Watching and hoping

Update: 21 June, 2:30 pm - To clarify what I'm hoping for: that this movement continues to deepen, that it can pry open more space for authentic democracy in Iran, and that it will be able to do so with a minimum of bloodshed. I say that with full consciousness of the long and continuing history of my government's pernicious intervention in Iran and around the world, and its exploitation of popular movements for its own ends. I say it while aware of the unsavory and compromised backgrounds of the powerful men who "lead" or support this movement.

We all knew people going out onto the streets today would be killed. Grandstanding by reckless cheerleaders who want this to be all about their own moral or political stance disgusts me. But, likewise, it's unnecessarily constricting to allow the ugly background to block one's ability even to acknowledge what has been accomplished in the last ten days. [See my comment here for more along those lines.]

Lame duck reversing course?

A recent guest post at Tony Karon's Rootless Cosmopolitan by Gary Sick, a knowledgeable analyst of U.S.-Iran affairs, struck me as worthwhile when it appeared just before the Annapolis meeting.

Now it's even more worthy of a look, in light of DNI Mike McConnell's declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- delayed for many months because of its conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program has been dormant since 2003. Many commenters have wondered why the Bush regime would have allowed this release, since it's eliminated one of their major arguments for war.

Part of Karon's summary:

Gary argues that while some factors now point towards the possibility of a U.S. opening to Iran in the final year of the Bush Administration, this remains a “policy that dare not speak its name,” meaning that any such shift will definitely not be declared even if it is underway.

Gary Sick: The Policy That Dare Not Speak Its Name

If Sick is right, my conviction that the regime will strike Iran before leaving office is wrong. Never so happy to be proved wrong in my life! Now to keep a close eye on the signs one way or the other...

The shiny new war has me hypnotized.

In October, November, and December 2001, a small group of peace activists stood in front of the courthouse every Monday afternoon in a silent vigil to protest the "war on terror"; I was one of them. In November, after the U.S. troops rolled into Kabul, I changed my placard to No Wider War, seeing even then the early signs of the coming attack on Iraq. What I'd give to have been wrong about this regime's plans and intentions!

The placard's been put to use again in recent years at our periodic Iraq war vigils. Once again, what I'd give to be shown wrong about a looming attack on Iran. It would be much easier to act if I could muster some hope. But I'm paralyzed by seeing too clearly how the so-called opposition party has collaborated with the ruling clique to lay the groundwork for the new, wider war.

If only I could take heart from signs that the Iraq debacle and the Democrats' enabling have begun to open cracks in the consensus favoring a permanent war economy and our assumed right to intervene anywhere in the world. But I'm afraid that shift is happening too late and too slowly to stop another leap toward cataclysm. The attack can't be stopped politically in the time remaining; it's up to Bob Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the courtiers around "the Decider".

As a result, focusing on the coming horror feels too much like standing on the porch watching a tornado travel towards me across a long, flat plain. Rather than study the twists and turns of the various scenarios for provocation, and measure each new gust of windy propaganda, shouldn't I be looking for a cellar?

But the analogy fails, because in tornado country, almost everyone is familiar with the conditions in which the storms develop. They recognize that nothing they can do will stop the twister, and pay attention to sirens.

Okay, then. For as long as I can stand it, I'll be a siren. There's a lot of complacency and skepticism around. Some of the rationales for it are comfortingly sensible-sounding, but I'm convinced that the comfort's illusory. I won't head for the cellar before I've given my best effort at sounding the alarm. I'll be thrilled if it turns out there was no need.

More later.

Update: 30 Aug 12:45 pm - Plenty of blogs with actual readerships are picking up the cry (Glenn Greenwald, Jim Henley, Tony Karon, Chris Floyd), so for the sake of my mental health I may stick to aspects of the unfolding situation that aren't being widely discussed. Bush's menacing speech at least quiets for the moment assertions that the threat of war on Iran is just in our minds. Jon Schwarz reads between the lines a hint that the CIA is stubbornly clinging to verifiable facts.

Attack on Iran and Congressional war powers

Most reporting from the McClatchy news service (formerly Knight-Ridder) stands above the competition, but nobody's perfect. A recent story by Matt Stearns vastly overstates Congressional opposition to a U.S. military strike in Iran. This passage [via TPM] made my jaw drop:

It's been the consensus for months among the Democrats who hold the majority that Bush must get congressional authorization before any military strike [on Iran].

Orilly? Then why was a provision requiring such an authorization stripped from the Democratic leadership's version of the Pentagon supplemental spending bill in March before ever coming to a vote? Why did a similar standalone bill go down to defeat in May with 100 Democratic members voting against it? And why does Stearns not even mention either event?

He does report on Jim Webb's bill to forbid spending on any attack on Iran without explicit authorization from Congress. He notes Harry Reid's (verbal) support for it, but fails to ask why, if that's so, the bill hasn't even gotten committee consideration, much less a floor vote, as an amendment or on its own. Reid's chief of staff is quoted predicting that some Republicans will vote no on a resolution to authorize an attack on Iran, blandly assuming that Bush will ask for such an authorization. But it's clear from the sole Republican quoted that the only issue for them is whether there'll be a request for an authorizing resolution, not how they'd vote.

A military affairs aide to a Democratic senator (who would apparently only speak anonymously) predicts that an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization would create an "uproar over here. It would be a serious breach of (the limits on) executive power." Ooooh, an "uproar" in Congress; remind Dick Cheney to shake.

That part Stearns does get right:

Bush and Vice President Cheney take a broad view of executive power, and it's unclear what consequences Bush would face if he were to take action without authorization.

Many on Capitol Hill said the reaction would depend largely on the provocation used as a rationale for an attack.

Anyone under the illusion that Bush believes he needs authorization from Congress should read Webb's floor statement introducing his bill on March 5:

[T]he President's "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.

In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ... the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests..."

The idea that in the unlikely event an authorization vote were to take place, enough Democrats or Republicans would oppose an attack on Iran to defeat it, is wishful thinking.

The only conceivable thing that could bring about such a result is large-scale, visible protest and political pressure. Right now the carrier group Enterprise is alone in the Gulf; it will be joined by the Truman in late October or November. All this summer our ruling regime has been pushing the latest of the shifting rationales, supposed Iranian support for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, which the Senate last month voted 97-0 for the opportunity to consider seriously every 60 days from here on out (something else Stearns leaves out of his story). Will the regime "roll out the product" after Labor Day?

Update: 3:00 pm 15 August - More signs point to 'yes':

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

In addition to other consequences, this move would (in the regime's view) put Iran within the scope of the existing authorization for use of military force passed in September 2001. No other Congressional action needed.

So, even if one accepts Stearns' characterization that leading Democrats believe that existing law would require Bush to come to Congress for authorizaton before an attack on Iran, they have just been given the clearest possible signal that that's not going to happen. If members of Congress truly want to make sure the American people and the administration understand that such authorization is required, then they need to get the Webb bill and its House counterpart passed, and quickly.

Update 2: 12:30 pm 16 August - Congress has helped lay the political groundwork for an attack in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way so far, and the sleepwalking will continue. From the same Post story linked in the first update:

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

A quick check of the bill in Thomas shows that the House will be making itself part of the drumbeat for war as soon as it comes back from recess:

H.R.1400
Title: To enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] (introduced 3/8/2007) Cosponsors (323)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 House Committee on Judiciary granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 7, 2007.

Yes, that'll certainly "enhance diplomatic efforts."

Congress gives away its war powers. Again.

Apparently 100 House Democrats believe that any president, even the one we have now, should have the ability to start a war at his/her whim. Last night the "first branch" passed up another chance to re-assert the constitutional powers that they've been gradually ceding to the executive over the last fifty years: Rep. DeFazio's amendment to the defense authorization bill that would have forbidden any attack on Iran without explicit authorization from Congress.

It wasn't even close. 136-288, with 100 Democrats voting against, including Van Hollen, Hoyer, Emanuel, netroots-beloved P. Murphy and Sestak, and {sigh} even Carol Shea-Porter. Speaker Pelosi was one of 12 not voting. Roll call here.

Congress has built up such a long record of declining to exercise its war powers that a Supreme Court justice -- even an "originalist" -- would be hard pressed to rule in Congress' favor if by some chance they objected to a military strike ordered by Bush. The only thing that can prevent more wars of aggression is political pressure, as Jonathan Schwarz concludes in a cogent review of the issue in Mother Jones.

Forty years ago today

Martin Luther King, Jr. Preach, brother.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.
...

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

Ray of hope: stop war on Iran before it starts

Since early January, two bills in the House that would forbid military action against Iran without a vote in Congress have been gathering support:

H.J.RES.14, by Walter Jones (R-NC). (Yes, the 'Freedom Fries' guy!)
H.CON.RES.33, by Peter DeFazio (D-OR)

Each has 30 or more cosponsors; Jones' bill even has some other Republicans signed on. (For the text of the bills, co-sponsor information, etc., search the bill numbers in Thomas and the new OpenCongress site.)

Two weeks ago, Jim Webb introduced a similar bill in the Senate, S.759. It has teeth because it forbids any spending on a military attack on Iran without a Congressional vote. Harry Reid expressed support for Webb's bill a few days before its introduction.

Webb hoped it could be attached to the Pentagon supplemental when that reaches the Senate, but is also willing to fight for it as a standalone bill if need be. Well, needs be, because Pelosi allowed no-attack-on-Iran-without-a-vote language to be stripped from the House version of the supplemental after objections from AIPAC-influenced members. To soften the blow for antiwar Dems, Pelosi reportedly has "privately" agreed to introduce a standalone bill that would accomplish the same thing.

If that happens, good; presumably a Pelosi bill would match Webb's closely. But if the Speaker drags her feet, as I'm betting she will, there's no need to wait around. Get your Representative onto either the Jones or DeFazio bill, and your Senators onto Webb's.

In April, another carrier (probably the Nimitz) will head to the Persian Gulf, ostensibly to relieve the Eisenhower. For several weeks, that will create a situation in which four three carriers are in a position to support airstrikes on Iran. This ain't no disco, this ain't no party; this ain't no foolin' around.

For arguments, inspiration, and information:

Webb's compelling floor speech on March 5, introducing S.759.

My thoughts of a year ago, which have not become outdated.

A recent full-page ad in the Washington Post by MoveOn and Physicians for Social Responsibility (.pdf)

Jonathan Schwarz of A Tiny Revolution, who has been on this more steadily than most. The discussion in comments about what kinds of arguments to make is worthwhile (even if I do say so myself).

No attack on Iran!

How to respond to the administration's threat of war against Iran?

Whether you can bring yourself to believe that they would actually do it or not, we have to proceed as if they are going to. To sit quietly, hoping they won't, is to refuse to learn from quite recent and bitter experience. It also hands them the political stick they want to use against Democratic candidates.

So, what to do?

The most important thing is to counter the characterization of the situation as a crisis. There is no crisis.

It is almost certainly the case that nothing we and the rest of the world in concert can do will prevent Iran from having nuclear power technology. It is their right, as it is that of any other developed country and signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It may be that nothing can prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But they are many years, at least a decade from having that capacity.

This is not about weapons. The administration's threats and war-drumming are not about weapons, any more than was their drive to invade Iraq. Are theirs the actions of people concerned with nuclear proliferation? They have unilaterally abrogated the ABM treaty, defunded the disposal of Soviet client nukes, adopted an official first-strike nuclear posture, developed new nuclear weapons, encouraged favored governments to undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, bullied international arms control agencies, purged arms control experts from the State Department, weakened international agreements and alliances of all kinds, and on and on.

Nor is the war drive about spreading democracy. This point doesn't need to be elaborated, other than to note that of course being the target of military attacks (and threats of military attacks) drives people closer to their government, however unpopular that government is. An assault on Iran would end the pro-democracy movement there for many years to come.

U.S. troops occupy the countries on either side of Iran. U.S. bases ring Iran. The war against Iran is about strategic control of the Middle East and Central Asia.

War is not the answer. Public, repeated threats of bombing are not diplomacy. "Coercive diplomacy" is not diplomacy. It's war-mongering.

Our ruling regime has a first-strike policy. This policy was explicitly stated in the National Security Strategy papers of 2002 and 2005, underlined in the Pentagon's new official nuclear posture, and put into action in the invasion of Iraq.

Set aside the more fundamental rogue-superpower, endless-war-creating aspects of a first-strike policy. Just on the amoral level of execution, such an approach requires plentiful and high-quality intelligence. Our intelligence on Iranian capabilities, intentions, political dynamics, and virtually everything else is very poor. Twenty-five years of no embassy, trade, consulates, or remotely normal exchanges will do that for you. On top of that, a credulity-straining set of screwups have wiped out many of the intel channels we did have until recently (the Chalabi-INC debacle, the outing of Valerie Plame who was apparently monitoring Iranian nuclear activity, and other serious gaffes detailed in James Risen's book), not to mention the vast increase in Iranian access to U.S. military information made possible by our occupation of Iraq and close work with Shiite parties in Iraq.

A policy toward Iran that is in the national interest would be the exact opposite of this administration's. Begin direct negotiations, open channels of communication. We are the threat, and only we can de-escalate it.

To sum up:
There is no crisis. This is not about weapons.
War is not the answer.

In the service of power

As U.S. destabilization of Iran continues to unfold, the New Yorker features an archived 'Letter from Iran' from December 1978 (via Laura Rozen).

The opening paragraphs were enough to confirm that I'd read it when it first appeared, and that I'll have to put it aside for now. Should I feel old, or young again? Lunchtime near Dupont Circle... a brisk walk past the usual dozens of young men in masks screaming about torture by SAVAK. Wince, sighing, try to put it out of mind long enough to eat. Open up the magazine... oh, look. Oh. The old master of the field of courtier reporting, Joseph Kraft, at pains to make clear that his interview with "our kind of Shah" is not that of a journalist but an advisor:

There had been demonstrations in many parts of the country, and strikes, but Teheran, apart from the university, seemed calm, and the Army was in thorough control. Moreover, the opposition was headed by the Moslem clergy, and they were clearly divided. Surely, I said, the factions could be played off against each other.
...I further noted that, while there was obvious unrest in the country, the Shah himself had lifted the lid by easing up on security and initiating reforms. Maybe all that was required was a slower pace and more publicity for the changes he had made.

Much more of the same if you'd like to recreate the atmosphere of official Washington back then. Excuse me; I need something to settle my stomach.