I hate to criticize my fellow Democrats, but I have a major, MAJOR disagreement with some of them on Iran. The latest example is a recommended diary by "Jerome a Paris" at DailyKos, entitled "Iran: the FALSE 'diplomacy failed' meme is spreading." Commenters responding to Jerome's post appear to be overwhelmingly in agreement with him. Let's review Jerome's arguments (in bold), at least as I read them, and respond to them point by point (Note: I respect Jerome very much and consider him one of Daily Kos' best writers and thinkers, which makes his argument even more important to refute, in my opinion):
1) Using military force against Iran would be "stupidity," but its likelihood has increased.
I agree that the likelihood of military force against Iran has increased, but that's nobody's fault but Iran's. Also, how would it be any more "stupidity" to attack Iran's nuclear facilities than to allow Iran, led by a Holocaust-denying fanatic, to develop nuclear weapons?
2) The fact that this has happened is not because of Iran's behavior but because of those dastardly "neocons," along with President Bush, yet again.
Look, I'm no fan of President Bush, that's for damn sure, but let's get real here. Iran has no need for nuclear power, given its huge oil and natural gas reserves. Yet Jerome - and the far left, more broadly - argues that the crisis with Iran is all an invention of the "neocons." This argument, frankly, is not serious, and in fact plays right into the belief that Democrats are not tough. It also plays into the stereotype that the Left always blames America first. How about the fact that Iran has defied the International Atomic Energy Agency and the entire international community? How about the outrageous statements by its President about the Holocaust, destroying Israel, etc? Those don't matter? What if Israel's Prime Minister talked about wiping a Muslim country off the face of the earth? I can just imagine the outcry by the Left.
3) If only the Europeans were given yet MORE time to use their "soft power" (talk, talk, and more talk), we could work this all out.
Talks have been going on for a couple years now, with little to show for them. Now is not the time for more talks, which will continue to go nowhere. Now is the time for serious action, starting with referral to the UN Security Council for diplomatic and economic sanctions. And yes, if those don't work, force will have to be on the table.
4) "Hard power" has failed "irretrievably, hopelessly, and durably" in Iraq. Therefore, apparently, it inevitably will fail with Iran as well.
First of all, "hard power" did not fail in Iraq. The U.S. military handily defeated the Iraqi military. That's not the issue. The problem has been a failure by the Bush Administration to plan for the post-war period, to provide security immediately following the war, and to provide enough troops - properly equipped with appropriate specialists - for Iraq's reconstruction. What does this have to do with "hard power?" More to the point, how on earth does the supposed failure of "hard power" in Iraq have anything to do with the situation in Iran, where the issue is not regime change, but destroying the country's nuclear program? Who knows...
5) We have no military option vis-a-vis Iran right now, because "the US Army is busy in Iraq, and is slowly being destroyed in the process."
This is completely ridiculous. Of course we have a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities. We know where they are and we have air power that can take them out. Sure, the U.S. Army is having a rough time in Iraq, but last time I checked, we still had BY FAR the world's most powerful Navy and Air Force. And, if it comes down to it, we can use them.
6) Iran can bring the West "to its knees" by a) "withholding part of their [oil] production;" and b) "preventing tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz."
Also ridiculous. On the second point, Iran does not have the capability to close the Straits of Hormuz for any length of time. See #5 above with regard to the U.S. Navy and Air Force. If need be, we can always escort tankers into and out of the Persian Gulf, but my guess is that wouldn't be necessary after a few days of pounding Iranian missile batteries. On the first point, Iran could undoubtedly precipitate an oil crisis, but what evidence is there that this would "bring the West to its knees?" Over the past couple years, oil prices have more than doubled, and we're still standing. So why would another oil price spike do us in? Also, keep in mind that Iran is vulnerable as well; they need the oil export revenues and they also import a significant percentage of their gasoline. How long could Iran limp along without oil revenues or gasoline? Not long is my guess - far shorter than the West could hold out.
7) "Iran has not yet breached its international obligations," and this is all "hypocrisy" anyway, since there are "far worse offenders in the nuclear arena" (India, Pakistan, and of course Big Bad Israel) who are "left to their own devices" (no pun intended).
Of course Iran has "breached its international obligations." Calling for the destruction of a fellow United Nations member state is a clear violation of the U.N. Charter. On the "hypocrisy" argument, what does Jerome - and the Left Wing in general - suggest? That we completely abandon the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? Should we allow any country in the world to have nuclear weapons, since other countries have them? That, in my opinion, is wildly irresponsible.
8) Resolution of the Iran crisis rests almost exclusively on the shoulders of the United States, which considers Iran nothing "but a target for wrath or revenge."
Ah, here we go again with the "blame America" theme. Now, I'm not arguing the U.S. record has been morally spotless vis-a-vis Iran, but to argue that it's ALL the United States' fault is a wild oversimplification. Last time I checked, it wasn't the United States that took Iranian hostages for 444 days. And last time I checked, it wasn't the United States that was the world's #1 state sponsor of terror. And last time I checked, it wasn't the United States that was trying to sabotage Arab-Israeli peace efforts. So let's cut the "Iran is an innocent victim" b.s.
9) Diplomacy is the answer. War is not the answer.
Of course, it would be wonderful if every dispute in the world could be resolved strictly through the use of diplomacy - reasonable people sitting reasonably together for a reasonable exchange of reasonable views. But guess what? It doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes, the other side isn't "reasonable." In this case, I'll repeat, Iran appears hell bent on seeking nuclear weapons, has a leader who has denied the Holocaust and has called for Israel's extermination, and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Also, the Europeans have tried diplomacy now for over 2 years, and we've gotten essentially nowhere. So, perhaps war is not the answer, but diplomacy ain't cuttin' it either.
*******************************************************************************
The broader point here is that, as Peter Beinart of the New Republic argued back in December 2004, "Today liberals have a national security problem again." As Beinart further explained in October 2005, the late 1940s was "the last period where the country trusted liberals and Democrats to defend it." And, as Beinart argues:
The truth is this: Unless the Democratic Party can change its image on national security, its only realistic hope of winning the White House is the hope that the war on terrorism is a passing phenomenon that will be over in a few years. Unfortunately, most Americans don't believe that. Most experts don't believe that. Most people see this as a generational struggle. And yet, you have to go back pre-Vietnam to find a precedent for how the Democratic Party can respond in a way that will win the country's trust.
So there you have it. The Democratic Left is simply not seen as serious on national security, and until it is, the Democrats as a whole are going to have great difficulty winning the White House, particularly in a time of war. And yes, most Americans DO believe we are at war, so keep that in mind before arguing that we're not REALLY at war. Frankly, most Americans simply don't buy that, nor should they. Nor do they buy that the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions is all a big "neocon" plot. To the contrary, most Americans believe that Iran's nuclear problem is a deadly serious matter. The question is whether or not the Democratic Left is ready to get serious about it.