How an Attack on Iran Could Shake Up the Presidential Race
(updated below)
Like most sane people who have read Sy Hersh's latest article in the New Yorker, I came away more than a little concerned. If Hersh's sources are correct, the Bush administration is seriously considering conducting military strikes against Iran in the near future. He writes:
There's been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere and elsewhere about the potentially disastrous national security consequences of attacking Iran, and I certainly share those concerns. But I haven't seen much discussion of the potential political consequences of such an attack.
If the President were to issue the "execute order" at any point between now and next year's election, it could--in addition to being an enormous strategic mistake--dramatically alter the 2008 presidential race.
First, if it were to happen before she can wrap up the Democratic nomination, such a move might well torpedo Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If Bush attacks Iran--and particularly if he does so in the name of defending American troops from a terrorist organization, as Hersh suggests--he will undoubtedly cite the Kyl-Lieberman resolution as support for such a move. And Clinton was the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote in favor of that resolution.
If Bush attacks Iran, it's difficult to overstate just how angry Democratic voters will be about Clinton's vote. She would undoubtedly argue that her vote was not an authorization to attack Iran, but that would be unlikely to assuage people's anger given that the Senators who voted against the resolution--which included a number of her opponents and even a few Republicans--did so precisely because they were worried it would be used to justify this kind of attack.
Moreover, the parallels to the 2002 Iraq vote--which has always been a major liability for Clinton--would be too difficult to ignore. Once again Clinton would be on the wrong side of an important vote and forced into the position of explaining that she meant only to authorize X, not Y.
Given that Obama missed the vote, he too would have some explaining to do (though not as much as Clinton). And because of that, it may be Edwards (or even Biden or Dodd, both of whom voted against the resolution) who would stand to gain the most.
If Bush were to attack Iran after someone has already secured the nomination, the political ramifications are a little harder to predict. Whoever the nominee is, he/she will feel enormous competing pressures. On the one hand, most Democrats will (understandably) be irate and will expect their nominee to speak out forcefully against the attack. On the other hand, criticizing a military operation as it's happening or in its immediate aftermath is enormously risky politically. There's a long tradition of bipartisan unity about such matters, a belief that the nation needs to speak with one voice during the crucial stages of a military operation, even if they don't agree with it. If the Democratic nominee speaks out forcefully against the operation, Republicans will go absolutely crazy. The carefully choreographed parade of outrage will be deafening, and Republican pundits and politicians will trip over each other to declare that they've never before witnessed conduct so thoroughly unbecoming of a presidential candidate.
Whichever way the candidate chooses to handle the situation, it won't be pretty.
I realize, of course, that the prospect of Bush attacking Iran raises more immediate and important concerns than how it will affect the presidential election. But it will affect the presidential election, and very likely in a dramatic way. I wonder if the candidates realize that such an event could turn everything upside down overnight.
UPDATE: Apparently the Clinton campaign is aware of this contingency and is taking pro-active steps to protect itself. Via Taylor Marsh, it appears that Clinton has decided to co-sponsor Senator Webb's bill that would demand that the President seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran. This is a shrewd move on Clinton's part. Should Bush decide to attack Iran, she can point to this bill as evidence that she never intended to provide Bush with the authority to launch attacks on Iran. Whether this would fully innoculate her in the event that Bush goes ahead with such attacks is difficult to predict. It probably depends, among other things, on whether Webb's bill can gain enough votes to pass the Senate. Either way, though, the very act of sponsoring this bill will, at the very least, mitigate the political fallout for Clinton. It's a good political move and a good substantive move. The other Senators running for president (Obama, Biden, Dodd) really missed an opportunity here. It would have really helped them to have their names on this bill.
Like most sane people who have read Sy Hersh's latest article in the New Yorker, I came away more than a little concerned. If Hersh's sources are correct, the Bush administration is seriously considering conducting military strikes against Iran in the near future. He writes:
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.And, of course, last week the Senate dutifully passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution--by a vote of 76-22--which declared the Revolutionary Guard Corps to be a terrorist organization.
[...]
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
[...]
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.
There's been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere and elsewhere about the potentially disastrous national security consequences of attacking Iran, and I certainly share those concerns. But I haven't seen much discussion of the potential political consequences of such an attack.
If the President were to issue the "execute order" at any point between now and next year's election, it could--in addition to being an enormous strategic mistake--dramatically alter the 2008 presidential race.
First, if it were to happen before she can wrap up the Democratic nomination, such a move might well torpedo Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If Bush attacks Iran--and particularly if he does so in the name of defending American troops from a terrorist organization, as Hersh suggests--he will undoubtedly cite the Kyl-Lieberman resolution as support for such a move. And Clinton was the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote in favor of that resolution.
If Bush attacks Iran, it's difficult to overstate just how angry Democratic voters will be about Clinton's vote. She would undoubtedly argue that her vote was not an authorization to attack Iran, but that would be unlikely to assuage people's anger given that the Senators who voted against the resolution--which included a number of her opponents and even a few Republicans--did so precisely because they were worried it would be used to justify this kind of attack.
Moreover, the parallels to the 2002 Iraq vote--which has always been a major liability for Clinton--would be too difficult to ignore. Once again Clinton would be on the wrong side of an important vote and forced into the position of explaining that she meant only to authorize X, not Y.
Given that Obama missed the vote, he too would have some explaining to do (though not as much as Clinton). And because of that, it may be Edwards (or even Biden or Dodd, both of whom voted against the resolution) who would stand to gain the most.
If Bush were to attack Iran after someone has already secured the nomination, the political ramifications are a little harder to predict. Whoever the nominee is, he/she will feel enormous competing pressures. On the one hand, most Democrats will (understandably) be irate and will expect their nominee to speak out forcefully against the attack. On the other hand, criticizing a military operation as it's happening or in its immediate aftermath is enormously risky politically. There's a long tradition of bipartisan unity about such matters, a belief that the nation needs to speak with one voice during the crucial stages of a military operation, even if they don't agree with it. If the Democratic nominee speaks out forcefully against the operation, Republicans will go absolutely crazy. The carefully choreographed parade of outrage will be deafening, and Republican pundits and politicians will trip over each other to declare that they've never before witnessed conduct so thoroughly unbecoming of a presidential candidate.
Whichever way the candidate chooses to handle the situation, it won't be pretty.
I realize, of course, that the prospect of Bush attacking Iran raises more immediate and important concerns than how it will affect the presidential election. But it will affect the presidential election, and very likely in a dramatic way. I wonder if the candidates realize that such an event could turn everything upside down overnight.
UPDATE: Apparently the Clinton campaign is aware of this contingency and is taking pro-active steps to protect itself. Via Taylor Marsh, it appears that Clinton has decided to co-sponsor Senator Webb's bill that would demand that the President seek Congressional approval before attacking Iran. This is a shrewd move on Clinton's part. Should Bush decide to attack Iran, she can point to this bill as evidence that she never intended to provide Bush with the authority to launch attacks on Iran. Whether this would fully innoculate her in the event that Bush goes ahead with such attacks is difficult to predict. It probably depends, among other things, on whether Webb's bill can gain enough votes to pass the Senate. Either way, though, the very act of sponsoring this bill will, at the very least, mitigate the political fallout for Clinton. It's a good political move and a good substantive move. The other Senators running for president (Obama, Biden, Dodd) really missed an opportunity here. It would have really helped them to have their names on this bill.
posted by A.L. at 9:55 PM
11 Comments:
A pre-January attack on Iran would probably doom Hillary Clinton. After then, less so. Isn't it all going to be wrapped up in four weeks?
After nominations are secured, I think it hurts Republicans the most. From what I've read, the attack on Iran will be short and it's the aftermath that will be bad: skirmishes in the gulf, spike in oil prices, possible run on the dollar. Those things will make Bush look like an out-of-control guy and the Republicans will take the blame. I think.
Well, if Hillary, God forbid, is the Democratic nominee, and if Bush then attacks Iran, you don't expect her to suddenly turn antiwar, do you?
It seems to me that you are making a VERY important point in this post. It is about the strongest possible argument to Democrats for why Hillary MUST NOT be the nominee; the widespread negative reaction to her recent Iran vote I think shows that Dems sense this, but I don't know if very many of us have seen it in quite as stark terms as suggested here...
"From what I've read, the attack on Iran will be short and it's the aftermath that will be bad: skirmishes in the gulf, spike in oil prices, possible run on the dollar."
While our offensive actions might be envisioned as being short, I agree that hostilities would not be short nor would they be limited to the Gulf.
The morning after US troops raided the consulate in Irbil and captured several Iranians, an RPG sailed into the front of the US embassy in Athens. And that wasn't Iranian doing--but a group sympathetic to them. I think there would be an uptick of attacks of this sort on american interests globally.
If Iran responded to the bombing by attacking the US fleet from which the bombs came (a reasonable response), the "focused" and "surgical" bombing would expand into some sort of shooting war. I'm not sure these would be skirmishes.
The Democrats can nip this in the bud if only they possessed oomph.
IMPEACH the Twits!
If we attack Iran, people are going to be setting police cars on fire.
How would such an attack affect the political consequences between Democrats and Republicans? Would it increase support for Republican candidate(s)?
I almost don't know what to say, that Hersh article was so freaking scary.
The scariest part is that you can see the Cheney plan coalescing. You can see how they might actually pull off the public relations battle by framing it as a response to terrorism. And then once Iran responds to our limited attach by hitting us somewhere, we can REALLY rain hell on them, which is what Cheney wants.
I worry that when the attack on Iran comes, Bush/Cheney will have some plausible story of Iranian aggression ready that will make immediate criticism by Democrats difficult. We will all know in our hearts that they are lying, but will not be able to prove it until some time down the road. It will be too late by then of course.
One thing is clear. Hillary will cave and follow along. She is too much a part of the establishment to do otherwise. I hope to God Obama is ready for that kind of challenge. Can you imagine how hard it would be to be the ONE who stands up against the tide of war? The personal pressure would be unimaginable, which is why you almost never see it happen in real life.
My sense is that Obama is somehow different, and might take the risk in looking beyond the next political cycle. But there is no way to know. He'd have to get over his sometimes aversion to rocking the boat.
But such opposition would only be symbolic. To paraphrase Glen Greenwald, it is a sad day in our democracy when the military itself is the only line of defense between us and a catastrophic war.
here is my question for AL
What is it that the Democratic base actually wants with respect to our relationship with Iran? Does it want the US to recognize the Iranian government and accept the basic legitimacy of the regime? Would it accomodate Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons? To establish dominant influence over the Shiite regions of Iraq? To use Hezbollah as a means of undermining the Lebanese goverment? To conduct proxy war against Israel? To develop terrorist capability as a means of retaliating against governments when its interests dictate?
I ask this because while it is apparent that the Democratic base does not want to give George Bush the authority to use military force against Iran, it is not so clear what policy it would want a Democratic president to follow. Sure, it is easy to say that a Democratic president would favor political solutions over military ones, or would favor multilateral approaches over unilateral ones. But the fact is that the Bush Administration has pursued a political, multilateral approach to Iran's nuclear program, and it hasn't worked. I am open to the possibility that a Democratic president would be more successful, but supposing she (or he) is not?
Put another way, the Bush foreign policy since 9/11 has been based largely on an emotional characterization of our enemies as an "axis of evil" to which the only response can be aggressive confrontation. The Republican base has rallied around this policy, but I suspect that (outside of a small and now discredited group of neocons) the real sentiments of the base are more along the lines of (1) as long as they don't attack us or our vital interests, it is not our business what Iran or other Muslim countries do to gays, women, religious minorities, etc. and (2)except to the extent necessary to protect our vital interests, lets have as little entanglement with these people as possible.
In the Democratic base, the situation appears more complex. I think a significant part of the Democratic coalition shares the basic attitude of the neocons toward Iran (and Saudi Arabia, for that matter), namely that the Iranian government and the political sentiments it represents are fundamentally illegitimate because it is anti-Israeli and anti-semitic, theocratic, anti-women, anti-gay, etc. In other words, this part of the Democratic coalition views Iran the way Democrats viewed South Africa during apartheid. Thus, even if Iran were to give up or curtail activities that threaten American interests (ie, the nuclear program and terrorism), this group would oppose any accomodation.
On the other hand, there is another significant part of the Democratic coalition (well represented in the blogosphere) which seems to view American foreign policy (including, but not necessarily limited to, the Bush foreign policy) as fundamentally illegitimate, and is, if anything, sympathetic to countries like Iran that challenge that foreign policy most vigorously. Of course, this group (though it existed) was fairly quiet during the Clinton Administration, and didn't pose much of a challenge to our military adventures in Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq, etc, during those years. Still, I suspect that it is larger and more energized now, and would be likely to challenge even a Democratic president.
All of this leaves me confused as to what kind of foreign policy the Democratic party actually wants, or what we can expect from a Democratic president.
MLS,
You ask important questions, and I think the short answer is that if a Democrat is elected president, many of the divisions on the left regarding foreign policy will resurface. For now though, there's pretty broad agreement that a Bush-led war on Iran would be a disaster of epic proportions.
My personal opinion is that, because there is no viable military strategy with Iran, we have to move away from a policy of regime change. So long as that is our policy, it will only incentivize Iran to seek nuclear weapons faster (because they know they'll be untouchable if they have them). If we can provide some reassurance that we don't intend to topple their regime, they'll have less incentive to pursue nuclear weapons.
I think we have to move toward a slow reproachment policy like the one we were pursuing from the late 90s and until around 2003. I think that if we can give Iran some breathing space, organic reform will start to take hold. I think the hard-liners in Iran are not particularly popular, but are empowered by our beligerence. I think there is a substantial contingent in Iran--even among the leadership--who are not interested in war, but would like to further integrate into the global economy.
Essentially, I think we need to follow the Libya model and try to coax Iran into disarming by promising to help it transition into the modern world. It won't be easy, but there really aren't any other options.
I agree that we should forswear regime change as a policy, in Iran and generally everywhere else. I also agree that reducing the belligerance of our posture is in our interest if for no other reason than it will help us gain international support vis a vis the Iranian government.
However, I wouldn't count on this slowing the Iranian nuclear program because I don't believe that the program is primarily defensive in nature. So while I agree that a preemptive military strike is "not viable" (more accurately, the costs and risks are too high to justify such a strike at this time), we need either (1) an alternative strategy to "incentivize" Iran to abandon the program or (2) a strategy to deal with a nucler-armed Iran. Perhaps in the meantime Iran will transform itself into a modern, moderate, and peaceful country, but I wouldn't put too many chips on that table.
Basically, I hope that our next President is capable of thinking strategically about American interests-- rather than just pursuing a faith-based policy of either the George Bush or Jimmy Carter variety. Any idea who that would be?
I think we've have grown too full of ourselves for even debating on what should be done with Iran.
As if we have some divine right.
Haven't we caused enough bloodshed,chaos and mayhem not to mention wanton GREED.
What to do, how bout REAL diplomacy?
Then again I was a supporter of Jimmy Carter, the only sitting President I ever wrote and received a reply.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home