Dancing Around War With Iran

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” declared Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

“The Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”


“No one buys Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,” declared CNN’s Erin Burnett last week, speaking authoritatively on behalf of the pundit class in the U.S.

Sigh. We’ve seen this movie before.

“The debate surrounding the invasion of Iraq,” we wrote in the first edition of Empire of Debt, “was an imperial debate – about means and methods, not about right and wrong or national interest.”

“No one from either major political party bothered to suggest that the United States had no business nosing around in other peoples’ business.”

“Both parties recognized that Iraq was not a matter of national interest – it was a matter of imperial interest. No sparrow falls anywhere in the world without triggering a monitoring device in the Pentagon.”

This time, at least, there’s a variation on the theme.

In 2003, you heard nary a word about whether Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction… or whether an invasion might turn out to be something other than a sprint to victory.

This time around – while you wouldn’t know it by listening to knuckleheads like Burnett – there’s considerable skepticism even among the imperial classes about whether Iran aims to produce a nuclear weapon… or whether a military attack on Iran would work out well.

“Tehran has not made a decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon,” said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Congress a week ago today, trying to stifle the first question. A National Intelligence Estimate issued by the Obama administration last year affirmed a similar report issued by the Bush administration in 2007: Iran stopped pursuit of a nuclear weapon in 2003.

Darn it.

As for the second question, “Both the American and Israeli governments,” writes Peter Beinart at The Daily Beast, “boast military and intelligence agencies charged with answering [the question of whether military attack would be wise]. With striking consistency, the people who run, or ran, those agencies are warning – loudly – against an attack.”

What’s wrong with these people?

Mr. Beinart was among a cadre of “liberal hawks” who gave the Iraq war a good name nine years ago. Now he’s turned into a wuss. Among the warnings he cites:

  • Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress last week, “the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or provoke a conflict”
  • Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who oversees 16 U.S. intelligence agencies – estimates a U.S or Israeli attack would set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a year or two
  • Further, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey says a U.S. or Israeli attack would “guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon.”

“I’ve never seen a more lopsided debate among the experts paid to make these judgments,” Beinart goes on. “Yet it barely matters. So far, the Iran debate has been a rout, with the Republican presidential candidates loudly declaring their openness to war and President Obama unwilling to even echo the skepticism of his own security chiefs.”

“War is no longer made by simply analysed economic forces if it ever was,” Ernest Hemingway wrote in an essay entitled “Notes on the Next War: A Serious Topical Letter,” published by Esquire in 1935.

“War is made or planned now by individual men, demagogues and dictators who play on the patriotism of their people to mislead them into a belief in the great fallacy of war when all their vaunted reforms have failed to satisfy the people they misrule.”

As such, Congress is moving quickly. A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill last week that:

“…rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and urges the president to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Leave aside the fact the bill leaves the definition of nuclear weapons “capability” murky. The point is that if Iran crosses this new red line, it compels the United States to go to war.

“Imagine,” writes M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, “if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack the USSR. If it had, I wouldn’t be here writing this column today, and you wouldn’t be reading it.”

Right now, this is nonbinding legislation. But it has the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Often, AIPAC-backed congressional initiatives start as nonbinding language (in a resolution or a letter), and then show up in binding legislation,” says Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now.

“Once members of Congress have already signed on to a policy in nonbinding form, it is much harder for them to oppose it when it shows up later in a bill that, if passed, will have the full force of law.”


Addison Wiggin
for Markets and Money

Addison Wiggin is the Executive Publisher of Agora Financial.

This article originally appeared in Markets and Money USA.

From the Archives…

An Ice Age For Australian House Prices
2012-02-24 – Greg Canavan

“Supranational” Investing
2012-02-23 – Addison Wiggin

Economic Recovery Without Pain
2012-02-22 – Bill Bonner

What the Greek Debt Crisis is Really About
2012-02-21 – Dan Denning

Greek Default Therapy
2012-02-20 – Eric Fry

Addison Wiggin
Editorial director of Markets and Money, Addison Wiggin is also the author, with Bill Bonner, of the international bestseller Financial Reckoning Day and a frequent guest on national US radio and television programs. Look for the sequel to Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt (John Wiley & Sons) in October, 2005.
Addison Wiggin

Latest posts by Addison Wiggin (see all)

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "Dancing Around War With Iran"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

I reckon, the U.S Military needs a war with Iran.
I also reckon that the U.S Budget office wants to avoid having to pay for one as much as the U.S Military needs a self fulfilling mission.
Since the U.S Military accounts for so much of the Federal Budget, they might just be able to convince the bean counters they can afford it. Honest, we’ll do it on the cheap.
Of course once it kicks off, that’s when the costs blow out and the bean counters cry foul.
It’s happened before, and will most probably happen again.

Invest in America, Americans we need more war.


This is the start of World War 3 annihilation once the US war heads fly…aftermath: Russia, China gone…US gone…London gone…who’s to pick up the pieces?

Atila Kovacs
I just have to recommend the book if nothing more than to have people exposed to a much different way of looking at how the world economy works and how it is constantly being fought over. Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis, by James Rickard The Blood Bankers, by James Henry on books.google.com and go to chapter “It’s not about oil” on page 299. Steingart believes we spend too much time worrying about places like Kabul and Baghdad, and not enough thinking about places like Shanghai. “The War for Wealth” then details that case. Steingart also contends… Read more »
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au