International news

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government is ready to sit down with world powers for talks on its nuclear programme as he brushed off the harmful effect of newly imposed sanctions.Like the imminent prospect of one’s hanging, to paraphrase the 18th century British essayist Dr Samuel Johnson, the suddenly looming possibility of war can concentrate the mind wonderfully.

IF THAT aphorism didn’t apply in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, it appears to be the case now for key sectors of the US foreign-policy elite – notably, liberal hawks who supported the Iraq war – with regard to the sharp rise in tensions between Iran and both the US and Israel earlier this month.

Amid a crescendo of threats by senior Israeli officials to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the murder, presumably by Mossad, of a fifth Iranian nuclear scientist in the past several years, and a sharp escalation of Western economic sanctions designed to ‘cripple’ Iran’s economy, Tehran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz brought the until-then hypothetical possibility of war – whether by design, provocation or accident – sharply into view.

The hawkish declarations by Republican presidential candidates eager to prove their love for Israel to Christian fundamentalists and Jewish voters and donors didn’t help, nor did a renewed and intensified drumbeat for “regime change” by some of the same neo-conservatives from institutions like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) that led the drive to war in Iraq.

Adding to the sense that war was suddenly a very real possibility, these events more or less coincided with the publication by the influential Foreign Affairs journal of an article entitled Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike is the Least Bad Option. It advocated a limited and carefully calibrated US aerial attack on Iran’s air defences and nuclear sites, and was authored by an academic, Matthew Kroenig, who had just completed a one-year stint as a strategic analyst in the office of the secretary of defence.

The confluence of all these developments provoked a number of influential members of the foreign policy establishment – including several prominent liberal interventionists who had supported the Iraq war – to warn against any further escalation either by the US or Israel.


“We’re doing this terrible thing all over again,” wrote Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, the think tank that publishes Foreign Affairs, in the Daily Beast, in an appeal for Senate hearings on the implications of war with Iran.

“As before, we’re letting a bunch of ignorant, sloppy-thinking politicians and politicised foreign-policy experts draw ‘red line’ ultimatums. As before, we’re letting them quick-march us off to war,” warned Gelb, a repentant Iraq-war hawk, about the chorus of neo-conservatives and other hawks with whom he had previously been aligned.

On the pages of The New Republic, Kenneth Pollack, a former top CIA analyst at the Brookings Institution whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, was cited frequently by liberal hawks before the war, argued not only against any further escalation, but also suggested that the sanctions track on which the Barack Obama administration and the European Union have increasingly relied was proving counterproductive.

“The problem is that these sanctions (against the Central Bank of Iran) are potentially so damaging that they could backfire,” he wrote, citing their possible negative impact on the West’s own struggling economies and the difficulty of sustaining them diplomatically over time if they resulted in the kind of “humanitarian catastrophe” inflicted by the sanctions regime against Iraq from 1992 until the invasion.

Fight back

Moreover, he went on, “…the more we turn up the heat on Iran, the more Iran will fight back, and the way they like to fight back could easily lead to unintended escalation. Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants…”

Meanwhile, another influential liberal hawk, Princeton Prof. Anne-Marie Slaughter, argued in that the West and Iran were playing a “dangerous game of chicken” and that the West’s current course “leaves Iran’s government no alternative between publicly backing down, which it will not do, and escalating its provocations.”

“The more publicly the West threatens Iran, the more easily Iranian leaders can portray America as the Great Satan to parts of the Iranian population that have recently been inclined to see the US as their friend,” wrote Slaughter.

Jim Lobe