Iran, War, and the Health of the State

by Gerard Emershaw

Randolph Bourne famously said: “War is the health of the state.” This has proven to be a truism. War is sometimes necessary. The Revolutionary War was necessary to free the American Colonies from the oppressive yoke of British rule. However, most wars can and should be avoided. War against external enemies inevitably leads to a war against the American people. War leads to the erosion of civil liberties. From the Alien and Sedition Acts from Adams’ Quasi War to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 to Roosevelt’s internment camps to the Patriot Act to the NSA surveillance program, war against an external enemy always involves a parallel war against the Constitution. War leads to bigger government, which leads higher spending and borrowing, which leads to a greater national deficit.

That war leads to greater deficits and less freedom is so well known by now that anyone who is hawkish on war must essentially be in favor of sacrificing economic health and freedom on the altar of militarism. Based on recent events in the Senate, it seems that there are plenty of bellicose neoconservatives and neo-progressives more than willing to make this sacrifice. A cadre of over two dozen Senators—evenly split among Democrats and Republicans—are pushing a bill called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. The bill threatens new sanctions against Iran at a time when the Obama administration is attempting to diffuse tensions with that nation through diplomacy. Such sanctions never work. They punish the people while having little or no effect on a nation’s leadership. They are acts of war which court blowback and harden hearts and minds around the globe against the United States.

It is unclear why so many misguided members of the Senate are so intent on a war with Iran, but it is clear that they have been for some time. These neoconservative RINOs and Wilsonian progressives do not care that keeping the nation on a war footing is expensive and will lead to an increased deficit and, perhaps ultimately, to even higher taxes. They do not care that more hostility toward the Islamic world can lead to blowback and yet more terrorism. They do not care that an Orwellian continuous war with nations in the Middle East will only grow the NSA and the rest of the Big Brother Surveillance State. They do not care that further destabilizing the Middle East in general and Iran in particular can have a disastrous impact on the global petroleum market.

A broken clock is right twice a day, and President Obama is right about attempting diplomacy with Iran. These senators are wrong. Dead wrong. President George W. Bush infamously said regarding the fight against terrorism: “You are either with us or against us.” Well, perhaps the same thing applies here. You are either with economic and social freedom or you are against it. If you are in favor of ginning up a war against Iran, then you are most certainly against freedom. The following sponsors of this wrongheaded bill are against freedom: Menendez, Kirk, Schumer, Graham, Cardin, McCain, Casey, Rubio, Coons, Cornyn, Blumenthal, Ayotte, Begich, Corker, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Moran, Gillibrand, Roberts, Warner, Johanns, Hagan, Cruz, Donnelly, and Blunt.

Who Will Benefit the Most if Diplomacy Fails in Syria?

by Gerard Emershaw

The United States and Russia have reached a deal in which the Syrian government would turn over its chemical weapon stockpile for destruction. However, there are many ways in which this deal could fall apart. President Obama has indicated that if diplomacy fails, the use of military force against Syria is still a possibility. Congress is unlikely to vote on the use of force against Syria, but President Obama has indicated that he does not need permission from Congress to strike Syria.

The idea of American military action against Syria is simply not popular with the American public. According to an NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans believe that President Obama does need permission from Congress in order to attack Syria. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, only 33% said that Congress should approve President Obama's request to attack Syria. According to a Reuters/Ipso poll, 75% of Americans support the use of diplomacy to resolve the crisis in Syria.

Syria poses no military threat to the United States. The United States has no national interest in Syria. An attack on Syria is unlikely to help President Obama in his legislative dealings with Congress or help his popularity with the American people. There are no Trotskyite neocons in the Obama administration whispering in his ear, and despite his faults, President Obama is not as naïve and easily led as his predecessor often was. Syria is not oil rich. It ranks 32nd in oil production—which makes up less than .5% of the world's total. Given that any military action in Syria would allegedly involve no “boots on the ground,” there would be no occupation. No occupation means no nation building. No nation building means no opportunity for war profiteering companies like KBR to enrich themselves through no bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure of Syria or to provide services in support of the occupation.

So who or what is behind the hawkish desire of President Obama to attack Syria? The question to ask is probably: “Who would benefit the most from the fall of Assad's government?” The most obvious answer is the Jihadists who dominate the rebel forces. However, President Obama has no reason to wish Al Qaeda to gain dominance over yet another country or to wish another Middle Eastern country to become a fundamentalist Islamic nation under Sharia law. Some may suggest that Israel would benefit, but this is debatable. If Assad becomes desperate, he is likely to launch chemical attacks against Israel. Furthermore, there is evidence that the rebels are considering launching a chemical attack of their own against Israel. A choice between Hezbollah or Al Qaeda having influence in Syria is not a pleasant choice for Israel, and it very well may prefer dealing with the devil it knows. The fact that Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel makes an attack on Assad seem even less attractive to Israel.

Arthur Conan Doyle's famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously said: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Having eliminated so many possibilities, two remain.

1. Raytheon

President Eisenhower presciently warned against the Military-Industrial Complex during his farewell speech in 1961. Raytheon is a poster child for the Military-Industrial Complex. Raytheon produces the Tomahawk missile, which it sells for about $1.4 million a piece. The beating of the war drums over Syria has caused the Pentagon to consider purchasing even more than the 196 Tomahawk missiles that it already buys per year. In the “kinetic military action” against Libya in 2011, the United States fired more than 112 Tomahawk missiles.

In December, the Pentagon paid Raytheon $254.6 for Tomahawk missiles just six months after paying them $337.8 million. Raytheon also produces Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs)—“low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employ an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker.” A “low cost” JSOW still costs $285,000.

The run up to possible American military action against Syria has been beneficial for Raytheon stock because of these reasons. Since June 25, the stock has increased more than 20% in value.

Nevertheless, this does not prove that Raytheon or the Military-Industrial Complex in general is pulling the President’s strings on Syria. There is no reason that “kinetic military action” in Syria would be preferable over such action in any other place. President Obama has also claimed that any American actions in Syria would be even more limited than the military action that he took in Libya in 2011. While American military intervention in Syria would be profitable to Raytheon, would it be profitable enough for them to seek to gin up a war? Could Raytheon possibly have enough influence over President Obama to force his hand in this manner? It seems unlikely.

2. Qatar

Qatar wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria into Europe. Unfortunately for Qatar, Assad has refused to allow this, opting instead to pursue negotiations with Iran on an alternative pipeline that would ship natural gas to Europe across Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In February, Iraq approved a deal for this pipeline with Iran and Syria. Qatar saw this as a “direct slap in the face” to its plans. As a result, Qatar has spent over $3 billion over the last two years bankrolling the Syrian rebels. Qatar began funding the Al Qaeda allied Syrian rebels at about the same time that it began funding Al Qaeda allied Libyan rebels. If victorious, these rebels would likely be inclined to sign a new deal for a pipeline with their benefactors in Qatar rather than Assad allies in Iran. The rebels are also Sunni and far more likely to do business with fellow Sunnis in Qatar.

Qatar has had close military ties with the United States since 1992 and is the location of U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center. However, Qatar is “totally dependent on US militarism and diplomatic protection.” Therefore, it appears that the United States taking down the Assad regime on Qatar’s behalf would be a matter of the tail wagging the dog. 

3. The Wider Middle East Plan

In an interview given on March 2, 2007, retired 4-star United States Army General Wesley Clark spoke of a memo that he was shown by another general around the time that the United States began its military campaign against Afghanistan:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

The United States has already taken out Iraq and Libya. Could this neoconservative plan be back on? Could the neo-progressives hawks in President Obama’s administration be reinstituting this plan? Or has the plan continuously been in place? More importantly, if this plan is currently in effect and guiding President Obama’s hand on Syria, who is behind the plan? The Military-Industrial Complex? Big Oil? Some combination of these? Someone else? The fact that no entity powerful enough to strongly influence American foreign policy benefits enough by military action in Syria makes President Obama’s militaristic zeal puzzling. Could he actually have humanitarian concerns over the innocent civilians suffering in Syria? He has not shown similar concern over the innocent civilians suffering as a result of his drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, so this seems unlikely.

Taking a longer view, it could be that action in Syria would not be about Syria at all, but about Iran. This may be confirmed by the events which occur in the near future. As a result, both Assad’s progress in satisfying the dictates of the Obama-Putin plan to surrender Syrian chemical weapons and Iran’s behavior will bear close watching.

Iran and the Bomb

Vice President Joe Biden recently said this about his boss’s threats not to allow Iran develop a nuclear weapon: “The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.” New Secretary of State John Kerry said:

Lines have been drawn before and they've been passed. That's why the president has been so definitive this time. This is a very challenging moment with great risks and stakes for everybody because the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon.  

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon:

The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history,

The subject of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has been a hot button issue for years. Who could forget the image of a demented Senator John McCain singing about bombing Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys’ classic “Barbara Ann?” Who could forget the neoconservative 2012 Republican Presidential hopefuls competing to see which of them could warmonger the hardest against Iran while Congressman Paul watched them in disbelief? Most seem to assume that it goes without saying that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. But why? Below is an analysis of the arguments set forth by the Anti-Defamation League in support of the proposition that Iran’s nuclear program is a grave threat to the United States and American interests.

1. A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically.

The premise that Iran has had an aggressive foreign policy is false. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been involved with only one war – a war with Iraq that it did not begin. Contrast this with the neoconservative foreign policy of the United States which has led to aggressive military action in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya since 1979. The mere fact that Iran has the military capacity to hit U.S. and allied troops in the Middle East means next to nothing. They have not done so. There is also no reason to believe that they would use nuclear weapons or conventional weapons against the United States and its allies. Iran is not Iraq.  

2. Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West.

Iran has undeniably been a state sponsor of terrorism. However, this is not that different than the American Cold War policy of setting up and propping up friendly right wing governments around the globe. There is no reason to believe that Iran would be inclined to share nuclear technology with terrorists. If terrorists were to use nuclear weapons, CIA intelligence would inevitably trace it to the Iranian regime. This would result in “regime change” if not the nuclear destruction of Iran. Furthermore, secure in the belief that it is safe from invasion, Iran would have less of a reason to wage asymmetrical terrorist “proxy wars.”

3. While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Many analysts are also concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon arriving in a cargo container at a major US port. Furthermore, a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks noted the vast damage that could be wrought by a single missile with a nuclear warhead, launched from a ship off the US coast, and detonated a couple of hundred miles in the air, high above America.

The United States faced the specter of nuclear destruction at the hands of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why should the United States fear a poor and weak nation in the Middle East just because they acquire a small number of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States? Assuming that the oppressive regime in Iran is so irrational that it would risk its own destruction is bigoted. Why should radical Muslim leaders be considered more suicidal than devout Christian leaders in nations around the world? Like any dictatorial regime – religious or secular – the Iranian regime’s first goal is to keep power over its people. Any aggression on the part of Iran against the United States would lead to its destruction. If anything, possessing nuclear weapons would make Iran feel that it is not at risk of having “regime change” forced upon it in an American invasion. This would likely make Iran less aggressive. The central question is why Iran should not possess the same right to self defense through nuclear weapons that the United States, Israel, and the other nations in the “nuclear club” enjoy. If there is an individual right to bear arms for self defense, why is there not also a natural right for nations to possess nuclear weapons for self defense?

4. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to America's closest allies in the Middle East. Israel is most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should “be wiped from the map.” America's moderate Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others are already alarmed at Iran's aggressive regional policy and would feel increasingly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he wants Israel “wiped off the map” is essentially an urban legend. It is based in a mistranslation. What Ahmadinejad actually said was that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” While the distinction between wishing a nation to disappear and wishing for that nation’s government to disappear may be a matter of semantics, it is important to realize that world leaders often engage in “tough guy talk” to energize their base. Did Khrushev actually follow through with his threat to “bury” the West? Isael is estimated to have a nuclear arsenal of anywhere from 70 to 400 warheads. It is unclear how one or even a small arsenal of Iranian nuclear weapons would pose any major threat to Israel. The Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States during the Cold War, yet no nuclear exchange ever occurred. One could even argue that “mutually assured destruction” provided a balance that prevented a conventional World War III from breaking out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations. A similar balance of power has also likely prevented large scale wars between India and Pakistan. The sense of security that comes from possessing nuclear weapons for national defense could also prompt Iran and other Islamic nations in the region to be more willing to seek peaceful solutions to its problems with Israel. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain are oil producing nations that are more than capable of defending themselves against Iranian aggression. Furthermore, Iran has never shown a desire for fascistic expansion.  

5. The Middle East remains an essential source of energy for the United States and the world. Iran's military posture has led to increases in arms purchases by its neighbors. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would further destabilize this volatile and vital region.

While a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would not be desirable, there are clearly positive consequences that could result. Just as a balance of nuclear power might stabilize relations between Iran and Israel, such a balance could provide a balance between Sunni and Shiite nations. Nuclear armed nations in the Middle East would also not be good targets for neoconservative American wars of occupation which seek “regime change.” This situation could encourage a more noninterventionist American foreign policy in the Middle East. This would help the American economy and would decrease the possibility of future blowback caused by American military intervention in the region. With war in the Middle East less of a possibility, the United States and petroleum producing nations in the region could concentrate on trade instead of war.