JOHNSON: Let's delve into that Iran question a bit more

By Bridget Johnson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 14, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

As we head into the final presidential debate, we may be getting ready to exhale at the imminent conclusion of a storied process. We may be left wondering, yet again, why debate moderators felt the American people were only interested in hearing about a small handful of topics among the myriad issues that affect the country – and how the populace votes – every day. We may be ready to click over to the movie channels when we hear the same attacks, the same talking points, the same sound bites, or John McCain saying “my friends” one more time.

If there’s one issue I’d like to see rehashed, though, it’s what I believe to be the most important question asked at last week’s town hall debate. Posed by a retired Navy chief as the last audience question, it probed levels of each man’s character that many in the media have seemed so unconcerned with exploring: “If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”

For starters, the question acknowledged the fallback of Barack Obama: diplomacy upon diplomacy, and then some more diplomacy. Upon which, McCain predictably fires back that Obama would meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Upon which, Obama or proxy Joe Biden fire back with Henry Kissinger’s opinions on meeting with Iran, upon which everything devolves into a he said/he said free-for-all.

So assuming that each candidate would try his best diplomatic efforts with Iran – and I don’t see either man rushing into conflict because of public sentiment and current troop deployments (with Obama hypothetically redistributing fighters to Afghanistan) – there still remains the fact that Obama and Biden have stressed (though in more of a “you’re so ignorant” fashion than a constructive one): that Ahmadinejad or no Ahmadinejad, the mullahocracy that pulls the strings in the Islamic Republic is the final word. That the Ayatollah Khamenei, supreme leader since 1989, isn’t going to let anything perceived as “reformist” (aka President Mohammed Khatami) happen again.

“Nobody from this courageous nation will allow anyone who holds an official position to make a statement that runs counter to the principles of the foreign policy, delineated by Imam [Khomeini] and the leader [Khamenei],” Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, an Assembly of Experts member who last year helpfully reminded all that Khomeini’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie was still active, said in an August sermon on Iranian TV Channel 1.

The question that never get answered is, would an Obama administration then confront the mullahs instead of Ahmadinejad – and does he believe that foreign policy with the supreme leader (note the word “supreme”) is negotiable?

The town hall question posed the worst-case scenario of Iran attacking Israel. It’s a no-brainer that Iran wants Israel obliterated. Less than a month ago, Ahmadinejad was on the Iranian News Channel justifying wholesale attack by stating that Israelis act as “human shields” for Zionists and thus are not to be regarded as innocent targets. Now you know Islamic extremist justification for plowing a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.

Then there’s the next part of the question: Would you come to Israel’s aid with troops? In other words, would you commit to Israel when it counts, and not when just trying to woo the Jewish vote on the campaign trail?

And, finally, the most important part of the question: Would you defy the U.N. Security Council if proceeding with action is the right thing to do? It’s irrational to think that military action should be approved by a council controlled by the authoritarian veto: Russia and China, who have a chilling record of defending from so much as a wrist-slap nefarious regimes from Zimbabwe to Burma. The U.N. as a body and its violator-laden Human Rights Council, too, aren’t exactly in a position to offer moral authority on the subject of Iran attacking Israel, when each session is a push-pull between reasonable nations and the powerful blocs passing resolution after resolution condemning Israel while granting impunity to totalitarian cesspools.

I know it would be asking a lot to ask each candidate to take another stab at this question in a debate that didn’t devolve into sniping or runaway tangents, but the answers we need are so crucial: Do you recognize the true nature of the Iranian leadership, and would you be prepared to see negotiations – with a “Great Satan” nameplate on the U.S. side of the table, of course – implode in a fury of religious rhetoric? Do you know that every radical from Hezbollah – which admittedly (proudly) took guidance from Khamenei during the 2006 war – to Hamas would rush to join an attack against Israel? And would you do the right thing if it meant not achieving the popularity status you so desire in the world?

Bridget Johnson is the Rocky's online opinion editor. She also blogs here at the Rocky.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

October 14, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dub writes:

You can answer that question yourself by looking at who Hezbollah and Hamas supports. They are a reflection of the extremest doctrine, no matter what the sect, or nationality.
October 14, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

GunnyBob writes:

Miss, it would be wise for you to stop believing everything you read on the Web regarding who really controls what in Iran. I've been studying Iran since the 1970s and your assessment of the power structure there is one you simply parroted from others whose ignorance and naivete are part of the problem. Also, making farcical blanket statements like "Do you know that every radical from Hezbollah – which admittedly (proudly) took guidance from Khamenei during the 2006 war – to Hamas would rush to join an attack against Israel?" doesn't exactly lend credibility to your rapier misassessment; your opinion has no basis in fact whatsoever and is absurd on its face. The fact is that the vast majority of self-proclaimed jihadis who say they seek martyrdom never pick up a weapon and never attack Israel. They talk the talk but never walk the walk. Yours was just the latest transparent attempt to strike fear into our hearts to such a degree that we take military force to prevent a nuclear war off the proverbial table.

That said, armchair counterterrorism strategists such as yourself tapping perceived words of wisdom onto a keyboard from the comfort of your Metro Denver home or office do make laugh those of us who have operated and still operate in the quite real world of global asymmetric warfare. For example, two weeks ago I met with an Iranian based in Bandar Abbas (look it up) while in Southern Asia teaching counterterrorism to 300+ people (I run a counterterrorism consulting and training company). He would laugh at your silliness, which reminds me of the article I read yesterday wherein the author claimed a single tanker sunk in the Strait of Hormuz would close the strait to all shipping traffic, which if you know anything at all about the strait is a laughable claim.

If you would stick to writing about things you actually know about, one day credibility might come your way.
October 14, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

What a smackdown? Johnson wrote intelligently enough???

I trust the Gunny, though.

Hey, Gunny, why don't you write an editorial piece for the RMN that sheds better light on the situation in Iran and addresses what, if anything, should be done over there?
October 14, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Gunny
You seem to have some unique insight and expertise into this issue. What is the answer to the Chief's question? Is it a good question?
October 14, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

GunnyBob writes:

TC:

For what troops would be necessary (no ground forces likely except perhaps for some very limited specops missions, if that), yes, we would have to aid our closest ally in the region with air and sea power, without UNSC approval. Both Russia and China would likely use their permanent veto power on the SC anyway. Iran would counterattack with limited Hez strikes, some of which could take place in CONUS and against US property and personnel abroad, as well as mining the Gulf, ballistic missiles launches (Shehab-3s mostly) with conventional payloads (for now), anti-ship missiles (targeting warships and commercial vessels), and so on.
October 14, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

GunnyBob;

Most of the time I disagree with you, but not this time. I have been devowering books on the Middle East ever since the hostage crisis during Carter. Her assessment comes woefully short of any comprehensive understanding of the Middle east.

I would suggest she start reading. She sounds like a bad television commentator, spouting off things she hears rather than actually knows.
October 14, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

GunnyBob writes:

Marsh:

What'd'ya mean you usually disagree with me?

This is an outrage.
October 14, 2008

10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

If Iran was to attack Israel, I doubt Iran would last long. Unless Iran has nukes, Israel's military wouldn't hesitate to use their superior air power against Iran. The problem with countries on the SC going against Israel is partly due to the "Jewish" state and partly due to the U.S. being their closest ally.

Bridget makes excellent points about the lack of articulation on the subject from both Presidential candidates. Whether you agree with her assessment on the rest of her opinion, that much of it cannot be debated or denied.

One thing I'd hope isn't forgotten is that the middle east has been in conflict for centuries. Violence is a way of life for too many in the region. Not all people there would want a war with Israel, but it's not out of reach to say there are enough in the region that want Israel wiped off the map. That is undeniable.
October 14, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

GunnyBob,

Knowing what we now know about the presence of WMD in Iraq (or seeming lack thereof), do you think it would have been a better appropriation of our force to sack Iran (or even N. Korea)?

They are provoking the West by building and running centrifuges...we know they are working on developing weapons-grade uranium. We had less information about Iraq.

I know that the answer is moot now, considering that our might is already spread thin in our other two wars and at least half of our population is war weary and unwilling to put up with it for much longer. I was just wondering what you thought about the decision to sack Iraq rather than one of the other of the "axis of evil."
October 14, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

spencerr, the war in Iraq is mainly about securing the oil supply for the United States. The Iraqi's used chemical weapons on their own people (Kurds); chemical weapons are WMD's. Hussein also ignored the 16 UN sanctions imposed by the security council, and the US was the only country willing to finally enforce the resolutions. It's not as simple as just saying there were no WMD's in Iraq.
October 14, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Cwillyrun1,

It was a hypothetical question. I realize that Hussein murdered kurds with chemical weapons, but we still have yet to find chemicals, nukes, or biologicals from the era spanning the current Iraq war.

Iran is similarly pushing the UN's buttons by doing whatever they like with their nuke program regardless of what the UN does or threatens to do in retaliation.
October 14, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Sure......... trust me, I understand and agree with you. Your comparison actually makes sense and it's a good question.

I mentioned the oil supply thing, because I think that's the main reason why we went into Iraq. I think it's the reason why we're not pushing North Korea, but Iran does have oil.
October 14, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Cwillyrun1,

I think, and it is just my uninformed opinion, that Bush was looking to make the point "don't mess with the U.S." post-911. Perhaps his father's unfinished business with Hussein or perhaps the oil thing played a part, but I think that after Afghanistan seemingly rolled over on us, Bush was looking to make a show of strength.

I think he primarily picked Iraq for two reasons. 1. They were already lame from the first war 2. Hussein was horsing around with the U.N. inspectors, giving immediate reason for a U.N. invasion, and when the U.N. balked, he took that as an opportunity to "show leadership."

That being said, I don't know that were I in the same situation, I would have done much different. I think it may have been more useful to depose a communist despot with questionable sanity and with actual nuclear capability or the Iranians, who have been trying to go nuclear for a very long time and who are constantly testing us.
October 14, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

spencerr, those are good reasons you've mentioned. If I remember right, Hussein had also talked about having Bush (Sr.) taken out, so did his son think that was another reason to go into Iraq?
October 14, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

As likely as the scenario I just mentioned, it is again moot.

Because Bush took the action he did based on information that may or may not have been good at the time, most of the American people do not agree with the war in Iraq.

I think most want to see the job get finished in the right way, but they don't think we should have gone in in the first place. Bush lost a lot of credibility when his justification for the war turned out to be faulty.

If he had just been honest, he would have had a lot less initial support, but he wouldn't have lost his credibility and been branded a liar. I think if he had attacked a real threat such as N. Korea or Iran, and he had been honest about it and as diplomatic as possible, he would likely be considered with much more esteem by his opponents.

...I don't know.
October 14, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

GunnyBob can dismiss Bridget Johnson's column all he wants, but:
1) If Iran attacks Israel, it will be with eveything they have. A few Green Berets and a cruise missile or two aren't going to slow them down at all.
2) OK, so I don't sip tea with Iranians in Bandar Abbas, but everything the press reports (including Fox) is that the mullahs control the political establishment. Reform candidates find themselves declared ineligible to run because they're heretics. Political demonstrators find themselves either imprisoned, tortured, or dead. It is a theocracy. It's an Islamic Republic. Therefore, Obama is right to say we have to deal with the mullahs.
3) Ms. Johnson is spot on with her assessment that these so-called debates are really nothing more than spewing forth of sound-bites, games of "Did too! Did not!" and "I'm more patriotic than you!" I don't think the Navy retiree's question really got answered. If Lincoln and Douglas operated under these arcane rules, we wouldn't remember either one of them.
4) I absolutely totally agree with Bridget Johnson's assessment of John McCain's "my friends" moments. They're like fingernails on a chalkboard. He's not running to be Best Chum, he's not running to be Our Pal. He's running to be President. Stick to the standard traditional "My fellow Americans" and be done with it.
October 14, 2008

3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

Only a politician who is out to screw you says " my friends "

That has been the SOP for centuries....

Having said that, the kind of car bomb the US can use makes their car bombs look like firecrackers, PROVIDED THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS THE BALLS TO USE THEM!!

The US has used too much restraint since 911. remember what was said in the past:

" nations do not have allies, only interests "

This truism has applied throughout history and many FORMER nation states tried to act differently. This is the reason we have the armed forces in the first place and ( used to ) have the ability to play peacekeeper ( of OUR interests ) in the first place.
If we had acted out for OUR interests, 9/12 would have seen the same release of ( we have dial-a-yield ) explosive power over certain targets in the Middle East. ( the names start with M ).

Then the Commander in Chief would have to deal with both kinds of fallout that came from that retaliatory strike....

But it would reaffirm that the US has the ability to protect its interests...

And it would reaffirm what the older statesmen have said.

But it looks like the US lost its balls DECADES ago.

And the rest of the world knows it. and proves it daily....
October 14, 2008

6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

What is three feet high and glows in the dark? Tehran after Iran attacks Israel.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

JOHNSON: Let's delve into that Iran question a bit more

By Bridget Johnson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 14, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs