They're Uniters of Ex-Generals, Not Dividers

Head of government Dick Cheney and head of state George W. Bush seem to be uniting ex-generals on subjects beyond their horrendous plans for endless war in Iraq.  Now, a prominent ex-General has come out on the offensive against the Cheney administration's fixation on Iran:

Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

[...]

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course...

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq...

Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike...

Abazaid's comments weren't part of his prepared speech, but rather a response to a question, so it may be writing too much in to these comments to think they were an intentional shot across the bow of the Cheney administration.  Nevertheless, it's still significant that as the dead enders in the neocon cabal try to blame Iran for the problems in Iraq, and switch the discussion from the failures in Iraq to the supposed threats posed by Iran, that the general who spent four years dealing with the entire Middle East rebuts the neocons' scare-mongering on Iran.

As Abazaid indicted, it's not in our national interest for Iran to become a nuclear power.  But even if Iran does become a nuclear power, it will not pose a plausible threat of attack on the US.  It's extremely difficult to create intercontinental missiles to deliver a warhead to the US; the North Koreans have been working diligently on their missile program, and all indications are that they are nowhere near being able to deliver a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile.  So an Iranian nuke would be a regional concern, but not a threat to the mainland United States, and using a nuke against US forces would simply invite a terrible retaliation that would wipe out Iran, and against which it would be defenseless.  

Yes, Iran is a threat regionally, and it's a serious problem when even a country's titular head of state threatens the incineration of another country, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has toward Israel.  But Abazaid is correct to try to ratchet down the hyperbole, discuss our real options, and the real threats concerning Iran's nuclear efforts.  Iran's revolutionary ideology may call for aggressive expansion of Islamic Revolution, but the reality is that the Sunni world will never accept the religious leadership of the Shia state in Iran.  Ahmadinejad is a lunatic, and it appears that he does have more power than  predecessors such as Ayatollah Rafsanjani, but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is ultimately in charge, and the ulama in Iran--the clerics who exercise control over the state, especially in matters of religion, the judicial system and foreign and defense policy--are ultimately most concerned with maintaining their power over a restive, disproportionately young, underemployed and potentially revolutionary population.  Being bellicose and fostering defensive nationalist fervor just plays in to the hands of Iran's religious dictatorship.  

Abazaid is right to emphasize a firm but flexible approach to Iran that's based on our own national interests and a realist approach to diplomacy instead of jingoistic fear-mongering intended to distract people from the administration's failure in Iraq.  Hopefully, Abazaid's views are shared by enough people at the Pentagon, at State, among our allies and in the White House so that lunatics at the top levels of our administration don't play in to the hands of the lunatics in charge of Iran.