This is my first diary. I didn't want it to be, but I have struggled to figure out what my first diary should be. I am new at Kos, only been here 3 months or so, and don't know if I belong yet or not. Most of my research involves Strategic Defense Policy and Foreign Policy, and I hope over time my diary becomes a place recommend by people looking for Policy opinions regarding these topics.
I believe Progressives have to start now to start thinking strategically regarding Foreign Policy. Every day that passes is another opportunity missed, and without building from the ground up we will fall silent on the issues of Foreign Policy that could drive elections in 2006.
The lack of options in Strategic Policy is what gives the Republican Party its platform on National Security issues today. At this point, clearly most of the country is convinced Bush is not a strong National Security leader, but also clear is the lack of credible alternatives offered by the Progressive Movement, nor the debate of what the alternatives should be. Until we engage in the debate, no one will see us as a viable alternative. I believe Iran will be the most important election issue of 2006, and for Progressives to be credible in the election, we must engage the issue.
What most people don't realize about Iran is the Bush administration actually began the war on Iraq and Iran at the same time. If you recall, in September of 2002, Bush went before the UN to make the case for Iraq, but what is often overlooked, is the US also quietly took their problem with Iran to the IAEA. It really was a very smart strategy in theory for the Bush administration, they could take on Iraq first since Iraq was militarily weak after over a decade of continuous bombing by allies aircraft, and begin the process of building a coalition against Iran.
Since 2002, the Bush administration has accumulated allot of ammunition against Iran, and is developing a 2 point strategy for engaging Iran, with military force if required.
The 2 points to this strategy are centered around are Nuclear Weapons and Terrorism.
On the nuclear weapons side, the IAEA findings is only the beginning as far as the administration goes, as we learned in Iraq, intelligence information will be used. Unlike Iraq though, the intelligence information isn't central to only the CIA, other sources will be used to illustrate the scope of the problem to the American people.
The Terrorism angle is actually a better case for war in theory, but it again leaves open questions regarding intelligence information. For starters, the 9/11 commission report is sure to come up. Also to come up will be the information that came out from the Hamburg trails in Germany, while several of the accused were found innocent, there was no shortage of credible information provided regarding Iran and Al Qaeda connections. As Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported, Germany hauled out a key witness.
during the trial of another alleged Hamburg cell member, Abdelghani Mzoudi, prosecutors produced a last-minute witness, Hamid Reza Zakeri, who said he was a former officer of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Zakeri testified there was a meeting at an airbase near Tehran on May 4, 2001, between top Iranian leaders--including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani--and one of Osama bin Laden's elder sons, Saad, at which plans for 9/11 were discussed.
Also noted was the following:
U.S. and German authorities have never been able to corroborate Zakeri's claims about the involvement of top Iranian officials, and some officials have questioned his credibility. German government efforts to use Zakeri as a witness against Mzoudi proved ineffective; the defendant, unlike the previously convicted Motassadeq, was acquitted of charges of being an accomplice to the 9/11 hijackers.
The trials and the article quoted were both written prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission report. It should be noted the 9/11 Commission report includes information by Hamid Reza Zakeri as credible and cross verified by US sources not available to Germany during the trials, and details regarding Iran and Al Qaeda links in the 9/11 report are quite extensive. With the exception of the CIA, it should also be noted that Hamid Reza Zakeri is considered a legitimate source, including by many European Intelligence services and the larger mainstream media, and he continues to produce very high level intelligence.
Finally, while much is still unknown regarding the whole Able Danger story, what is known does add credibility to Zakeri's information regarding timelines, meetings, and other specifics.
Other evidence will include the recent activity of the Quds Division, which is a specialized unit within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. This is the kind of juicy item that can be tossed around in discussion for easy points, after all Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's own resume includes being a high ranking officer in the Quds Division.
By using the IAEA approach to Iran, the EU-3 has put their diplomatic reputations on the line regarding Iran. As Jerome a Paris noted in another diary, the European media is all over this story, but whenever it comes time to talk about military solutions, every media source you can find points to the United States. It is now accepted worldwide that the US is going to start a war, and European strategy through the UN is the only peaceful resolution.
During an election year, I do not believe the US will start a war with Iran this year, I think the US intention is to wait until next year. That does not mean the war may not happen this year though.
2006 is an election year, and the topic of Iran is already a very common theme in the media news cycle, and we aren't even to the UN Security Council yet. The UN Security Council is where the IAEA will start releasing much of the specifics regarding their findings, and to the vast majority of voting Americans this information is going to be new information. As a part of the media cycle, it will be a critical issue for Democrats looking to get elected, so Democrats must have a strategy.
The popular progressive strategy I have read is war fatigue. Jerome a Paris and other progressive blogs reflect this strategy, it also reflects the reality that the US has had enough war, and the influx of former military personnel to the left is proof this exists not only in America, but also the military itself. The problem with this strategy is that it sends a message to Iran that the American people aren't willing to be tough, and we are willing to accept a nuclear Iran. That will strengthen Iran's resolve, and they will not back down peacefully.
The bigger side effect though would be seen in Israel. If Israel doesn't think America is willing to stand up against Iran, and if the UN is not successful in applying a strong resolution, combined with an election message of the Democrat party reflects that as a popular opinion, there could be serious trouble, because enter Plan B.
Plan B is actually the best-case scenario for Bush, because it could not only be a major factor in the election, but it would allow Bush to go right around the UN.
Plan B is for Israel to attack Iranian Nuclear targets. People think it can't happen, but Israeli plans have been reported in the world media for months now, nobody in the US media seems to care though.
If this happens, it can be counted on that besides sending cruise missiles against Israel, Iran would probably go after that big US aircraft carrier we station 60 miles off the coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf.
Iran attacking, or perhaps even sinking a US Aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf with 5000+ sailors onboard is the worst case scenario for the Democratic Party if Democrats have a soft policy on Iran. It is also the most realistic scenario for war against Iran in 2006.
Policy
I think the progressive movement should support a strong peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue. We know from the experience of Iraq that simply protesting war does not work, so we must advocate a peaceful solution instead. We know from experience in Iraq that as soon as the UN option breaks down, the Coalition of the Willing starts building up. We know that China wants nothing to do with this, otherwise they wouldn't be absolutely silent, without any official opinion at all yet. We know the only roadblock to a peaceful UN solution, assuming Bush will do it alone (which I think is a safe assumption), is Russia who will probably veto strong sanctions.
I believe strong actions with the US united with other countries through the United Nations is the progressive way to solving large Foreign Policy problems that George Bush believes are better solved through military action. I believe strong sanctions are the peaceful solution the progressive movement must endorse in order to insure the Iran problem in the UN is resolved peacefully. Iran will back down to strong sanctions, but they know they don't have to as long as Russia doesn't back down. Putin is a smart guy, he will not back down as long as he believes America is divided over Iran, and Putin reads inaction by the left as division (which is probably true, since we will just flame Bush after the fact if he takes military action). Most people don't realize Putin is a former KGB agent, he is a much better politician than Bush is, and he has a much larger grasp of the big picture than most leaders in the world. If he sees a united America, he knows it is a major political loser to stand against us, and a united American policy is the only thing that will make Putin back down.
In order for there to be a peaceful solution, the progressive movement and the Democratic Party must take action to insure it. I believe that action must be a strong, credible action. It must be strong enough to provide alternative to Bush, and it must be in line with American policy to insure voters will support it. As I see it, the smartest policy accounting for all possible scenarios to achieve a peaceful solution under this administration is to Protest Iran's Nuclear Policy and Demand Strong Sanctions by the UN. If massive numbers of progressives actively advocate a UN solution, a strong solution based in sanctions, with a loud voice it demonstrates the pursuit of peaceful policy by the progressive movement, and more importantly, it keeps the problem contained to the United Nations.
In an election year where a strong policy for Iran is needed, the pursuit of tough sanctions against Iran establishes a credible alternative to the Bush administration, who right now has the only voice on the topic of Iran. If we say nothing, or do nothing, America deserves what we get for our failure to take action and provide a strong viable alternative to the status quo in the Bush Foreign Policy today.