Über-hawk John Bolton took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Times [...]]]>
Über-hawk John Bolton took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Times in August to call for a military strike against Iran even before the Bushehr plant went online (see our Talking Points from August 18).
NSN says this kind of overwrought reaction from hawks does not take into account the full-spectrum safeguards on the Bushehr plant which cause the plant to have nothing to do with the wider Iranian nuclear program.
NSN writes (emphasis in original):
]]>Today’s announcement that Iran has begun loading fuel into its nuclear power plant at Bushehr is a sideshow – designed by Iran’s leaders to distract attention from how U.S.-led sanctions are starting to bite. The move does not bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon capability – the Bushehr plant is under IAEA safeguards and the Russians are providing and taking back the fuel, denying Iran the opportunity to divert the spent fuel for military purposes. It does, however, allow war hawks to ignore the concerns of military and national security experts and ramp up their rhetoric in support of a military strike against Iran. The administration’s comprehensive Iran policy is aimed at the real threat-Iran’s enrichment program-and it has been effective at sharpening Tehran’s choices. The White House has mobilized key states, including Russia and China, and has won strong support for international sanctions, which experts agree, are starting to bite.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions-not the Bushehr reactor-remain the source of concern. Concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions are well-founded, given its refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and failure to declare sensitive enrichment facilities. The Russian-built nuclear power plant at Bushehr, however, does not bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon capability.
Her comments, says NSN, are part of an attempt to treat Iran as a “political football to scare [...]]]>
Her comments, says NSN, are part of an attempt to treat Iran as a “political football to scare voters and intimidate policy makers into taking military action against Iran.” The report counters her statements with those of former civilian and military Pentagon officials and former Foreign Service officers who all think such an attack would be a disaster. (We referred to NSN’s list here).
From the NSN report (with my emphasis):
Today, on a Newsmax broadcast, Sarah Palin proclaimed that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would result in a battle between good and evil, leading to “Armageddon.” Palin’s remarks are the most recent in a litany of bellicose rhetoric made by extreme conservatives about how to deal with Iran. Yet despite the attempts to use Iran as a political football to scare voters and intimidate policy makers into taking military action against Iran, national security experts and military leaders disagree with such an approach. In addition, the voters aren’t buying this argument, as a recent poll showed that only two in ten Americans would go to war with Iran if that country tested a nuclear bomb. [...] Nonetheless, despite the fact that the Obama administration’s dual-track approach towards Iran of sanctions and diplomacy is beginning to bear fruit, the loudest conservative voices continue to be the most militant ones. However, policymakers should be wary of these arguments during this election season, as we have seen them before in the context of Iraq, where the most militant rhetoric won out during the midterm congressional campaign season of 2002. A skeptical eye needs to be drawn towards those who would use military action against Iran as a political tool rather than treating it as the serious national security issue that it is.
[...] “We have to realize that at the end of the day that a nuclear weapon in [Iran's] hands is not just Israel’s problem or America’s problem – it is the world’s problem,” [Palin] said. “It could lead to Armageddon. It would lead to World War III that could decimate so much of this planet.”
At last week’s “War With Iran?” conference at Columbia University, I asked if either side in the nuclear stand-off — the Iranian leadership or the U.S. administration — was capable of cutting a nuclear deal while facing domestic political constraints. John Limbert, a former Iranian hostage who went on to serve as a Foreign Service officer and an Obama administration State Department official, responded that Iran is not an election issue. He cited the attempts of both Hillary Clinton (in the primaries) and Sen. John McCain (in the general election) to score points against Obama on the issue, noting that both failed and Obama won.
Limbert might be right. But it looks like Iran hawks won’t stop trying to make war with Iran a politically polarizing issue.
]]>