Return of the War Party
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
“Real men go to Tehran!” brayed the neoconservatives, after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.
Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:
On being chosen by Israel’s President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s “Bibi” Netanyahu declared, “Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.”
Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.
Asked about Iran’s nukes in his confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta blurted, “From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”
Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a front spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the Iranian portfolio. AIPAC’s top agenda item? A U.S. collision with Iran.
In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.
The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.
But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.
First, last week’s acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.
To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).
There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz. And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz.
And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why?
Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.
For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.
Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.
Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for “Action This Day!”? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.
None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.
But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.
Can we Americans say the same?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Ron Holt on 27 February 2009:
In addition to spinning conspiracy theories, in his dotage PB is suffering from an ostrich syndrome. Kindly, beneficent Iran wouldn’t hurt a fly, only expects its legitimate rights to build nuclear bombs for self-defense? And anyone who says otherwise belongs to the “war party?” PB should no longer be taken seriously on any foreign affairs topic; he’s still bitter over his (many) rejections at the ballot box and is reduced to posturing as a contarian. Bay Buchanan, his sister, is much more interesting and compelling.
2 Comment by Robert on 27 February 2009:
Let us not think great thoughts let’s just read what Buchanan wrote and keep our heads:
“None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.
But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran.”
3 Comment by Leo on 27 February 2009:
There can be many opinions on “what to do militarily” about a nuclear Iran and they are about as relevant as how to properly drink arsenic:with a twist or straight?Obama is not going to war because among other problems he does not have an army or treasury to conduct a war.Iran is getting the bomb.Learn to live with it and knock off the “speak grandly and carry a little splinter” nonsense mistaken as a foreign policy.What famous victories we’ve had in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!
4 Comment by Dan W on 27 February 2009:
I am sure some of the fine historians frequenting this site can help me out on this, but as I understand the history of Iran, they have not initiated a major attack or invasion on any other nation since 1857. And this is supposed to be a belligerent people?
Almost all European nations have been more aggressive, as well as the US. Ironically, from the statistics, a case could be made that the Iranians are among the most peaceful people in the world. Go figure.
5 Comment by Red Phillips on 27 February 2009:
Ron, even if we knew for a fact (which we don’t) that Iran was getting the bomb, it would not justify a pre-emptive/preventative war to prevent it. Any suggestion that war is necessary or desirable is grossly reckless.
What exactly are you suggesting we should do?
6 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 27 February 2009:
@1 Ron
Try to see the situation from Irna’s point of view. To their west they have the US army backed up by contractor mercenaries from CACI, Titan and Blackwater. On many occasions they have encroached into Iranian territory, which is an act of aggression no matter what the excuse.
Now Obama is ratcheting up the number of troops in Afghanistan, Iran has every right to feel nervous sandwiched between and with the Axis of Evil handle foisted on them by the idiotic Bush Light, courtesy of neocon David Frum.
7 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 27 February 2009:
Any nation with a well-advanced nuclear power program could build a bomb if it wanted to. This includes Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and probably even Brazil. But there is no evidence that Iran is seeking to build a bomb.
As far as the “return” of the war party is concerned, I don’t think the war party ever left. Contrary to neocon propaganda, Obama did not campaign on a peace platform. He promised to increase military spending, increase the size of the army, send more troops to Afghanistan, bomb Pakistan, and pull the US armed forces out of Iraq in 16 months. No prizes for guessing which of these promises has already been compromised and is well on its way to disappearing altogether in the fine print.
On the issue of Iran, he was peaceful only compared to McCain during the campaign, but then McCain was advocating that we “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. Since taking power, Obama has definitely hardened his line but this merely brings his proposed Iranian policy in line with his overall militarism.
8 Comment by karsten on 27 February 2009:
I don’t see how Iran having a nuclear bomb would be anything but *good* for mideast peace. I mean that quite sincerely. North Korea has been safe from an attack because of its nuclear capability, and likewise if Iran had a bomb, it would prevent Israel (and its duped big bodyguard, the U.S.) from attacking it. If Iraq had had a bomb, there would have been no Iraq war, and countless thousands of lives would have been saved.
I say the sooner Iran has a bomb, the better. Detente.
9 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 27 February 2009:
@8 karsten
True. The mullahs pose no threat to the US. Any trouble in that region will be caused by Little Satan in the hope of sucking in the US military. We need to be on our guard for “false flag” attacks, and we need to stop giving away arms to the “only democracy between India and Europe.” They are not our friends. They are all over CPAC this weekend.
10 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 February 2009:
When the hell did the bastards leave? They were down a bit PR wise, but in power all the time. They are leftisits by nature, so they can’t lose, as the GOP is leftist lite anymore, and quite literally a non entity in terms of an actual opposition party. As for the Persians not initiating hostilities since 1857, who cares? Americans are morons when it comes to history and never have failed to get suckered in by the latest enemy smear propaganda(Germans bayonetting Blegian kids, cutting their hands off all the way to the Iraqi Kuwait incubator baby crap.) Don’t forget Americans love kicking someone’s ass, no matter who it is or how weak they are. An Iranian adventure to me would just be a replay of Iraq, but on a bloddier scale. The Iranian armed forces are a joke. Shoot, isn’t the bulk of their air force Nixon era F-4s and F-14s, which are straved for spare parts? Now the Russians denied selling them the S-300 air defense missiles, so they are screwed. Alos I can see Obama getting scared if it gets too bloddy and he will just nuke them. It is really sad in that all our forces over in the Middle East are doing is what Trotksy’s army couldn’t do in Poland in 1920, conquer the world for Marxism. Where is General Pilduski when you need him? We need some Whites and Germans as well.
11 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 February 2009:
starved not straved
12 Comment by Robert Bruce on 27 February 2009:
bloodier not bloddier. I need to get to bed!!!!!!
13 Comment by Arius on 28 February 2009:
I read all the comments then asked myself what will we be saying when Iran has nuclear weapons they can deliver with ICBMs on American cities or more easily bring a nuclear bomb into New York on a ship. As for me, I am already very concerned about Pakistan let alone other Muslim countries having nuclear weapons. Isn’t it obvious that we are heading into a future more dangerous than the cold war, and that from this point no matter what our foreign policy (unless we convert to Islam and perhaps not even then) Muslims will detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city, probably New York. I think the chance that this will happen in the next ten to fifteen years is 100%.
14 Comment by Leo on 1 March 2009:
Arius,your concerns are legitimate.But in the final analysis a nuclear attack from Iran–absent a first strike by Israel or America–is extraordinarily remote.On the other hand,a military confrontation,at this point,with Iran will destroy our too fragile economy,gut our overextended military and leave us as a pariah nation akin to North Korea.Most importantly,we will not win.We weren’t prepared to win in Iraq,we are not prepared to win in Afghanistan and we cannot be prepared to win in Iran.Show me the one million troops and ten trillion dollars.Otherwise,strike three,we’re out.
15 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 1 March 2009:
14 Leo
With our irresponsible, spendthrift congress unable to say no to any stupid idea pitched to them, I foresee the squandering of ten trillion dollars as something they would indeed pass in the dead of night.
16 Comment by Gilbert Jacobi on 1 March 2009:
Hey Ron,
If Pat Buchanan’s in his dotage, I hope mine arrives soon and imitates his, because if it does, my IQ and analytical capabilities are due for a much needed upgrade. As for his alleged bitterness: I’M bitter; I know what bitterness looks and sounds like, and how anyone with Pat’s hearty sense of humor, awareness of the absurd, and sympathy for the tragic nature of human life can be accused of bitterness escapes me. Any one who has survived the kind of body blows to health and career he has, not only without retreating into a cave of isolation, but rather continuing to engage in joyous combat with his adversaries, and beating most of them most of the time, is one to emulate, not dismiss. And what’s the problem with bitterness, anyway? If you want warm and fuzzy, watch Huckabee.
Gilbert Jacobi
17 Comment by Red Phillips on 2 March 2009:
Arius, even if Iran gets a nuke, the chances of than getting ICBMs that can deliver them to a US city is zilch. Get real.
18 Comment by MAP on 2 March 2009:
When this empire finally collapses, and collapse it surely will, I wonder how long it will take for the angry ants from all the many ant hills they have needlessly and brazenly stirred to seek pay backs. We are entering interesting times, indeed.
19 Comment by S.L. Toddard on 2 March 2009:
“PB should no longer be taken seriously on any foreign affairs topic; he’s still bitter over his (many) rejections at the ballot box and is reduced to posturing as a contarian. Bay Buchanan, his sister, is much more interesting and compelling”
Read: “Bay Buchanan is more likely to tell me things I want to hear, and agree with things I already believe”.
“I read all the comments then asked myself what will we be saying when Iran has nuclear weapons they can deliver with ICBMs on American cities or more easily bring a nuclear bomb into New York on a ship”
We will be saying “Wow look – we are living in a paranoiac’s fantasy-land that does not exist. My, it sure is ugly and unrealistic in here. Let’s wake up and live in the real world instead.”
20 Comment by Robert on 2 March 2009:
Toddard,
It is good to see your posts return after the great debate on that “peculiar institution” so many months ago. This recent comment above, “We will be saying “Wow look – we are living in a paranoiac’s fantasy-land that does not exist. My, it sure is ugly and unrealistic in here. Let’s wake up and live in the real world instead.” is vintage Toddard and also quite true. Thanks
21 Comment by Michael Kenny on 3 March 2009:
The problem for Israel is that its existence rests entirely on American brute force and US power is collapsing. Armageddon is a more credible pretext for garning sympathy than killing Palestinian kids.
22 Comment by Joseph McNulty on 8 March 2009:
First, Buchanan defended Hitler and the invasion of Poland (which he saw as Poland’s fault); now, he defends the Mullahs as if they were just “normal” dictators like Stalin or Mao, subject to rational “deterrance.” The whole point about the Mullahs is that they see everything through Shiite theology. They may not be open to a rational calculation of gains and losses. Iran with a nuke will change the Middle East. Do you not think that Sunni powers like Egypt and Whahabbi powers like Saudi Arabis will then be under pressure to develop or acquire nukes of their own? The “Persian Gulf” will then be an Iranian lake. I suppose that we are to deny the possibility of any Iranian nuke until an Iranian nuclear breakout, and then ww will be “reassured” by people like Buchanan about “deterrance” and told that, after all, it’s too late to do anything about it anyway. Is our concern an “alien agend?” Not unless you desire an American withdrawal from the world, leaving Israel to its sad fate. What would Nixon, who used to be Buchanan’s boss before he became unhinged, say?
23 Comment by Brock H. on 8 March 2009:
Joe McNulty,
Who cares what a liberal interventionist establishmentarian like Richard Nixon would do in this situation? Defending Tricky Dick is one of Buchanan’s faults, I suppose it just comes from being around him every day for five and a half years and getting to know him really well.
24 Comment by Robert on 8 March 2009:
“First, Buchanan defended Hitler and the invasion of Poland (which he saw as Poland’s fault); now, he defends the Mullahs as if they were just “normal” dictators like Stalin or Mao, subject to rational “deterrance.” The whole point about the Mullahs is that they see everything through Shiite theology. They may not be open to a rational calculation of gains and losses.”
MR. McNulty,
Please go spread this stuff somewhere else. Buchanan defended Hitler? Normal dictators like Stalin and Mao? Shiite theology? And you want readers of this list to be open to your “rational” calculations? First explain what was normal about Stalin or Mao? What is Shiite theology? How does it differ from the Sunni and Whahabbi theology? Were the 9-11 attackers of the Sunni, Shiite or Wahabbi sects? Was Iraq governed by Sunnis or Shiites? Did we empower the Shiites of Iran by dismantling the Sunnis in Iraq? Why do Israelis disagree about who should be responsible for Mid-East peace? What exactly are you attempting to accomplish by your comments here? Why not post over at NRO where they believe in conservative ignorance, foster it, perpetuate it and profit from it? You might become an editor there someday, really.
25 Comment by Akira on 9 March 2009:
Re: ” Iran has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.”
That’s funny. I have a distinct memory of Iranians invading American ambassadorial territory in Tehran. In fact, I seem to recall some business about hostages … 444 days … something like that.
Poor Buchanan seems to have gone senile. He was on a good roll until the second last sentence. A bridge too far.
26 Comment by gargi on 9 March 2009:
The tragedy of Iran was that people wanted more freedoms under the corrupt Shah, but what they got in turn were a bunch of Mullahs who copy Arab culture of the middle ages as my Persian friends say and put down their Persian culture.
But Iran is still not Pakistan. Most people hate the Mullahs and if there were to be elections, they would not enjoy power–most people are in their twenties and could care less about the revolution. Moreover, people are more or less homogenous in the sense of having a strong Persian identity, unlike Iraq which is a mess. Moreover, after the revolution, most of the educated people left the country so there is no leadership there–if you oppose the government you die.
Also, one has to separate the people of Iran from their government–with Pakistan it is different–most Pakistanis are very religious in a fundamentalist sense–Iranians are not. This is a huge difference. The Mullahs are hated so much that they cannot even get a taxi ride these days my Persian friends tell me. Anyway, any educated Iranian with a sense of their history and culture hate the current government from what I have observed–there is hope there because the youth there want changes.
27 Comment by Robert on 9 March 2009:
“I have a distinct memory of Iranians invading American ambassadorial territory in Tehran. In fact, I seem to recall some business about hostages … 444 days … something like that.”
Yes, and now that I am reminded of that I say, bomb them now, nuke them if necessary, commit more forces from those unavailable now, more boots on the ground, from Afghanistan on to Iran, and nuclear Pakistan too!! Pat did say,”None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress,” but to hell with accuracy or thoughtful reflection on what words mean, we must bomb and invade them. They want a fight let us give them one, before the Mushroom clouds, before our country collpases, its aspirations to Empire fail, before our armed services are completly broken, before arriving caskets at Dover become public again, before dawn tomorrow, etc. etc…. NUTS!!!!
28 Comment by Robert Bruce on 9 March 2009:
Hostages big frigging deal!!!!!! As I also recall no one was killed. The bulk of the Iranian Air Force is still Nixon era F-4s and F-14s that spend a great deal in hangars due to lack of spare parts. Their tanks are also cold war relics. Only modern weapons systems they have are the Russian Sunburn antiship missile and close range air defense systems from Russia. So much for the great threat from Iran. People like Aikira need to wake the hell up!!! Iran isn’t a threat, but they aren’t on their knees begging to perform fellatio on Uncle Sam either, so they must go. Remember the USA is being run by Trotsyites, who dream of doing what their mentor couldn’t do in 1919-20 and that is take the world for Bolshevism by force. America is in fact a Marxist nation already, just hasn’t completed the journey. That day is coming, as the assault on the 2nd Amendment will be relentless and more folks lose their homes in the mortgage mess. They will scream for the govt to save them!!!!!!!!!
29 Comment by R. McCabe on 9 March 2009:
I agree with the general points presented here in terms of overstating reality and demonizing Iran, etc.
But to be fair to the fear crowd, the game is different now than it was during the Cold War. ICBMs (or any standard military machinery) are not a necessary link in the chain of destruction, if terrorizing is more important to you than pure body count, “unconditional surrender” or winning a war. If a nation or group had a warhead developed, it would be fairly easy for them to attach it to American soil and have a go.
The main danger with that reality is not even the detonation itself but that it would probably be very difficult to tell who the culprits were, making just retaliation difficult. Threat of retaliation has been the best defensive peacemaker. Not even the wackiest of Mullahs would bring about the destruction of their own people.
Of course I’m pretty sure we can detect warhead detonation tests anywhere in the world. The question remains what if one is not performed?
This is perhaps tangential, because it wouldn’t justify invading Iran anyway. But perhaps the conversation does need to evolve.
30 Comment by Joseph McNulty on 9 March 2009:
The wonders of the internet. Free debate. The exchange of ideas. Freedom for the idea we hate, etc. Being told to get out of the site and post at the, presumably benighted, NRO site, a fate worse than death. Buchanan blamed Poland for the start of World War II in his most recent book of the subject, in which Churchill was a villain. You see, I remember when Buchanan was pro-Israel and supported America’s emergency re-supply of Israel (from stocks in Europe), which saved it during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. He has come a long way. I used to admire him during the Seventies when he wrote columns about “Captive Nations Week.” I do not believe that he was pro-Slav or pro-Russian in those days. With regard to whether the Iranians want “to perform fellatio on Uncle Sam,” I think that we probably should leave Clinton foreigh policy out of it. Regarding Shiite theology, you may not be interesed in it, but (to paraphrase Trotsky) it is interested in you. Also, what difference does it make that the people do not support the Mullahs., who claim to rule with Allah’s imprimatur and are perfectly prepared to do what is necessary to maintain their grip on power. The Shah abdicated because he did not want to order his army to shoot the people down in the streets. The Mullahs are perfectly willing to do so.
31 Comment by robert on 9 March 2009:
Joseph,
Sorry, but I thought you were a wee bit exagerating the threat of 2% Pat and the military threat of Iran. Mr. Buchanan is probably still rubbing his sore spots about the fair and equal treatment, on and off the internet, over any discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East. It is a touchy subject and involves much more than the cliches we toss around. I think the Israeli newspapers are much more open to the free and open debate you desire than the Fox news, Gray Lady, Washington Post cant that has become the common neo-con fare. One of my friends who I joined with the Marine Corps with, now with seven children at home, is on his fourth deployment (this time to Afghanistan until Sept. the other three were in the hot spots of Iraq)a Colonel means something to Marines and I get tired of hearing this silliness about America’s moral role everywhere in the world especially after visiting with his wife this past weekend. Enjoy the thread and say what you please ( I am not a Chronicles monitor) but other than Mr. Buchanan, who else is speaking up for other countries to share some of the World’s burdens?