The Insane Push for War with Iran

It is becoming an increasingly popular theory among hardline Republicans and in the wider conservative milieu -- especially in neoconservative groups -- that the U.S. not only should start a war with Iran because of their extremist government and nuclear programs, but also because Iranian meddling in Iraq is making stabilization impossible for U.S. forces. The recent capture of two Iranian agents in Iraq, and the recovery of material stating that Iran is working closely with both Shiite militias and Sunni terrorist groups (including al Qaeda) in Iraq, has served to reinforce the determination of many hawks to initiate hostilities against Iran.

A typical perspective on the issue is the post on Captain's Quarters blog titled "The Push In The New Direction," which discusses an article by prominent neoconservative Michael Ledeen in the neoconservative New York Sun. The article argues that the efforts of the U.S. in Iraq will inevitably fail if the U.S. does not broaden the war in Iraq to include both Syria and Iran. As both of these countries are seen as both hostile to U.S. interests and as feeding the growing chaos in Iraq, the neoconservatives reason that the only solution is to escalate and enlarge the war to eliminate these "enemies." The following excerpt from Ledeen's article is quoted in the Captain's Quarters post:

I am told that this information has reached the president, and that it is part of the body of information he is digesting in order to formulate his strategy for Iraq. If he sees clearly what is going on, he must realize that there can be no winning strategy for Iraq alone, since a lot of ‘Iraqi’ activity—not just lethal materiel such as the latest generation of explosive devices, now powerful enough to penetrate the armor of most of our vehicles—is actually Iranian in origin. We cannot ‘solve’ the Iraqi problem without regime change in Iran.

Those of you who have borne with me for the last few years will not be surprised to hear this; what’s new is the apparently irrefutable evidence that has now providentially fallen into our hands. The policy makers will not like
this evidence, because it drives them in a direction they do not wish to go. I am told that, at first, there was a concerted effort, primarily but by no means exclusively from the intel crowd, to sit on the evidence, to prevent it from reaching the highest levels. But the information was too explosive, and it is now circulating throughout the bureaucracy.

I have little sympathy for those who have avoided the obvious necessity of confronting Iran, however I do understand the concerns of military leaders, such as General Abizaid, who are
doing everything in their considerable power to avoid a two-front war. But I do not think we need massive military power to bring down the mullahs, and in any event we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria. So General Abizaid’s objection is beside the point. We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.

In their zealous desire to transform the horrific situation in Iraq into a U.S. victory, Ledeen (and many other conservative writers) are looking more and more beyond the borders of Iraq. It is unthinkable for these true believers that the situation could be truly beyond repair as a result of the countless mistakes and bad turns that have plagued the nation since the start of the war. In keeping with the long tradition of starry-eyed conservative militarism, these writers seek to employ the all-powerful, undefeatable military to make these serious problems go away.

Is it not astonishing that with the ever-worsening situations in Afghanistan (where the U.S.-installed government barely controls anything outside the capitol) and Iraq, there are still numerous writers who think that if we would only start another war everything would get better. In their frantic fear of defeat and unrealistic faith in war-as-cure-all, they are blinded to the madness of such an expansion and escalation. Assuming the U.S. could even turn out enough troops to start a war against Iran and/or Syria without a draft (which would be politically impossible), there would be the immediate problems of American troops in Iraq being vulnerable to Iranian missiles, the inevitable drastic worsening of the chaos in Iraq, and outrage throughout the world that would likely cost America most of its few remaining allies. Even if an invasion of Iran could affect regime change, it is certain that the Mullahs would not pass quietly into the night, and that the U.S. would suffer the brunt of their departing gestures.

In addition to these enormous problems and many other similar difficulties, there is the glaring question of how exactly having American troops in 3 or 4 Middle Eastern nations instead of 2 is supposed to make it easier to turn the situation in Iraq into a victory. Even if the U.S. managed to eliminate Iranian and Syrian support of Iraqi insurgents, there would be more territory to control and more borders (with Pakistan, Lebanon, and all the terrorist networks therein) to protect and a still-horrible situation in Iraq.

Ledeen's claim that "we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria," is shown as patently ridiculous when one merely imagines the actual horrors that would befall America and its forces if open hostilities were begun. The commentary offered at Captain's Quarters on Ledeen's article includes the following: "We have to face the fact that we are already in a big war, a World War of its own kind." It seems more dangerously likely every day that the characterization of the current conflict as a "World War" may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hawkish conservatives are notorious for their penchant for laughable exaggeration and alarmism, but when claims that we are already at war with Iran are used as a justification for a suicidal policy of war-against-all, their frothing extremism becomes less entertaining and more horrifying.

Even if it is impossible to understand the twisted logic that leads some to advocate such dangerously absurd policies, it is important to remember that a number of policymakers and influential thinkers somehow take these ideas seriously. As Bush and his neoconservative advisors become more desperate to salvage the burning rubble that is Iraq, and as they come face to face with their greatest fear -- defeat -- the nation must be more vigilant and clear than ever in saying no to any further bloody adventurism. These nightmares that seem unthinkable to those not enamored with militarism -- like the idea that the U.S. should depose Saddam Hussein and liberate a grateful, cheering Iraqi public -- have a way of becoming reality.