I read a very strange statement by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas). While arguing that Iran will cave to a hypothetical threat of force against their hypothetical nuclear weapons infrastructure (hypothetical because right now, Iran has no such infrastructure to strike, thanks to President Obama’s Joint Plan of Comprehensive Action, or JCPOA), Senator Cotton said: “it’s worth remembering Iran didn’t offer to suspend uranium enrichment until 2003, when we invaded Iraq.”
Two things in that statement are peculiar:
1. While Cotton dismisses everything Iran says now about compliance with the Iran nuclear deal (words backed up with actual physical dismantling of their nuke program), he believes Iran was serious about suspending enrichment in 2003. But many of us will remember those days. Every few months the news would report ‘progress’ in the Iran negotiations, only to have the progress turn into nothing, again and again. The Mullahs seemed to enjoy toying with George Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Back then, the Iran negotiations were a tiresome parody of a Charlie Brown cartoon. Yet to support his cry for war, Cotton selectively believes Iran was serious in this one cartoon episode.
2. Cotton believes the U.S. invasion of Iraq intimidated Iran. What? I saw the Iranian foreign minister on CNN, scoffing at any military threat while U.S. forces were stuck in a glue trap in Iraq. Bush’s Iraq blunder was a strategic windfall for Iran — so much so that many serious national security experts believe Iran deliberately manipulated Bush into invading Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein:
'"An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday … Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq."'
Moreover, in 2007, Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates understated that the Iraq Invasion had given Iran ‘tactical opportunities.’
But Tom Cotton claims Iran was so intimidated by the Iraq invasion that they caved on uranium enrichment — for about thirty minutes, before they started building centrifuges again.
Cotton’s statement sounded so otherworldly that I looked up his complete remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, and discovered a cavalcade of contradiction. Senator Cotton is confused about the Iran nuclear deal to the point of pathos. Point-by-point:
SEIB [Moderator]: “[T]he argument has always been that the deal was the only brake against a nuclear rush by the Iranians; and that the demise of the deal, even if they are the ones who bring about its demise, would simply precipitate that rush.”
COTTON: “That’s a well-put question that many people ask, and I ask them a question in return: What will happen in 2025 and 2030? And nobody has an answer to that.”
“I ask them a question in return.” I.e, Cotton has no answer to Seib’s point that without JCPOA, Iran would have nuclear weapons right now — so he answers the question with a question.
SEIB: “You said in your remarks that the problem is not with the deal so much as with the Iranian regime. In saying that, you were essentially arguing for a strategy of regime change.”
COTTON: “I would welcome them opening up their country, democratizing their government, sharing power, and becoming a normal nation like Luxembourg. I’m under no illusion that that’s going to happen, as opposed to so many people who support this deal.”
Which supporters of JCPOA think Iran will become Luxembourg in 10 years? On the contrary, the intractability of the Iran problem was President Obama’s reason for focusing JCPOA on nuclear disarmament, rather than link it to the eternal religious conflicts of the Middle East. Cotton is the illusioned one who thinks never-ending sanctions and ‘targeted military strikes’ will solve both the nuclear problem and the many problems of Iran’s expansionism and support for terrorism — problems that were not solved by (1) full scale occupation of Lebanon by the Israeli Defense Force (1982), (2) the Multinational Force in Lebanon (dissolved after the marine barracks explosion in Beirut in 1983), (3) full scale war on Iran by Saddam Hussein (Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988). Again and again, Cotton holds up past military actions as templates for success, when none of those actions have solved the Iran problem.
Nick Schifrin (PBS “NewsHour”): “How do you get a shift in—a fundamental shift in Iranian regime actions with targeted strikes, like those in Syria, given that those strikes didn’t get a fundamental shift in the Syrian regime’s actions?”
Cotton: “Hopefully they’ll change their behavior, as they did once we blew up all their ships and oil platforms, or once we had invaded Iraq and we had troops on both their east and their west border.”
Again, contradiction. He claims we’ve had success by threatening Iran in the past, while at the same time stating (accurately) that Iran has grown ever more aggressive. He repeats his fantastic claim that Iran was intimidated by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which we can forgive as existential melancholy. (I’m sympathetic and sensitive to the likelihood that, existentially, Cotton needs to believe intense personal losses he suffered in Iraq were not in vain.)
But Cotton is also confused about the Iran-Iraq War. Shifrin asked about a ‘fundamental’ shift in Iranian behavior, not some momentary dodge. Cotton cites ‘Operation Praying Mantis’, which forced the Ayatollah into a ceasefire to end the Iran-Iraq War. But Praying Mantis did not yield a fundamental shift — as Cotton points out; Iran continues to support Hezbollah, and is more dangerous today than in 1988. In the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was the aggressor. Having repelled Saddam’s forces, Iran decided to go further and destroy him; this is what prolonged the war. When American ships were damaged by Iranian mines meant for Iraq, the U.S. forced Iran to abandon its goal of destroying Saddam in the war.
But: today, Saddam Hussein is worm feces, his destruction engineered by Iran manipulating George Bush into invading Iraq. Today, Iran’s Shiite proxies rule Saddam’s kingdom. Ultimately, Iran accomplished its goal from the Iran-Iraq War. So this is not a recommended template, and certainly not any desired ‘fundamental’ shift.
Cotton derides JCPOA as only a temporary solution. Yet in his remarks, he unwittingly concedes that Operation Praying Mantis was only a temporary block to Iranian expansion — as was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as have been countless IDF operations into Gaza — temporary respites, all. Cotton also unwittingly concedes that his targeted strikes would only be a temporary fix. He admits we’d have to strike again and again.
***
In his opening remarks, Cotton confuses diplomacy with combat: “One thing I learned in the Army is that when your opponent is on his knees, you drive him to the ground and choke him out.”
Even the madman Henry Kissinger would disagree with using the chokehold in diplomacy. Praising the 1814 Congress of Vienna (which temporarily broke the vicious cycle of Great Power war in Europe after the defeat of Napoleon), Kissinger writes:
“In dealing with the defeated enemy, the victors designing a peace settlement must navigate the transition from the intransigence vital to victory to the conciliation needed to achieve a lasting peace … Any country with a grievance is assured of finding nearly automatic support from the disaffected defeated party. This would be the bane of the Treaty of Versailles.” Kissinger, ‘Diplomacy’
Historians are in consensus that the Versailles chokehold on Germany after WWI contributed to the rise of the Third Reich. Another failed chokehold was Kaiser Wilhelm I overplaying victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) by seizing French territory. As a result, a still-aggrieved France rejected Germany’s demand to dissolve its mutual defense pact with Russia in 1914 — thus escalating what might have been an isolated Prusso-Russo War (which Germany would have won) into the World War that left Germany destroyed.
Peter Zimmerman, a physicist, questioned Cotton’s chokehold theory:
ZIMMERMAN: “I would hope that either in the Army or at Harvard you learned that American practice is when you have a defeated enemy on his knees, you accept surrender and offer mercy. You don’t smash him to the ground.”
COTTON: “Well, the problem with your premise there, Paul [sic], is that Iran was not defeated.”
But that wasn’t Zimmerman’s premise. It was Cotton’s premise — that President Obama had Iran on their knees and let them up, where a tougher negotiator would have driven Iran into the ground.
COTTON: “I said when they’re on their knees—I said when they’re on their knees you drive them to the ground and choke them out.” — “your fundamental point is wrong. Iran was not defeated.”
Cotton becomes incoherent. Was Iran on their knees or not? Cotton says they were on their knees but they were not defeated? That makes no sense.
Now I’m confused — between pathos for an existentially distressed combat veteran, and infuriation at the dismally stupid lies he tells. In 2007, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates described the U.S. as ‘supplicants’ in the Iran negotiations.
If we were supplicants in 2007 but had Iran on their knees by 2015, who put Iran on their knees? It had to be President Obama — who else? Contrary to Cotton’s make-believe that U.S. unilateral sanctions passed by Congress broke Iran, Obama’s multinational sanctions (that eluded Bush) finally brought Iran to the table with some seriousness. So President Obama was strong enough to put Iran on their knees, but then he changed into a weakling — how does that work? Is it like how the Incredible Hulk turns into puny Bruce Banner? Or is it just horsebutt Birther nonsense?
It’s the latter. Iran was not on their knees. They were sitting at the negotiating table, not under it. Squeezed by Obama’s sanctions, they still had globally powerful allies in China and Russia. They saw Israel’s conspicuously uncharacteristic hesitation to strike (as Israel did on Iraq’s Osirak reactor), based on sober tactical assessment. They believe they have an ally in Allah. And they know they have an ally in the corporate profit motive that always resists sanctions — in every country!
Michael Kavoukjian (White & Case): “One of the many rationalizations for this deal … was that the multinational sanctions regime was about to collapse anyway, so we had to enter into the deal quickly. Could you … go into more detail about how we will coerce our allies into sanctions—reimposing sanctions.”
Cotton: “But ultimately, countries have to make a decision if it comes to that: Do they want to deal with the United States’ $19 trillion economy or do they want to deal with Iran’s economy, which is, at $400 billion, about the size of Maryland’s?”
It’s Twilight Zone irony that the Confederacy tried ‘Cotton Diplomacy’ (literally, that’s what it was called), using a cotton embargo to coerce Europe into supporting the South in the Civil War. ‘Cotton Diplomacy’ failed and fell apart as a self-embargo that opened the door for India, Egypt, and Brazil to the European cotton markets. Now, Tom Cotton thinks U.S. companies will tolerate a self-embargo that throws their global business dealings up in the air, dependent on the EU, Japan, China, and Russia collectively caving to moronic ‘Birther’ policy from Donald Trump, while Iran is in compliance.
I’d refer the Senator to Dick Cheney who, as CEO of Halliburton, understands the business end of sanctions better than Cotton does:
“Ms. Ifill: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still C.E.O. of Halliburton you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, unilateral sanctions almost never work. After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the axis of evil. Do you think, do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?
Mr. Cheney: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions. What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is unless there’s a collective effort then other people move in and take advantage of the situation. And you don’t have any impact except to penalize American companies.”
It’s no surprise that the Big Giant Neocon changes his tune as soon as it costs him money. U.S. businesses view sanctions the same as they view environmental regulations or any government restrictions. These are people who fight in court to maintain cancer clusters. They don’t care about pediatric cancer, they don’t care about the environment, they don’t care about climate change, and they don’t care about Iranian nukes. All they care about is profit, and they want ‘gubmint’ out of the way. There are Halliburtons in every U.N. member state, companies and profiteers who resisted sanctions even when Iran was actively pursuing nukes. They will not tolerate global sanctions and massive business uncertainties with Iran in compliance.
I’d also refer Cotton to President George W. Bush while Iran was steadily advancing their nuke program: “We've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them anymore.” Bush is talking about internal resistance from U.S. profiteers, and China and Russia’s vetoes in the U.N. Security Council.
***
Notice the absence of the ‘detail’ that Kavoukjian asked for in Cotton’s answer. In contrast, President Obama and Secretary Clinton could go into detail on how they manipulated Russia into reversing its chronic veto on Iran sanctions. But it would be impolitic of them to do so publicly. However, we do have Putin’s side of the story — in great detail — on how Obama manipulated Putin’s strategic anxiety over U.S. missile shield technology to flip him on Iran sanctions:
PUTIN: “So here we are today — and they’ve placed their missile defense system in Romania. Always saying ‘we must protect ourselves from the Iranian nuclear threat!’ … There is no Iranian nuclear threat. You even have an agreement with them — and the US was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped. We supported it … I agree with the agreement, because it eased tensions in the area. So President Obama can put this in his list of achievements. So the Iranian threat does not exist. But missile defense systems are continuing to be positioned … That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us. Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the ‘Iranian nuclear threat.’ Once again, they lied to us. So they built this system and now they are being loaded with missiles.”
Putin says ‘we supported it’, but he had always vetoed the sanctions requisite for JCPOA to work — before Obama squeezed him on missile defense. (I believe this is what was going on in the 2012 ‘hot mic’ exchange. Obama was dangling ‘flexibility’ on missile defense under Medvedev’s nose to get Russia in line on Iran sanctions. As we know now, the ‘flexibility’ check was lost in the mail; Obama snaked Putin on Iran.)
How does Tom Cotton propose that we snake Russia again? Prime Minister Medvedev has already vowed increased Russian self-reliance and tensions after the Russian Sanctions Review Act. He also called Trump an impotent punk on Facebook — whereas Putin called JCPOA President Obama’s ‘achievement.’ Yet, according to ‘Birther’ Tom, Obama is viewed as a ‘chump’ and Trump commands international respect. Get a clue, Senator: Russia will never again agree to automatic snapback sanctions, which neutralizes their precious Security Council veto, if Trump breaks JCPOA. And President Xi would look like the global chump, rather than rising hegemon, if he surrendered Chinese economic sovereignty to Trump’s Birther Foreign Policy.
Bush said “We can’t sanction them anymore.” Yet President Obama did achieve more sanctions. So I’d say President Obama understands the politics of sanctions better than President Bush (who at least understood how hard it was to sustain multinational sanctions), and far better than Senator Cotton, who thinks it’s easy to sustain multinational sanctions indefinitely.
To recap, Cotton’s answer to every key question on JCPOA is manifestly inadequate. He answers Seiber’s question with a question, because he can’t answer the question. He becomes incoherent when Zimmerman challenges his historically discredited chokehold diplomacy. When asks for detail on overcoming corporate resistance to renewed sanctions, he suggests we re-enact the Civil War —as the losing Confederacy! He contradicts himself reflexively, as Dartmouth professor Nicholas Miller details.
Senator Cotton is not a moron, so what gives? I suspect that something terrible and intimately personal happened to Tom Cotton in Iraq at the hands of Iran. I do sympathize with his existential grief. But policymakers cannot cradle his anguish. Congress should see him as a man driven by passionate confusion. Like Captain Ahab, he covets revenge on Iran, and he’s willing for us to die for it.
