I used to think that the left and the realists were going to make a grand bargain. It hasn’t happened (and I’ve fallen between two stools) but there are still inklings. In “Washington’s new antiwar movement,” Jordan Michael Smith at Salon praises the realist group inside the establishment for opposing an Iran war.
Read the whole piece at the link; it describes an important antiwar article (paywall) by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in the Financial Times and includes Mearsheimer musing on how long it’s been since he was printed in the NY Times. As for the wisdom in my headline, I heard this first from an Iranian at the Penn BDS conference– Israel is getting exactly what it wants out of this uproar, distraction from the Palestinian issue and diminution of its regional competitor. Realists in the leftwing…
Walt and Mearsheimer speak for an entire class of long-silenced voices in Washington’s policy debates: the realists. These are the men and (a few) women who were prominent in the Eisenhower, Nixon and George H. W. Bush administrations, but who have been marginalized with the GOP’s hard-right turn. They believe the United States should narrowly define its national interests, but they also believe America itself has to be restrained, which makes them opposed to the promiscuous use of force.
Here we have Robert Merry, editor of the National Interest, where many of the realists are housed, warning against a war with Iran. The Washington Post published a full-page advertisement this week, paid for by the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), which took the form of an open letter to President Obama warning him against war. It was signed by eight former U.S. military and intelligence officials, including Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst, who amplified his views in the Washington Monthly. If Washington has an antiwar movement opposing an attack on Iran, today, these conservative thinkers are in its vanguard.
I spoke with Walt and Mearsheimer, separately, about why they decided to reenter perhaps the most delicate ring in the American political debate. The Op-Ed came about because the British-based FT asked the two political scientists to write it.
“I think it is extremely unlikely that the New York Times would ask us to write such a piece,” Mearsheimer said. “It’s hardly surprising that a newspaper outside the United States asked us to write on Netanyahu’s visit, and an American newspaper like the Times or the Washington Post did not.”..
Interestingly, Walt and Mearsheimer believe that Israel will not attack Iran, and that the United States will not, either. “Israel’s air force capabilities can’t do enough damage to destroy Iran’s nuclear program; they can slow it down but they can’t stop it,” says Walt. “Neither can we, although we can do a lot more damage.” Additionally, Israel has consistently gotten a message from the United States saying it is opposed to a war, and it would be wary of doing something America has explicitly told them not to do. “They would like to keep rattling sabers on the issue to focus attention on the issue, bring the United States into it, and get backing from the Europeans on sanctions, but at the end of the day, I don’t think they will do it.”
The GOP right-wing turn was orchastrated from the top.
Basically, the neocons. They got control of the conservative media and pushed all the realists out.
You go ahead and ask the folks at American Conservative magazine what happened when they turned on the paleocons in the early 90s. I’m no friend of Pat Buchanan by any stretch but it was a Stalinist purge of just about everyone who didn’t sign up 100 % on Israel. That’s what it was.
The base never really was for all these wars, but the rise of the Fox News together with 9/11 have brainwashed a large number of grassroots GOP of the ‘totalitarian threat’ of Islam; ergo we must have endless wars.
We’re seeing some movement away from that with Ron Paul.
It’s important to seperate the neocons and the Israel Lobby. They often work together but they’re not a single unit. The lobby spends more time policing the Democratic ranks.
The neocons basically have the total control of the mainstream narrative in the GOP on foreign policy. Thank Bill Kristol and his allies for that.
But because this hold is basically a reality because of conservative media control(Weekly Standard, National Review and so on) which demands use of constant fearmongering of Islam, I think it can be broken. A lot of young Republicans know people who went into these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And they all saw how it was Paul’s opposition to neocon orthodoxy on Foreign policy(especially Israel) that drew the most attacks. The newsletters came later.
I cannot say I know that much about the Republican party but from what I’ve noticed, many of his supporters are usually young and quite bright. Paul has an intellectual demeanor, even if you disagree with him, it’s hard not to notice that. He isn’t a dull Santorum-esque sloganeer. He writes a lot of books and engages his audience in intellectual discourse.
And these people will form a significant part of the future Republican elite, especially the libertarian side which is very strong in Beltway. And the forming experience for these people will be the Paul campaign and they will remember what was the biggest opposition to his candidacy: he refused to bow to Israel.
So combine this with the anti-war moods of the Democratic base, especially the younger crowd and you got yourself an emerging bi-partisan concensus coming to sweep the corrupt orthodoxy off.
As they say in Afghanistan: they got the watches but we got the time.
Indeed.
Free registration @- FT and you can read full piece by W&M without subscribing
What our media has not reported is that the Ayatolah has forbidden nuclear weapons for Iran. Of course, reporting such would require a kind of follow up that, if attacked by Israel, Iran would be completely within its rights to develop nuclear weapons according to IAEA rules.
Dr. Brzezinski thinks it will happen before the election. Have not heard anyone but Brezezinski say that President Obama should tell Netanyahu that Israel cannot use US controlled air space to conduct a pre-emptive strike on Iran
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-26/zbigniew-brzezinski-strategic-vision-america-and-crisis-global-power
AIPAC, ISRAEL, AND AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE
Posted on March 7th, 2012
http://www.raceforiran.com/aipac-israel-and-america%E2%80%99s-iran-debate#comment-77632
“I think it is extremely unlikely that the New York Times would ask us to write such a piece,” Mearsheimer said. “It’s hardly surprising that a newspaper outside the United States asked us to write on Netanyahu’s visit, and an American newspaper like the Times or the Washington Post did not.”..
And when have you seen or heard Mearsheimer, Walt, Hillary or Flynt Leverett etc on any of the MSM TV outlets? Or NPR? Yet NPR’s Robert Siegel has Israeli officials on to promote an attack on Iran and does not get near a challenge when Micheal Oren repeats absolute lies? Siegel continues to help set the stage for an attackMiddle East
Israeli Ambassador Weighs In On Netanyahu Visit
[4 min 32 sec]ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama at the White House. The number one topic on their agenda was Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Obama appealed to the Israeli leader to allow more time to pass for sanctions against Tehran to work rather than resort to military action soon. But Netanyahu insisted that his country remain master of its own fate. And here to talk with us about what all this means is Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Good to see you again.
MICHAEL OREN: Always good to be with you, Robert.
SIEGEL: The president says the U.S. has Israel’s back, while Prime Minister Netanyahu reserves the right to strike preemptively. Does Israel accept that for several months the world can wait to see if Iran is responsive to sanctions?
OREN: Well, we think that there is time, but there’s not a lot. Keep in mind we have been warning about this Iranian nuclear program for close to two decades now. We appreciate President Obama’s great commitment. But keep in mind Israel also lives in a very tough neighborhood.
SIEGEL: Does Israel acknowledge, though, that the current round of sanctions, not all of which have taken effect yet, are indeed tougher than what has been applied to Tehran in the past?
OREN: Definitely tougher. And we’ve seen that they have had an impact on the Iranian economy. What they have not impacted yet is the Iranian nuclear program.
SIEGEL: But Israel says that after a strike against Iran, if there is such a strike, there should be a regime of tough sanctions applied against Iran to prevent them from restarting. This was, I believe, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement. There obviously is an acceptance by Israel in that case of the logic of sanctions.
OREN: The main goal will always be to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to make nuclear weapons. This is a regime that is sponsoring terror worldwide. It’s actually the largest state sponsor of terror, giving, you know, tens of thousands of rockets to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. It’s supporting terror in Africa, in South America. This is all they’re doing without a nuclear weapon. Imagine what they would do with a nuclear weapon.
SIEGEL: But today, are Israel and the United States essentially in agreement about how to treat the Iranian nuclear program, or would you describe Israel’s view of it as being in some way qualitatively different from that of the U.S.?
OREN: It’s qualitatively different only in the sense that we are right next to Iran. We’re a much smaller country. We’re less than 1 percent the size of the United States. And the Iranian regime is openly saying it wants these weapons to wipe Israel off the map.
SIEGEL: Well, what do you make of Iran never conceding that it’s making a nuclear weapon?
OREN: Well, Iran has systematically lied about its nuclear program for three decades now. They’ve said that they weren’t enriching uranium to 20 percent; they’re enriching uranium to 20 percent. There’s lie after lie after lie here. The way we see that this could be resolved peacefully is that if Iran would give up its nuclear-enriched stockpile of uranium, it would cease enriching, and it would dismantle that secret facility at Qom. I think that’s the way we could be assured that Iran is no longer threatening to wipe Israel, as they say, off the map.
SIEGEL: The prime minister said that for Iran, the U.S. is the great Satan; Israel is the little Satan. For them, he said, we are you, and you are us. And he said on that point, they’re right. We are you, and you are us. We’re together. That togetherness would also apply to Iranian reprisals for a strike, that is if the U.S. struck at Iran, the Iranian terror counterstrikes could be at Israel or vice versa. In that case, wouldn’t an Israeli preemptive strike be something that the U.S. should be on board with and approve of if we’re going into the risk together?
OREN: Let’s understand that Iran has already killed hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, whether it be the 241 Marines killed in Beirut or the American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by Iran. But rather than focusing on the price of what happens if there’s any type of action against Iran, let’s pause for a second and consider what will be the price of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Imagine Iran which today has a bunch of speedboats trying to close the Strait of Hormuz. Imagine if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Imagine if they could hold the entire world oil market blackmailed. Imagine if Iran is conducting terrorist organizations through its terrorist proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah. Now we know there’s a connection with al-Qaida. You can’t respond to them because they have an atomic weapon.
SIEGEL: Yes. You’re saying the consequences of Iran going nuclear are potentially global, and the consequences of a U.S. strike on Iran might also be further such attacks against the United States. Why shouldn’t the U.S. be informed of any Israeli plan to strike at Tehran given the fact that, as the prime minister says, you are us and we are you?
OREN: We have very close relationships with the Obama administration, as with the previous administrations. This is a historic alliance between the American and Israeli peoples. And, of course, America’s interests are part of our calculus in anything we do. At the end of the day, though, Israel must have responsibility for itself.
SIEGEL: Ambassador Michael Oren of Israel, thank you very much for talking with us.
OREN: As always, thank you, Robert.
Have never heard NPR’s Robert Siegel have Mearsheimer, Walt, the Leveretts on to discuss Iran.
Can you imagine hearing any of them say “as always , thank you, Robert”