US policy toward Iran is so much in the news, but the stakes for various players in Washington have rarely been less transparent.<\/p>\n
So much of the focus has been framed as one of nuclear non-proliferation: how can the US stop Iran from acquiring nukes?<\/p>\n
I would not be the first to note the haunting symmetry between the invocation of Iraqi WMDs and the urgency of a strident non-proliferation agenda ahead of the US invasion and the current focus on Iranian non-proliferation.<\/p>\n
Iran hawks are quick to point out a key difference: Iran’s nuclear program is the real deal. For many liberal hawks, Iran becomes one more occasion to bash the Bush administration. Having cried wolf in Iraq, they risk making us complacent about the real<\/em> threat of Iran.<\/p>\n My interest in the focus on Iranian nukes has more to do with a somewhat different link to the earlier focus on Iraqi WMDs. Both appear to represent a kind of bureaucratic compromise referenced by Paul Wolfowitz<\/a>.<\/p>\n Indeed, as with Iraq, it would seem that Right Zionists (so-called Neocons) have always had a very different set of priorities than other Iran hawks. Right Zionists do<\/em> fear that the Iranian regime will acquire nukes. But their preferred solution<\/em>–today as always<\/a>–is regime change<\/em> rather than nuclear non-proliferation.<\/p>\n One corollary: after<\/em> regime change, the prospect of Iranian nukes in a pro-US, pro-Israel Iran are not<\/em> perceived as a threat<\/a>. As Michael Rubin has insisted<\/a>, “democratization” in Iran can “take the edge off the Iranian threat.”<\/p>\n Indeed, for some Right Zionists and Iranian dissidents the administration’s emphasis on nukes is a source of considerable frustration<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n All of which goes to say that Right Zionists are<\/em> Iran hawks. But they do not aim to contain or defeat<\/em> Iran, they aim to win<\/em> Iran.<\/p>\n Michael Ledeen at AEI says as much in his latest missive<\/a> in which he criticizes the Bush administration for “excessive timorousness with regard to Iran.” But then he comes to the point that distinguishes Right Zionists not only from the Bush administration’s halting diplomatic initiatives but also, perhaps, from Cheney’s own brand of bellicose hawkishness :<\/p>\n The proper strategy toward Iran is non-violent regime change<\/strong>, of \tthe sort that was accomplished to the ruin of the Soviet Empire. Military \tattack against Iran would be a mistake<\/strong>, indeed it would constitute a \ttragic admission of the utter failure of the United States and her allies to \tconceive and conduct a serious Iran policy over the course of nearly three \tdecades. Political support for the tens of millions of Iranians who \tdetest their tyrannical leaders is both morally obligatory and strategically \tsound.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reuel Marc Gerecht, also at AEI, is considerably less hostile to a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. But like Ledeen, Gerecht is a strident advocate of regime change in Iran and has argued in the past<\/a> that the former is quite compatible with the latter:<\/p>\n It’s much more reasonable to assume that the Islamic Republic’s loss to \tAmerica–and having your nuclear facilities destroyed would be hard to \tdepict as a victory–would actually accelerate internal debate and \tsoul-searching… It’s likely that an American attack on the clerical \tregime’s nuclear facilities would, within a short period of time, produce \tburning criticism of the ruling mullahs, as hot for them as it would be for \tus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For Gerecht, however, the real key to Iran has always been Iraq. He returns to this theme in his most recent essay, “The Myth of the Moderate Mullahs<\/a>.” The title is arguably quite ironic: Gerecht seeks to dispel the myth of the moderate Iranian “mullahs” (especially Rafsanjani) but the argument ends with a celebration of moderate Iraqi “mullahs.”<\/p>\n The American presence in Iraq… gives Iraqi Shiites a non-Iranian \toption, particularly in the face of the Sunni insurgency and holy war \tagainst the Shia.<\/p>\n If the United States can develop a successful counterinsurgency against \tIraq’s Sunnis, Iraq’s Shiite clergy may grow more independent and open in \tits internal debates about proper governance and its own role in an Iraqi \tdemocracy<\/strong>. Friendly and dependent Iraqi groups like SCIRI may fairly \tquickly become difficult for Tehran<\/strong>. Right now, SCIRI has no firm idea \tof what it is. It has had no test of its democratic commitment. It doesn’t \treally know what its relationship will be with Iraq’s moderate senior \tclergy in Najaf<\/strong>. This process of discovery for SCIRI, and for other \tShiites in Iraq, may come with speed if the Sunni violence can be \tchecked. This could go badly for Tehran<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This has always been the hope of Right Zionist support for the war in Iraq.<\/p>\n One way to gauge how much sway Right Zionists–and the AIPAC crowd meeting in Washington<\/a>–continue to have in the Bush administration is to seek signs of the one thing Gerecht has always demanded: “a successful counterinsurgency against Iraq’s Sunnis.”<\/p>\n Some argue that a successful<\/em> counterinsurgency against Iraq’s Sunnis is simply not possible. Gerecht doesn’t believe that. But he also thinks the US hasn’t even been trying<\/em> to achieve that aim since September 2003. Instead, the emphasis has been on incorporation and reconciliation with Iraq’s Sunnis.<\/p>\n Gerecht hasn’t yet said whether he thinks the “surge” marks a departure from this policy. We’ll see. I’m not sure General Petraeus<\/a> is in Gerecht’s corner on this one.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, it is far less difficult to discern how much sway the AIPAC crowd has with Dem Zionists<\/a>.<\/p>\n Top U.S. House Democrats have frozen their attempt to limit President \tBush’s authority to take military action against Iran.<\/p>\n Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of the leadership decided \ton Monday to back down from presenting a requirement for Bush to gain \tapproval from Congress before moving against Iran.<\/p>\n Conservative Democrats and other pro-Israel lawmakers had argued for the \tchange in strategy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n