Guy T. Saperstein published this article on Iran this morning, November 21, 2007, on AlterNet (reposted with permission).
If the Dems hope to avoid another crushing, demoralizing defeat in a presidential election, they will need a coherent strategy on what to do about Iran.
Needless to say, on the matter of Iran and its delving into nuclear power, Hillary is virtually the only question mark among the Democratic candidates. While some people might believe it is just posturing, the attempt to make plain that a woman in the presidency would have the balls to engage countries in military action (an American Iron Maggie), evidence from the past suggests something more deep and disturbing.
Among the Democratic presidential candidates, only Hillary seems seriously beholden to the Israel Lobby, which means potential acquiescence toward Israeli war mongering. Given her and Bill’s willingness to greet and meet with Israel’s most vile racist, Avigdor Lieberman, at the Saban Institute, a proZionist think tank, last January, it is evident that Israel pandering is in full swing among the Clintons. They have no shame. Even Henry Kissinger, who agrees with Lieberman’s transfer ideology for Palestinians, ducked the meeting to avoid embarrassment. Lieberman is probably the Israeli equivalent of a KKK Grand Dragon. But it bothered Bill and Hillary not at whit, given the smiles exchanged.
But Iran is another issue, one that has serious ramifications for America’s future, in particular, our relationship to other peoples, like the Arab and Muslim worlds, to say nothing about its potential economic consequences, or damage to the Democrat party. An Iran adventure would drag the US still further down into an abyss that not even the Bush administration has taken us.
As Guy T. Saperstein wrote in his article,
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and her past behavior is a guide, we can expect cautiousness and triangulation on Iran, and perhaps even outright support for military action. Already, she has fallen into the Republican trap of supporting the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution characterizing a part of the Iranian national army as a “terrorist organization.” This is the kind of rhetoric which Sen. Hagel recently called “the lowest common denominator of ‘who can talk the toughest’ and who is the ‘meanest cowboy on the block.’ That kind of rhetoric … political as it may be … will only drive the world further away from America and deepen a world crisis.
There is therefore an urgent need for an Iran policy among Democratic presidential candidates. Saperstein begins,
Democrats are almost giddy about their prospects of winning the presidency and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate. In fact, in the November/December 2007 issue of Mother Jones magazine, Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden of the New Democrat Network even predict a 50-year shift of power to Democrats.
Due to the near-complete collapse of conservative ideas and policies, Democrats have an opening and perhaps even a strong hand to play, but they are underestimating the Republican trump card and Bush’s willingness to play it — national security. In fact, Democrats are woefully unprepared for what is likely to happen between now and next November.
The last three federal elections have been decided on security issues, with the Republicans winning two of them. Even in 2006, with the Iraq war collapsing around the Republicans, according to a Quinlin Greenberg poll, 22 percent of voters said “protecting America from terrorism” was their No. 1 voting priority and these “security voters” broke 74 percent to 24 percent for Republicans. On all other issues, Democrats maintain 20-plus point advantages over Republicans. In light of such facts, which are well-known, should we assume the Republicans, specifically Bush, Cheney and Rove (who continues to advise Bush) will let the election be dominated by Democratic issues? Shouldn’t we assume Bush/Cheney will play the one strong card they have? These people have proved their willingness to lie, cheat, manipulate, create fear and even go to war against a country which posed no threat when it served their political purposes. In short, we must assume the worst — that they will take aggressive action against Iran, most likely an air attack — before November 2008.
Democrats are not merely unprepared for this, they appear to be traumatized by it. Given a mandate by voters in November 2006 to wind down the Iraq war, they splintered, proved incapable of uniting and failed to use the authority expressly given to them by the Constitution — the power to withhold funding. In fact, many Democrats are continuing to blame Republicans for the impasse on Iraq, contending that they need a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate to put conditions on funding to stop or wind down the war when, in fact, all they need to stop continued war funding is a simple majority in the House (which they have) and 41 votes in the Senate (which they have). In short, if the Democrats were as resolute in what they believed as the Republicans, the Iraq war would be well on the way to meeting the Iraq Study Group Report recommendation of near-complete withdrawal by March 2008. Instead, Dick Cheney’s prediction in October 2006 that the November 2006 election results would not matter, as he and Bush would continue to prosecute the war regardless of the election results, has proved to be 100 percent accurate.
Democrats are fragmented and disorganized, blood is in the water and Bush/Cheney are set to exploit this disarray to the Republicans’ advantage.
Sometime in March 2008, soon after the Democratic presidential nominee is identified by the presidential primaries, we should expect the Republican drumbeat about Iran to crescendo and the Republicans in Congress to promote an Iran resolution much like the one they foisted on the Democrats in October 2002, shortly before the 2002 midterm elections, where they crushed the Democrats. They will claim the resolution will not specifically authorize war against Iran, that its purpose will be to strengthen Bush’s hand in negotiations with Iran, but which will be broad enough in its terms to be used for an attack on Iran by Bush/Cheney. Democrats will whine and moan, but the more conservative Democrats, approximately 75 in the House and 25 in the Senate, fearing accusations of not being “strong on defense,” will cringe and crumble and sign on with the Republicans. A charade of “negotiation” will ensue, punctuated by claims insurgents in Iraq are being supplied by Iran, and perhaps even that Iranians are moving into Iraq, and in late fall 2008 (my guess is Oct. 1) Bush will authorize an air attack on Iranian targets to (1) protect our soldiers in Iraq and (2) reduce the Iran nuclear threat (a still-unproven threat). Act One in this drama already has occurred, with the Republicans promoting a resolution (Kyl-Lieberman) in the Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization” (the first time a part of any national army has been so branded). Predictably, 25 Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, voted for this resolution and it passed 76-22. The resolution was nonbinding, but the exercise displayed for all to see the inherent weakness and lack of self-confidence of Democrats on national security issues.
Attacking Iran would be mostly symbolic, but would have disastrous consequences
Attacking Iran would not protect American soldiers in Iraq. Almost certainly, it would have exactly the opposite effect. American soldiers already are stretched to the max in Iraq; replacements and reinforcements are not available. According to Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton (ret.), who was commanding general in the Office of Security Transition in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004, even without the added pressures of an attack on Iran, the current “15-month tours will break the Army.” Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said last week that “the answer to dealing with Iran will not be found in a military operation. The U.S. is currently bogged down in two wars. Our military is terribly overburdened, and we are doing great damage to our force structure and readiness capabilities.”
The rest of the article, which is too long, can be linked here.
I hope that Hillary supporters will not take offense at this criticism of her apparent direction. In my view, what we need in 2008 is not another masculine president with a Texas walk, but a genuine feminization of the presidency, a caring mother who feels for people struggling in poverty, without adequate food and medical care, and a foreign policy that is focused on helping impoverished nations. 25,000 children below the age of five die on this Earth every day. It is hard for an atheist to say so, but we need to become the Christian nation we falsely believe we are.
