Ezra Klein did a very good interview with John Edwards about his ideas on the Middle East. Klein asked the tough questions and really got Edwards tap-dancing. It may have passed some people’s notice but Edwards has been toeing a very pro-Israel, anti-Iran line recently.
It’s no secret that Israel’s right, and AIPAC, and the neo-conservatives are all clamoring for some kind of military confrontation with Iran. Hillary was apparently booed at AIPAC for merely mentioning that we might talk to Iran rather than destroy them. Klein is understandably concerned about this and he brought it up with Edwards.
When you were at the Iowa town hall in Des Moines, I remember a young woman asking you about Israel, and you said to her, she asked you about Palestine more specifically, and you said, “You’re not going to like my answer but you deserve one.” Your answer was very pro-Israel in the conflict. Then you were at an AIPAC dinner the other night. You are, it seems, notably — and I remember reading now your Iraq resolution — where you said in the first line of it that they are a grave threat to us and our ally, Israel. You’re notably pro-Israel, I think. What is — two things — what is your view on their treatment, or the way, or the interaction with them and the Palestinians, can anything be done there? More to the point, what is it, what are the experiences — you were just in Israel you said — that have brought you so much closer to that community and that way of thinking, and do you support sort of AIPAC’s line on these issues?
You really need to read conversation in its entirety to get a feel for it because Edwards was not going to get pinned down….
… He recently said, “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” Klein wanted to know if we could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. You might think that Edwards had already answered that question, but he knew his audience was different and the tap-dancing commenced.
Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Edwards: I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We’re not being smart about how we engage with them. But I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do — I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language “options are on the table,” he does it in a very threatening kind of way — with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that.
So which Edwards is the real Edwards? I’m willing to forgive him for a little pandering. I know what happens to politicians in this country that don’t talk tough about protecting Israel’s interests. If he said that we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran then he would be stuck defending that position for the rest of his campaign (what little was left of it). And Edwards definitely understands that attacking Iran is a terrible idea. He makes that clear in this interview.
Edwards: Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero — that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from?
I can understand why Iran’s neighbors, including Israel, do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. I don’t want Pakistan to have one either. But there are a lot of things that I do not want but that I am not prepared to go to war over to prevent.
When it comes to Iran, our allies (including Europeans) do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We’re negotiating (through proxies) to try to properly incentivize them to not to develop a nuclear weapon. In that context, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to take a military option completely off the table and say that we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran. I understand that. I understand why Edwards is tap dancing.
But I am just a lowly blogger who is not running for office. And I don’t mind saying that the United States can defininitely live with a nuclear-armed Iran. We are living with a nuclear armed Pakistan. That is a much bigger threat to us than pretty much anything I can think of. Not only is there a real possibility of war between Pakistan and India, but General Musharraf has survived numerous assassination attempts. Musharraf could be driven from power or simply die at any time. And we have no idea what kind of radical government might replace him. Pakistan is rife with anti-American extremists. It’s probably the most anti-American place on earth.
You can make a good argument that the last thing we need is to add to this problem by standing by and watching Iran develop a nuclear weapon. That is why I support efforts to convince them not to develop one. And, as part of that, I don’t expect politicians to say that we don’t care one way or the other.
But the root truth of the matter is that we cannot prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if they are hell-bent on obtaining one. We would have to destroy their country to prevent it. And we don’t have the troops to do it. We would have to use nukes to prevent Iran from getting nukes. And that is not something we can morally do.
We need to analyze the reasons why we don’t want a nuclear-armed Iran. There is a lot of disinformation and fear-mongering going on right now. People have correctly noted that the Iranian president, Ahmedinejad, is a rabid anti-Semitic fruitcake. What they haven’t told you is that the Iranian president does not have control of the armed forces and intelligence agencies of Iran. He cannot order a nuclear strike. His opinions are worrisome, but they are just his opinions. They also haven’t told you that he is unpopular and his power is waning. So, we would be idiotic to give him a boost by elevating him into some grave threat to Israel. He’s not. He’s no more of a threat to Israel than David Duke. Neither of them control any armies or any missiles. Remember this every time you hear people talk about Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
I think we also need to talk a bit about mutually assured destruction. Anyone that uses a nuclear weapon against Israel, or any of our allies, is going to get annihilated. The concern should not be that Iran is going to develop some rudimentary nuclear device and then launch it one of our allies. There is no way they will do that. But we do have a concern that they might lose control of their nuclear materials. It’s the same fear we have of Russia’s stockpiles (turning up in people’s teapots in London) and Pakistan’s stockpiles. I don’t dispute that this is a concern. That is why we should try to convince Iran that they don’t need a nuclear weapon.
Now, some people are going to respond to this by asking what right we have to tell other countries what to do and asking why it is okay for Israel to have nukes, but not Iran.
There is no simple answer to this. And I won’t attempt to answer it comprehensively here. Suffice to say, for the moment, that the less nuclear weapons there are the better. There is a non-proliferation architecture in place. Iran is a signatory to that architecture and Israel is not. Israel has experienced three different wars that threatened to destroy them as a nation. They feel threatened. We are not going to be able to convince them to give up their nuclear weapons without making enormous progress on the peace process there first. Even then, it would likely take the threat of a complete rift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship for them to comply.
So, I see it as a fait accompli that we have to live with. It involves some unavoidable hypocrisy, and I understand that. I’d like to try to tackle Israel’s security from a different standpoint.
If we can restart the road map process and try to get moving on rebuilding a Palestinian state, then I think we should try to detach Syria from Iran’s orbit. The ultimate aim is to get a peace agreement between Israel and Syria that is similar to the agreement they have with Egypt and Jordan. If we can thereby isolate and contain Iran, we will have done more to secure Israel than we will do by attacking Iran.
For the hawks, I have to point out that the middle east policies that have been pursued since George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon came to power are not working. They are not working in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Iran, or in Saudi Arabia. They are failed policies that are making Israel’s position worse. The only positive I can see is that suicide attacks within Israel proper are down from where they were during the second intifada. That’s good. But taken as a whole, the position is deteriorating.
It’s time to give the other side a chance to try to make some progress.
