Did the Decider Lose Iran?
Right Angles
By Noam Neusner
We Bushies are in legacy mode. With the final months of the presidency upon us, we are thinking about what we did, what we didn’t do and what we could have done. We pay little heed to the insta-history being produced by academic left-wingers and other provocateurs, who never agreed with us to begin with.
But it is less easy to ignore those areas where we know our guy’s record is incomplete or mixed.
Iran is perhaps the most obvious challenge. A charter member of the “Axis of Evil,” the Iranian regime was always regarded as a problem to be solved during the two terms. We held in disregard the Clinton record on Iran, a record of warming and cooling toward the mullahs as they pursued banned weapons and stoked terrorism around the world. We vowed not to kick the can down the road, to delay action until the next president came into office.
Yet here we are. The mullahs are still very much in power. Their weapons programs are intact. And now the administration resorts to a simple explanation for its current meandering diplomatic strategy: Either we do nothing, or we go to war. Neither option is particularly appetizing, so every other possible option is being explored.
Fact is, however, those are the two options that remain from the many we once had. It is fair for us — no matter where we stand on the political spectrum — to ask: Did Bush lose Iran?
The affirmative argument is compelling. An initially botched occupation in Iraq encouraged the mullahs to spread their wings by encouraging terrorist attacks against our forces and the Iraqi people. Iran has played a direct role in attacking American personnel — something they could not have done so easily had we not been in Iraq in the first place.
Moreover, the shock and awe we delivered to the region’s despots by making mincemeat of Saddam’s defenses had a very different effect on the Iranians. They reworked their nuclear program to minimize the possibility of detection or attack. Had we not shown our cards in Iraq, we might have maintained our presumption of military infallibility and therefore our deterrent capability.
Bush also ceded to the Europeans far too much authority over diplomacy with the Iranians. The Germans and French have proven themselves to be no better than tourists in a souk, getting out-bargained and out-hustled again and again. Meantime, the administration paid insufficient attention to the calendar of nuclear weapons technology; once you get past a certain point of uranium conversion, the hard work is largely done. And despite his painful experience with the fundamental flaws in weapons inspection, weapons of mass destruction-related intelligence and the likelihood of arms-related cheating, the president continued to push for inspections and arms development moratoriums, as if those would make a difference.
Finally, the president’s willingness to sacrifice all other priorities for the sake of victory in Iraq — a willingness that is now paying dividends — has distracted him from where his focus could have been quite useful: Building a truly effective international program of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation of the Iranian regime, a program that would have included an indictment of Iran’s leaders for inciting genocide against the Jews of Israel.
Okay, now for the counterargument: The invasion of Iraq was, in fact, exactly the right thing to do, both to defeat Saddam and to deter the Iranians from further weapons development, just as it scared Muammar Gadhafi into giving up his own weapons of mass destruction.
But Iran’s weapons freeze, believed to have occurred in 2003, was short-lived. With the United States focused entirely on Iraq, and the occupation going poorly, the president was in no position to take the momentum directly to the Iranians, and force them to abandon their nuclear program forever. One could blame Bush for this, but let’s face facts: Iran tilted Iraq toward violence.
Bush also did not give a free pass to Iran on its proxy war against Israel. He, alone among major world leaders, supported Israel’s war against Hezbollah in 2006 — a war that was fought to a draw because of Israeli mismanagement, not because of American interference.
He also has supplied Israel with the necessary anti-ballistic technology to defend itself against the inevitable Iranian missile strike. And by maintaining funding for “Star Wars”-related missile defense programs throughout his term, Bush has given his successors a technology capable of defending not just the United States, but Europe and other allies, against Iranian aggression. Barack Obama now opposes missile defense, but he may find it useful one day.
So, on balance, a mixed record. One can fault Bush for not being aggressive enough, or bold enough, in confronting Iran. One can certainly say he was not true to his gut, as his former adviser John Bolton has said.
But the fault is not Bush’s alone. Had Europe taken a more aggressive stance toward Iran, the United States would have supported it. Had Russia stopped all technology shipments to Iran, that would have helped.
Ultimately, however, America is, as usual, largely alone in this struggle. The rest of the world may be willing to live with an Iranian bomb. We can’t — and under Bush, the United States did a lot to prevent it. Whether that legacy is positive or not depends entirely on whether Iran ever gets a bomb. It hasn’t happened yet.
In his final months, Bush should clarify to the American people just why Iran’s leaders represent a major threat to the world. He should call out the Iranian regime for its policy of governing by fear — the public hangings, stonings and intimidation of political dissidents, religious minorities, trade unionists and other free thinkers. Such actions are meant to frighten people into silence, and the president is not one to be silenced.
He should ban Iran’s leaders from ever visiting American soil and declare that Iran’s souk-style diplomacy will no longer suffice to keep American military planners from their task of defanging the regime. He should demand that all of our European allies ban Iran’s proxy terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah. He should make it a state-level challenge and cut off Iranian refined gasoline shipments; Iran would quickly fall into chaos.
Above all, Bush needs to create leverage. If you have to ask whether you have enough leverage, you don’t.
These are the elements that draw directly from the Bush playbook — strong, vigorous and bold actions that address problems in the here and now, and leave as little as possible to the next administration. Historians may fancy themselves the deciders of a president’s legacy, but there is only one decider — and he is still in the Oval Office.
Noam Neusner served as President Bush’s principal economic and domestic policy speech writer from 2002 to 2004.
Advertisement
Did the Decider Lose Iran? No, Iran wasn’t the Decider’s to lose. Bush’s legacy is a weak dollar, an economy in the toilet, a war without end, plus more vacation time taken than any other president. George Bush has violated the U.S. Constitution more grievously than any other presidential administration in history, including President Richard Nixon's. Bush has attempted to eliminate, on the government's say-so, the right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment), and the freedom from search without a warrant (Fourth Amendment.) Bush has broken the law many times but claims that the law does not apply equally to him or his administration. The remedy for an out-of-control Executive Branch A.K.A. the Decider is impeachment. The Founding Fathers placed this remedy in the Constitution for people like the Decider. Impeachment is mentioned six times in the Constitution, and was meant to be used, among other instances, when a president acts as if he is above the law. Unfortunately the cowards in congress have chosen to abscond from their constitutional responsibilities, and have facilitated the Deciders crimes. The USA just got lucky the Decider didn’t get his way on Iran. We don’t need another war. Let’s hope that isn’t what he has planned for October.
Mr. Neusner, You set up a false dichotomy and then proceed to knock it down. To wit "Either we do nothing, or we go to war" I beg to differ. There are more options. One is we set up a nuclear detection network akin to the radar network we built in the 1950s and 1960s, but that is a separate subject. Now back to your editorial. While your article had to be kept short, I wish you had brought up Libya's capitulation on their nuclear weapons program. In my opinion (I'm a nuclear engineer) this is the single largest achievement in the past 25 years in nuclear anti-proliferation efforts of any administration, Republican or Democratic. Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program immediately following Saddam's capture (was it a week?) and the entire world became aware of Pakistan's clandestine nuclear weapons trading network. Was it worth an invasion of Iraq? I don't know, only time will tell. As they say, you can't re-run history as if it were a science experiment, but in my humble opinion, I vote yes on this particular issue.
It is not too late for the Administration to issue an arrest warranst for Ahmahinejad for inciting to geneocide --a crime against humnaity according to the International Cimininal Court, to be acted upon should Ahmadinejad come to the US again for the upcoming UN Session---and other settings. The precedents are the indictments, prosecution and conviction, by the International Criminal Tribunal-Rwanda, of those Rwandan journalists who incited to genocide. A US Congressional Resolution, endorsed 411 to 2. (HCConRes21) called for such an indictment. It is hard to understand why the Administration opposed the measure, as did Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blocked action on the resolution in the Senate. It is not too late to do a U-turn--and leave an enduring legacy for those who seek to predict and prevent genocide rather than to wait for proof of intent after the event. Elihu D Richter MD MPH
Well said Thistle! One bad war in the Middle East is enough! America First!
Quite possibly the world and domestic reaction to the invasion and occupation of Iraq have weakened the will to confront Iran effectively. That's a pity, but it leaves us with the problem of a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, and this is so whether or not one reviles President Bush. I should like to hear more about Mr. Schor's "nuclear detection network." Putting that to the side, the US appears to have little meaningful leverage against millennial Iranian leadership short of military action. I still wait for someone to make a strong case for containing a nuclear-armed millennial Iran versus attacking and disabling a nuclearizing Iran, while weathering the ensuing conventional war (hence, the measures to be contemplated are far broader than so-called "surgical" airstrikes against nuclear installations). Such attack should be done with Israel, since any response will be directed against both the US and Israel, and the rest of the world sees the two as acting in concert anyway. Sephardiman may have sound anti-war tastes, but to me is short-sighted in declaring that "one bad war in the Middle East is enough." And Thistle, in opining that "we don't need another war" is right only if not-fighting would lead to a better outcome. All war is bad, but our choices would appear to lie between very bad (attacking and fighting Iran) and much, much worse (an Iranian-Israeli nuclear exchange). I hope someone can build a persuasive case that I have come to the wrong conclusion.
Hello Mr. Cahil, On the nuclear detection network, my concern is not so much the classic 1950s or 1960s era nuclear ballistic missile strike, but rather a more modern (or retro?) trojan horse attack via intermodal sea container. Today a sea container can be viewed as yet another delivery system for a nuclear weapon. The problem then becomes one of attributing the attack to the country that delivered the weapon. This a major issue. In the past we used radar systems to trace back and attribute the attack to the country that launched the attack. We used Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD to deter attacks. As crazy as MAD was, it worked. Or it seemed to. Or at least we are here to discuss it! Now the question is how do we trace back where the bomb came from if intermodal sea containers are used? I argue that we need to equip sea containers with networks of detectors. Believe it or not, Senator Clinton has introduced such a bill into the Senate (S.3174) to start such an effort (I'm a Republican). So, maybe we will do such a nuclear detector network. It is needed.
In recent years, the United States has invaded North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Iraq. It has overthrown the governments of Guatemala, British Guyana, Haiti, Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Brazil, and the Belgian Congo. It has murdered and maimed millions of innocent people and destroyed civilizations. It is now planning to overthrow the governments of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. And you call Iran terrorists? The real axis of evil is Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and USA. The real terrorists are in the white house and capitol hill. Sincerely, bill topolsky 1008 Quince Orchard Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 301-987-0153 Formerly: Free-lance English-language Escort Officer; USIA International Visitor Program Program Officer, Institute of International Education, USIA International Visitor Program Program officer, Experiment in International Living, USIA International Visitor Program Labor Economist, Foreign Labor Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics Instructor in English, Lovanium University, The Congo Photo-Interpretation Analyst, Army Map Service Candidate, Virginia House of Delegates, Alexandria Co-Author, “Proctology For Dummies”
The real problem are people who want the US to intervene where we have no business doing so. What the Israelis and Iranians do is no affair of the United States. I'm sick of interventionists looking for the latest crisis to solve!
You American said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction and started a war on that basis. You waisted a huge amount of your resources and killed a lot of people and create a lot of new enemies for your self. You will see the fruit of efforts in years to come in the form of more leathal attachs on the American soil. Now you are going on about weapons of mass distruction in IRAN. There has been many man hours of inspections in Iran by the IAEA and they have given the green light to Iran. However, each time and American reporter of diplomat opens their mouth they utter "Iranian weopons program". Well, just like Iraq you are full of hot air! If you are after weapons of mass distruction then you don't have to look too far, it is all in your back garden! Exactly who gives you the right to spend 800 billion dollors a year on your defence (attach) budget? Thoes that live by the sord will die by the sord!
Mr. Noam Neusner, If the Decider has lost Iran, then it has definitely lost TO the North Koreans. How do you judge that? A grand bargain with a dictator country that has nukes, in return for blowing up obsolete nuclear plants! That's a Bush bargain. Maybe that as China's fault and we gave in because they own a lot of our money and debts (yet another Bush legacy.)The counter arguments can go on and on, with solid theoretical underpinnings which none of your arguments have. My point is that, I don't think speech writers should be writing editorial pieces, and perhaps that is to the shame of FORWARD (now I'm risking my comment). Speech writers are no historians and do not have the sufficient intellectual tools to judge the facts of time. Their only skill is manipulate illogical arguments and notions by wordplay for easier consumption of the general masses. So, I say, No Mr. Neusner, you are not qualified to judge Mr. Bushes legacy, and the fact that you got paid by him makes it worse. Nevertheless, I think most of the other comments are also sufficient to prove my point, to you Mr. Neusner, and to my beloved read the FORWARD. I thank you all. Sincerely, the Persian.
The fact of the matter is that Mr Neunser, like many other tools of Isreal government is doing his what the Irealies used to be good at! That is how they show themelves as defenseless victims against a demon they cleverly creat in order to advance their interest. As ever, they expect firstly US and Europe to carry out the killing of Demon which in reality it does not exist eg saddam weapons of mass ditruction. The reality now is that the preesent US administration and people of America Europians have realised that Isreali scare mongering should no longer be given too much attention. This is precisely why Sephardiman said in his comment: " Well said Thistle! One bad war in the Middle East is enough! America First!" You are correct Mr Mr Neusner in saying that "there is still a decider in Oval office but unfortunately for you, he no longer gives a damn about your lies and Israeli lies. If he has any brain, he would get out before you and the like of you manage to convince him to make US to fight another bloody war for the benefit of Isreal. This wisdom is now shared by many in America'political cycle which is why they now suffice to paying lip service to your demands! So you better get used to it!
Well Noam, doesn't the US/Israel failure on every issue while under Republican loong dominant rule strongly indicate that their "playbook" is fatally flawed both tactically and strategically? Of course it does! Please remember who WAS Iran's #1 enemy for decades ... Iraq.
Perhaps the problem with the Bush administration is that they entered office in "legacy mode." But the Bushie legacy mode was not a rational concern for the future consequences of their present actions. Instead the Bush administration displayed a conviction that they were the ordained instrument of destiny and that their actions were the only proper course by virtue of that ordination. This circular reasoning was crystallized as "I'm the Decider." Instrument of Destiny or hubristic tool? I think the legacy has been cast for the latter.
You obviously have not heard that Iran has to import 5 million tons of US wheat due to failure of the Iranian crop with no other suppliers available. Their economy is failing and net oil exports declining. If we can keep them from getting the bomb the day will come when we can knock them over with a feather. The screw up came in 2006 when the Israelis lost their nerve re: Syria. Now we will just have to be patient and hope. Not the best policy but probably the only politically feasible one for now. Hunger Stalks Iran Please leave a comment if you have an opinion.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/08/hunger_stalks_i.html Hunger Stalks Iran
Jimmy Carter lost Iran. Now he is offering the same prescription as the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Carter sees himself as a divine agent of punishment against the Great and Little Satans. Thats why he has ensured the success of both the Iranian and N Korean nuclear programs. Carter and Soros have teamed behind Obama as their puppet of "change". They fully believe in the liberation theology of Rev Wright, who see us as the US of KKK A, and their campaign motto will be "Strength thru weakness"
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.