[Since, for the moment, my email is working, let me get out an EdgeLeft on the Iran situation. This may be a wandering analysis, the sort of thing I used to do for War Resisters League when I was on staff. Please feel free to circulate to friends or use in any way you can. David]
Edge Left: Will Bush Attack Iran?
by David McReynolds
There is no simple answer to this question. I've followed the reports as closely as possible, both the threats from US officials, and the rumblings from Israel, and I offer this as guidance to local activists. Last week I was lucky in that Jeremy Scahill, an unusually competent journalist, and my friend Bruce Cronin, a professor in international relations, both dropped by my apartment and we looked at the problem together.
Jeremy felt that while he was sure Bush and Cheney wanted to strike Iran, he was far from sure they would be able to. Bruce felt it was too late in Bush's term for him to take action. There is, of course, another bit of the puzzle, which is what Israel might do. I've found much of the discussion on the Left very frustrating and simplistic.
Let's first take Israel, clearly a client state of the US, but quite able to act independently (as it is doing just now, to the dismay of Washington, as it negotiates indirectly with the Syrians via Turkey, simply side-stepping the US). The US has some control over Israel - but only some. Contrary to what many seem to think, Israel does not control the US. Yes, AIPAC and the odd combination of pro-Israeli Jews (increasingly a minority within the Jewish community) aligned with the "Christian Zionists" - who are a crucial part of the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington - take a hard line on Iran. But the days when AIPAC and "the major Jewish organizations" ruled the roost are being challenged, both by such political realities as President Carter's visit to the Middle East and his statements, and by the formation of an alternative Jewish lobby in Washington, to press for a less strident view.
So the Left would do itself, and the country, a great favor if it did not assume that US foreign policy was made in Tel Aviv. Yes, many of the neo-conservatives are Jews, but most of them were also Trotskyists in an earlier part of their lives. Israel is a highly militarized state, it is also - to the dismay of the majority of Israelis - a deeply corrupt state. The Israeli daily, Haaretz, is available online - more people should check it out if they want a sober view of Israeli life.
It is true that Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has said that an Israeli attack on Iran seems "unavoidable" (for which he was publicly scolded by Mohammed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency). But the reality of Israeli politics is that Mofaz represents a far right party, that, as is often the case in Israeli politics, the people who do the loudest talking are the least likely to be given control of actual policy. Still, the Israelis may indeed launch an air strike against Iran. This would be an act of clinical madness - but so was the US invasion of Iraq. We know that States are not immune to acts of insanity. The excuse for such an attack is the danger that Iran might develop a nuclear weapon. The Israelis have managed to work themselves up into a state of hysteria over the statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected as Iran's President in 2005. Because of errors in translation, his statements about hoping for an end of the Zionist regime were mis-translated as calling for the literal destruction of Israel. It would be better if we saw his hostility to the Zionism of Israel as similar to Reagan's hostility to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", or Bush's famous "Axis of Evil" remarks before he invaded Iraq. Americans (and Israelis) are now learning what it is like to be seen as evil. In short, Ahmadinejad hopes for the end of the Jewish State as a Jewish State - but has never said or implied that he sought the destruction of Israel. Of more concern (at least to me) was his denial of the Holocaust. And there we don't have a problem of mis-translation. We have a problem of cultural differences that are profound. There are thousands of Jews living peacefully in Iran (one is a member of the Iranian parliament), but Ahmadinejad reflects a Middle Eastern view that the Holocaust was a European matter for which the Arabs are being forced to pay. There is, actually, a great deal of justice to this point of view and if we could replay history the case for establishing a Jewish State in middle of the Arab world in 1948 would be very weak.
Unhappily, politics doesn't make it possible to roll back history. If it could, the Native Americans would love to roll the Pilgrims back to England, and all of Latin America would happily roll the Spanish and Portuguese back to their homelands. We are here, the Jews are in Israel, most of those now in Israel were born there, and the urgent need to to proceed to find some just solution that would cover both the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews. (Another side note for the American Left - it does not really help to talk about the "Zionist Jews" - most Israelis think of themselves as Israelis, not as Zionists).
Do I wish Ahmadinejad was more cautious in his speech? Yes - and the same thing can be said about American leaders. The key issue is whether Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon and, if so, what should be done about it. Israel is perhaps the last country that should raise this question, since it has about 150 nuclear weapons of its own, and those weapons are seen by all the Arab states and by Iran (not an Arab state) as threatening, and as a reason to seek some deterrent. After all, in its short history Israel has launched at least two wars of aggression - the one in 1956, launched in concert with France and Great Britain in an effort to keep Nasser from gaining control of the Suez Canal, categorically cannot be seen as a war of self defense.
The Iranians say they are only seeking nuclear energy (which no longer seems strange, even for an oil rich area, given the current oil crisis). The highest authorities in Iran - the religious leaders who pack a good deal more punch than Ahmadinejad - have said they are absolutely opposed to nuclear weapons. I tend to doubt them, but they do, in fact, carry more power in the political structure.
In addition, we should remember three things about Iran. First, it has not launched an attack on any of its neighbors for several hundred years, in sharp contrast to Israel, or Iraq, (which attacked Iran and had a terrible 8 year war in which the US supported the Iraqi attack, poison gas and all). Second, the US has played a terrible role in Iran. The "coup" of 1953, jointly organized by US and British intelligence which sought to maintain control of Iranian oil, ousted Dr. Mosaddeq, who had been elected Prime Minister, and who had nationalized the oil industry. The CIA brought to power Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. From 1953 on, the Shah crushed the opposition, used violence and torture against dissidents through the dreaded secret police - SAVAK. All of this laid the basis for the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Third, any military action against Iran will drive up the price of oil still further and could totally cripple the US economy. It would be an action sharply opposed by both Russia and China.
Having tried to lay out some basis for the Israeli mindset, and the situation as it may be viewed from Iran, the reality that drives Washington (particularly Cheney and Bush) is that one immediate result of the Iraq War is the increase of Iranian influence. It was humiliating to the Americans that while Bush had to fly into Baghdad under heavy military cover, Ahmadinejad was given a public welcome with only moderate security, when he made his recent visit to Iraq. It is no secret that the Iranians have close ties to the Shiites, many of whom spent their time in exile in Iran. It is no secret that, just as Saudi Arabia ships military supplies to the Sunni insurgents, Iran supplies the Shiites (though the actual evidence for this is sketchy and the US has had to back off many of its recent claims).
Bush and Cheney would like, I am sure, to leave office with one last blast - an air strike deep into Iranian territory. The question is whether this is actually possible, and here is where, as I sat talking with Jeremy and Bruce, we simply don't have an answer. Gates, at the Defense Department, is opposed to the action. Most of the military is opposed. The State Department is opposed. My hunch - but no evidence - is that the CIA is opposed.
So the question is who would give the order and who would obey. Bush may be an idiot, but he is not a dictator. Even dictators have found that it is often hard to get their orders obeyed. Bush is much more Cheney's agent than he is an independent agent of his own. Rumsfeld is gone. Rove is gone. Cheney's chief aide was sent to jail (and pardoned by Bush). The publishing world has given us volumes of information about the lies of Bush, and the complicity of the media. So the once compliant media is now skeptical.
All of this suggests to me that an attack is not going to happen. Seymour Hersh, a very reliable source, has been discussing this for some time in New Yorker pieces and I have no doubt at all that there are strong forces left in the Administration which want to attack Iran. I just think the chances of that attack diminish as it becomes clearer that the Republicans may well lose the White House.
What should we do? I certainly don't think we should sit on our hands and wait to see what happens. Nor do I think the peace movement should waste ten seconds on planning "day after" demonstrations. The issue is what can we do now. We cannot control Israel, but I think there are things that can be done now by local and national peace groups.
First, impeachment is really off the table - the time frame between now and the November election is far too short for that process, even if it started tomorrow. So "moves to impeach" may make us feel good but they will not change the minds of war-makers in Washington. (This isn't to say I don't wish Bush had been impeached - I do. Or that I don't hope for his eventual trial at some international tribunal - I do). I think we can, in every Congressional district, get in touch with our members of Congress and Senate and press them on this issue, ask what they know, tell them what we feel. Make it clear we want them to come out, publicly, now - deploring an attack after it has happened won't help anyone.
Second, groups such as UFPJ, or an independent collection of academics and intellectuals such as Seymour Hersh, Noam Chomsky, etc., should draft a public statement directed at the military, urging them to refuse orders for a military attack. The military is trained, above all, to obey orders. War is a very serious matter - it is about killing people, and about being killed. No army is really happy to plunge forward toward machine guns and snipers. Our military has been deeply trained to obey civilian authorities - a very good thing. But a strong public statement needs to be made to the military - a statement signed by religious leaders and legal scholars as well as by academics - pointing out that under the Nuremburg Tribunal decisions, a war of aggression is a violation of international law, and that no soldier, whether a private or a general, can avoid the obligation to say "no" to an order to launch such a war.
So, for what it is worth, that is my advice. Local, strong, immediate pressure on members of Congress, and a concerted and powerful public appeal to the military to recognize that only the Congress has the Constitutional authority to launch a war - not the President.
Finally, for any of us with international contacts, those should be used now. Our movements in Japan, Europe, Latin America, Africa, should arrange visits with US Embassies and Consulates to make clear our deep opposition to any military strike on Iran.
David McReynolds writes occasional EdgeLeft columns, which may distributed without permission. He is a former Chair of War Resisters International, served for many years on the staff of War Resisters League, and ran for President as the Socialist Party's candidate in 1980 and 2000. He is retired and lives in the East Village with two cats. He can be reached at: dmcreynolds@nyc.rr.com
http://www.thesocialistparty.org/spo/archive/index.html