t attack them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don’t go to war with them.”
…. Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries … why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off? In the Fifties, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What’s so terribly bad about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.”
Ron Paul was representing the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. It is not exactly isolationist (note the desire for international trade), but opposes the military-industrial complex. As Right anarchists, they want the least government possible, and see government as a distraction for businesses, who succumb to the temptation to use the government to distort the eufunctional free market. In essence, government is a scam whereby some companies are seduced by the possibility of manacling the invisible hand that ought to be magically rewarding enterprise and innovation. A significant stream within libertarianism theorizes war as the ultimate in this racket, whereby some companies use government to throw enormous sums to themselves by waging wars abroad and invoking patriotic themes. This analysis is remarkably similar to that of Left anarchists such as Noam Chomsky.
The difference is that for anarcho-syndicalists like Chomsky, the good guys of history are the workers and ordinary folk, whereas for Libertarians, it is entrepreneurs. Both theories depend on a naive reading of social interest. Right anarchists seem not to be able to perceive that without government, corporations would reduce us all to living in company towns on bad wages and would constantly be purveying to us bad banking, tainted food, dangerous drugs, etc. I mean, they behave that way when they can get away with it even when there is supposed government oversight, usually by capturing the government oversight agency that should be regulating them and then defanging it (e.g. BP and the Minerals Management Service). On the environment, private companies would never ever curb emissions without government intervention because of the problem of the commons. (Tellingly, Ron Paul calls global climate change a “hoax.”)
And, what makes the Libertarians think that if there were no governments or only weak governments, the corporations would not just wage the wars themselves? The East India Companies of Britain and the Netherlands behaved that way. India was not conquered by the British government, but by the East India Company. Likewise what is now Indonesia was a project of the Dutch East India Company. Libertarians have difficulty imagining warmongering corporations who pursue war all on their own without any government involvement. But governments have often been more timid than corporate men on the spot. In late 18th century Britain, the civil government was very nervous about the EIC conquests in India and worried about corporate corruption, which is one reason Warren Hastings ended up being tried.
Likewise, the anarcho-syndicalist tradition makes workers unions more saintly and disinterested than they typically actually are, though since they are looking out for the interests of the majority (workers), they typically have more equitable positions than the narrower business elites idolized by Libertarians.
Paul’s Libertarian-pro-peace approach to the Middle East (he not only wants an end to the US confrontation with Iran but also a complete US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan) evoked a sharp response from Neoconservative Rick Santorum:
- “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.”
Santorum has long had a fixation on Iran, and his statement here is typical of the lies he tells about that country. He knows very well that the United States is not at war with Iran, that the conflict between the two countries has been nothing like the Afghanistan or Iraq Wars. In the past, Santorum has said that the US is at war with a radical Islam, at the center of which Is Iran. Santorum does not know that Iran is a Shiite power, whereas most Muslim radicals like the Taliban are, let us say, committed Sunnis and have bad relations with Iran. His last statement, that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel, telegraphs his motivation in this war propaganda, which is to attract campaign contributions from the Israel lobbies.
When Paul replied,
- ” The senator is wrong on his history. We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction — the blowback — came in 1979. It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem.”
Santorum responded by defending the CIA coup against the elected government of Iran in 1953, and asserted that the oppressive dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an era of liberty for the Iranian people!
Ron Paul concluded:
- “You’ve heard the war propaganda that is liable to lead us into the sixth war and I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me, they’re all around the world and they’re not a whole lot different than others. Iran does not have an air force that can come here. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves.”
Ron Paul’s “peace through trade” approach to geopolitics and skepticism of overbearing imperialism does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the foreign policy of the United States. He represents small-town entrepreneurs who see the wars and their expense as a burden and a block to trade opportunities. They are a significant segment of the Republican Party, but I’d put them at 15% at most.
The Republican Party is a coalition of seven or eight distinct groups in American society. These include Evangelicals, the majority of whom are typically imperialist in their foreign policy emphases, Wall Street (which includes both hawkish concerns like Boeing and dovish groups like the bankers), Midwestern farmers, suburban and exurban professionals, and the 15% or so of Jewish Americans on the political Right (who, however, account for nearly 200 of our 400 billionaires and whose prominent position in retail business gives them both a reason to be deeply involved in politics and the wherewithal to contribute to campaigns). The preponderance of the party will be with the Santorums and the Bachmanns on a militaristic foreign policy.
Journalism often reports the views of politicians and stops there, and concentrates on personal clashes and personalities. But social historians see politicians as representatives of large social groups, and politics as the victory of some interests over others. Neither Paul nor Santorum will likely ever be president, but the groups they appeal to will have to be won over by the ultimately successful candidate. Unfortunately, the Republican Party’s various constituents add up to a party of Islamophobia and warmongering (munitions corporations, Big Oil and Gas, right wing Evangelicals, Right wing Zionists, white nationalists). The anarcho-syndicalist theory that capitalism naturally produces wars and imperialism is too broad, but certainly some groups within capitalist society will plump for those opportunities. Paul is likely right about the sixth war looming.
]]>