Is war on Iran an election strategy to sink Hillary?
Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 04:40:43 PM PDT
The GOP has a slate full of losers and Bush has fully discredited the Party's brand. Chances for a GOP Presidential win in 2008, regardless of who the Dem nominee is, are slim to none. That is, given the EXISTING political dynamic.
But what if Bush bombs Iran? And what if Hillary is the nominee?
I submit that such a scenario would so fracture the Democratic Base that a GOP victory would be likely. The Lieberman-Kyl Amendment is a critical piece of legislation. Hillary's support for it would box her in, such that, if Bush were to start bombing Iran tomorrow, she really couldn't complain as a legal matter. But having been politically neutered, Hillary would likely be savaged by a significant portion of the party. A mass defection, even if not likely before, would be assured.
There are two precedents that are critical in understanding how the language in Lieberman-Kyl can easily be twisted to support an attack on Iran. And more importantly, this can be done in a way that the Clintonites cannot complain about.
UN 1441
The first precedent(not in time) is the UN SC Resolution 1441 that authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with its provisions. From Wikipedia:
The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter." Supporters of the US Administration have argued, however, that France's declaration of intent to veto any military action in Iraq effectively prevented the Security Council from remaining seized of the matter since at that point it could take no action to enforce the standing Resolutions.
At the time the U.S. EXPRESSLY claimed that 1441 did not authorize force:
The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
"[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] "
Other nations voted based on the Bush-Cheney administration's representations. But they were LIED TO.
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
" We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
" Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United Statesof America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.
It should be clear that the Bush administration will not hesitate to twist language to support a bombing campaign of Iran
Which brings us to...
Iraqi Liberation Act and Clinton Regime Change Policy
The second and most relevant precedent is the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.
In that Act, later adopted as Clinton's expressed foreign policy, Congress voted for "regime change" of Iraq as U.S. policy.
Among the provisions of that Act?
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
In December of 1998, Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, an extensive bombing of Iraq's believed WMD facilities. The bombing was also generally acknowledged to be an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein.
Welcome to the true Operation Desert Fox.
It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the "degrading" of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the "diminishing" of the Iraqi threat to its neighbors. But careful study of the target list tells another story.
[...]
The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.
[...]
Desert Fox's most significant departure from Desert Storm is its targeting of offices associated with Saddam Hussein's entourage and advisers, the Iraqi intelligence and Ba'ath party organizations, and the security and transport apparatus that is so essential for Saddam's survival.
[...]
In 1991, only two installations associated with the protection of Saddam Hussein were hit. In Desert Fox, this group makes up 20 percent of the total of all targets.
What is the point? That notwithstanding Hillary's professed belief about the limits of the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, Bush could order airstrikes on Iran tomorrow and Hillary would have two choices. She could either shut the f--- up or she could condemn her husband's military foray in 1998 as an unconstitutional and illegal operation. Actually, there would be a third choice. She could complain and expose herself as a rank hypocrite.
[In truth, ANY Democrat who supported Clinton in 1998 and also voted for Lieberman-Kyl would be faced with the same stark choice.]
It should be obvious at this point that, from an election standpoint, the real threat isn't an invasion of Iran tomorrow (although that would be catastrophic).
No, the real threat for Democrats is an attack on Iran, oh, say, next March or April after Hillary has sewn up the nomination. It would guarantee a massive fracturing of the party, and likely throw the election to the GOP. The effects on down-ticket races would be equally severe.
My personal take is that an attack on Iran would be such a profoundly foolish mistake that considering the ramifications on the Democratic Party is a more than a little myopic. Still, take it for what it is.
Permalink | 53 comments