Has the Election Saved Us From War With Iran?

With that kind of scaremongering about, let’s not imagine that common sense is necessarily going to prevail just because we have the Democrats in Congress — not when you can bet that AIPAC is going to make the hard-line on Iran a test of loyalty to Israel. The AIPAC types have long opposed the sort of rapprochement with Iran that a broad array of U.S. interests objectively demands, and you can bet that when James Baker suggests that the U.S. open broad-ranging discussions with Iran with a view to stabilizing Iraq, the Likud lobby will be in the forefront of moves to block that option. Just a guess. Juan’s right, of course, that the neocons have lost a lot of their influence in the Administration, and it’s a safe bet that they’ll be eclipsed by the grownups when it comes to making Iraq policy within the corridors of power, but the Likud lobby’s reach is much broader. They don’t need, in fact, to push back on talking to Iran about Iraq specifically, because as long as they can make sure Washington assumes an aggressive posture on the nuclear issue, Tehran won’t see an incentive to help pull Washington’s chestnuts out of the fire. With the Democratic leadership looking to 2008, and the Likud lobby presenting an aggressive stance on Iran as a litmus test of loyalty to Israel, I’m not sure that the Congress is going to act as much of a brake on Bush going to war with Iran. (Remember, William Perry, Clinton’s former Defense Secretary, recently insisted that the U.S. launch a preemptive military strike on North Korea — these chaps are out to show their chest hairs, and if they’re given an opportunity, could get the U.S. into an even more catastrophic confrontation than is currently under way in Iraq.) I’d keep a watching brief on this one; I suspect the Likud lobby is going to work hard to start a war with Iran in the lame duck years of the Bush Administration. Rummy is gone, of course, but I’d be a lot more comfortable if Cheney was replaced by Baker himself.

[more]

James Baker vs. the Likud, Round II: This Time its Persian-al

But as much as Israeli leaders insist their position on Iran is based on the idea that Tehran is a mortal threat to the Jewish State, their own position on Iran doesn’t really offer Israel very much of a future in the region beyond that of a garrison state locked into perpetual war with increasingly sophisticated and determined enemies. Iran’s regime is not going anywhere, and, if anything, its influence in the region is growing as that of the U.S. declines. Neither Israel nor the U.S. can really afford to get into a confrontation with Iran, right now. So, rather than fight Baker and what he’s trying to do, the Israelis might do better to heed the advice he’s giving Bush — Israel, too, should be talking to Iran, and encouraging the U.S. to do the same. Because the last four years have graphically illustrated the failure of the hard line to achieve stability or security for any of the peoples of the region.

[more]