Let’s assume that Iran is indeed conducting a covert nuclear weapons program, and that Iran was behind Hezbollah’s recent fighting against the Lebanese government.
1. Do these facts make an attack legal? I’m not an expert in the law of war, and this issue was certainly debated ad nauseam in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But it seems to me that an attack on Iran is not within the bounds of self-defense or defense of Israel (since the threat to Israel, while perhaps starker than the threat to the United States, is still not immediate enough to justify war, in my view); and that to the extent an attack on Iran could somehow be viewed as a defense of Lebanon or even as a defense of Israel, as far as I know the U.S. has no mutual defense treaty with either country (in contrast to, say, the NATO treaty, our treaties with Japan and South Korea, etc.).
2. Would an attack make strategic sense? It’s difficult to see how it could. I assume that despite official protestations of the Army’s readiness, in fact the Army today could not fight a major ground war inside Iran. So an attack means either special forces-type operations or attacks from the air or the sea. Does anyone believe that our intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program is good enough to think that we could destroy it remotely? Given the intelligence community’s conclusions in the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, and given how starkly those conclusions differ from the Administration’s earlier view, and given the difficulty in obtaining good human intelligence in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, I don’t see much reason for confidence. So probably the most we could accomplish would be to set back the Iranian program by some amount of time and destroy whatever tendency may exist within the Iranian elite to negotiate about the program or to be more transparent about Iran’s nuclear activities. And the cost, in good will inside Iran, in the Islamic world, and even in the world at large would be immense. I mean, yes, the Security Council and most of our allies support sanctions on Iran, and Iran is, after all, in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But who else, aside from Israel, would be in favor of an attack?
Is there some way to stop this before it starts? Are we confident that internal opposition within the Administration will prevent it?
TedF
This has been bubbling for awhile.
<
p>I can’t find a link, but recall an interview Cheney gave on Fox News back in January in which he stated rather bluntly that they don’t trust the next adminitsration– regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat– to do the right thing on Iran, and may have to take action in late autumn (i.e., after election day) to make sure that the next administration will start out on the right path.
<
p>Recall also that they have quietly taken the position that the present Commander in Chief may choose not to cede power in January if military circumstances so require.
<
p>And still, the Republicans in Congress whistle and stare at their shoes.
<
p>Yeah, pretty scary. Are the articles of impeachment ready yet?
against Bush and Cheney may be warranted. Washington D.C. police should arrest them both immediately. We’ll sort out the Constitutional issues later.
…then I’ll have to assume it’s b.s..
<
p>Sorta like the hearsay that forms the basis for this thread.
they have quietly taken the position that the present Commander in Chief may choose not to cede power in January
<
p>Got a citation for this? Not saying you’re wrong; it sounds like their style… but I’d like to see the evidence for my own eyes.
They claim that, as Commander-in Chief, the executive is not subject to law. Any law. If the law provides that his term ends in January, but the Commander in chief is not subject to law, then…
<
p>While Republicans get pissy and claim that poeple who note the extremism of the Bush position suffer from BDR, I think that it is incumbent upon them to show that they have not become a monarchist party, republican only in name.
Well, I’m no fan of the Bush Administration, the use of “signing statements” to attempt to override statutes, the unitary executive theory, etc. But I don’t think you’ve made your case. I don’t see anything in the use of signing statements that would permit the President to remain in office on January 21, 2009.
<
p>Now, I don’t dismiss your concerns out of hand. Congressman DeFazio has said that the Bush Administration has failed to permit Congress to read the classified version of the continuity of government plan, and a conspiracy theorist could wonder, as DeFazio has, whether “the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.” But I’m not aware of any evidence suggesting that the secret COG plan provides for the continuation in power of the President past the expiration of his term in office, and I belive any such provision would be plainly unconstitutional. The Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan group, has considered a number of proposals to address the possibility of an attack that decapitates Congress, but all of these involve either constitutional amendments or amendments to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
<
p>TedF
CMD, “any law” is a gross exaggeration. So is Charlie Savage’s overwrought opinion piece in the Globe.
<
p>Least you believe the President’s use of signing statements to disregard acts of Congress is somehow illegal, regal, or tantamount to a right-wing coup, here’s what Bernie Nussman, of the CLINTON administration, writes about them:
<
p>
<
p>Signing statements … “valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.” Can it get any clearer than that?
<
p>To all those moonbat progressives predicting tanks in the streets on January 20th, 2009, please readjust the frequencies on your tin foil hats.
<
p>Doctor’s diagnosis: acute BDS.
If some flak in the Clinton administration said so, it must be true. Screw democracy-do us all a big favor and shepherd us back to monarchy. It’s the natural order of things, probably…this was all a big mistake. God save the Queen!
Bernie Nussbaum was White House Counsel. Next to the Attorney General, there’s no bigger or more important legal position in government.
<
p>You don’t like the answer, kill the messenger.
<
p>Do you have a source for this?
<
p>TedF
A military strike on Iran would be a disaster for our occupation of Iraq.
the lack of citations makes this a pretty speculative item at best.
Even the most cursory cruise missile strike against Iran would drive the price of oil to lunar-orbital heights. Sure it might be a chance for an out-of-ideas GOP to play the patriotism card one last time…but if gas seriously spikes in price mobs might start circling the White House screaming for blood and dynamite….a scenario I hope can be avoided quite frankly.
Please avoid the phrase “cursory cruise missile strike” unless you want to sound like an ass. Thank you.
Are you people on this blog serious? Your left-wing fantasies are getting the best of you.
Certainly the United States has the right and responsibility to protect Israel by whatever means Israel determines necessary. This cannot be argued. The arguments in this blog only serve the enemies of the United States and Israel. Even Senator Clinton spoke of the obliteration of Iran.
<
p>I look at the sad state of the Democratic Party. Again poised to lose the Whitehouse by promising to follow a policy of appeasement to the enemies of Israel led by what appears to be an anti-semite ideology held by Senator Obama and his advisors. Americans want to support Israel by whatever means necessary. Should Senator Obama win the nomination, he will surely lose the election to the Republican that will protect Israel by whatever means necessary.
<
p>Enough bickering. Support Israel.
<
p>Want to support the terrorist fighters?
but I don’t know what you mean by “a responsibility to protect Israel by whatever means Israel determines to be necessary”. The U.S should be promoting peace in the region, not feeding into ethnic and religious animosity. The Palestinians should have their own sovereign nation, and the US should do everything in its power to ensure that this happens, even if it means using hardball negotiating tactics against Israel. For instance, military aid to Istarl should be contingent upon the ceding of certain disputed territory to the Palestinians.
The persistent fantasy during the Vietnam war was that if ‘we’ could attack China, ‘we’ would get the upper hand in Vietnam again.
<
p>Looks to me that to the extend Iraq is a recapitulation of Vietnam, Iran takes the role of China.
<
p>In the end the LBJ and Nixon people never allowed significant attacks on China- because Vietnam, after all, was a chosen way of fighting The Commies indirectly. Fighting them directly would provoke precisely that which Vietnam did and would not- nuclear weapons use.
<
p>Likewise, fighting in Iraq does ‘fight terrorism’ in giving the pan-Arabic Al Qaeda recruits and other Middle Easterners with grudges a place to go to fight and/or die. A place in which few American civilians will die, and not a whole lot of effect on oil markets and such results. Attacking Iran would pretty much set off an oil market crisis and lead to Al Qaeda and other organizations- Hezbollah, the Iranian secret police, and many others- attacking and killing Americans all over the world- mostly civilians, and probably inside the US in ways designed to inflict maximal fear and damage. Which is precisely that mayhem and chaos which Iraq is supposed to distract from.