{"id":309,"date":"2007-06-16T10:29:35","date_gmt":"2007-06-16T15:29:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=309"},"modified":"2007-06-16T10:29:35","modified_gmt":"2007-06-16T15:29:35","slug":"cheneys-iran-military-strikes-or-regime-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=309","title":{"rendered":"Cheney’s Iran: Military Strikes or Regime Change?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Helene Cooper of the New York Ti<\/title>Helene Cooper of the <em>New York Times<\/em> has a front-page article–“<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/06\/16\/washington\/16diplo.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182003356-NgSXqHO70nMyr7pQgbRxcQ\">Iran Strategy Stirs Debate at White House<\/a>“–that is, essentially, a reprint of her June 1, 2007 article, “<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/06\/01\/world\/europe\/01cnd-Diplo.html?ei=5088&en=c3d61fbcf146076d&ex=1338350400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all\">U.S. Not Pushing for Attack on Iran, Rice Says<\/a>.”<\/p>\n<p>After writing in relatively vague terms about “the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s office,” Cooper finally comes around to naming names.\u00c2\u00a0 Once again, Cooper <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=301\">fingers Right Zionist David Wurmser<\/a> as the “hawk” inside Dick Cheney’s office.<\/p>\n<p>Readers of this blog need no <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=212\">introduction to David Wurmser<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Why the reprint?\u00c2\u00a0 Cooper says she spoke to folks from both sides of the factional debate, but my sense is that Wurmser’s opponents in the administration are trying to use Cooper’s publicity machine to pressure Cheney to dump Wurmser.\u00c2\u00a0 Most of the references are to positions adopted by hawks “in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office,” rather than to Cheney himself.<\/p>\n<p>Cooper says the “hawks” are “pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.”\u00c2\u00a0 But the big “hawk” she gets on the record–John Bolton (who Meyrav Wurmser considers part of the Right Zionist “<a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=212\">family<\/a>“)–mentions <em>two<\/em> hawkish options for US policy toward Iran:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[C]onservatives inside the administration have continued in private to \tpress for a tougher line, making arguments that their allies outside \tgovernment are voicing publicly. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153<strong>Regime change<\/strong> <strong>or the use of \tforce<\/strong> are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a \tnuclear weapons capability, if they want it,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said John R. Bolton, the \tformer United States ambassador to the United Nations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Cooper doesn’t stop to note Bolton’s talk of regime change.\u00c2\u00a0 Instead, she references a <em>Commentary<\/em> essay by Norman Podhoretz, “<a href=\"http:\/\/www.commentarymagazine.com\/cm\/main\/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=all\">The Case for Bombing Iran<\/a>.”<\/p>\n<p>As I have <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=134\">previously noted<\/a>, Neoconservatives are actually split between those, like Podhoretz, who favor military action and those, like Michael Ledeen, who are primarily interested in regime change.<\/p>\n<p>Here is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.opinionjournal.com\/federation\/feature\/?id=110008830\"> Podhoretz on the split<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[A]s it happens, there is a split among neoconservatives on the \tdesirability of military action against Iran. For reasons of their own, \tsome\u00e2\u20ac\u201cincluding Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 [oppose] \tsuch a course\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In his article on “<a href=\"http:\/\/www.commentarymagazine.com\/cm\/main\/viewArticle.html?id=10882&page=all\">The Case for Bombing Iran<\/a>,” Podhoretz attacks Ledeen (this time leaving off his name):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Those who advocate this course tell us that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153mullocracy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is very \tunpopular, especially with young people, who make up a majority of Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \tpopulation. They tell us that these young people would like nothing better \tthan to get rid of the oppressive and repressive and corrupt regime under \twhich they now live and to replace it with a democratic system. And they \ttell us, finally, that if Iran were so transformed, we <strong>would have nothing \tto fear from it even if it were to acquire nuclear weapons<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Once upon a time<\/strong>, under the influence of Bernard Lewis and others I \trespect, <strong>I too subscribed to this school of thought<\/strong>. <strong>But<\/strong> after \tthree years and more of waiting for the insurrection they assured us back \tthen was on the verge of erupting, <strong>I have lost confidence<\/strong> in their \tprediction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Where do the remaining Bush administration Right Zionists stand (or fall) on this question?<\/p>\n<p>As I have <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=123\">previously noted<\/a>, it is tempting (if risky) to interpret Podhoretz as a proxy for the voice of Elliott Abrams, deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy at the White House National Security Council.<\/p>\n<p>But does Podhoretz also represent the views of Wurmser?<\/p>\n<p>How to find Wurmser’s views on the question when he has not spoken publicly since he handed <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aei.org\/publications\/pubID.13383\/pub_detail.asp\">his “Middle East” baton<\/a> at the American Enterprise Institute to <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=227\">Reuel Marc Gerecht<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Does Gerecht represent a possible proxy for Wurmser’s voice?\u00c2\u00a0 Gerecht himself has tried to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aei.org\/publications\/filter.all,pubID.24230\/pub_detail.asp\"> square the circle<\/a> by suggesting that the bombing of Iran might help foment regime change:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s much more reasonable to assume that the Islamic Republic\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s loss to \tAmerica\u00e2\u20ac\u201cand having your nuclear facilities destroyed would be hard to depict \tas a victory\u00e2\u20ac\u201cwould actually accelerate internal debate and soul-searching\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 \tIt\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s likely that an American attack on the clerical regime\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear \tfacilities would, within a short period of time, produce burning criticism \tof the ruling mullahs, as hot for them as it would be for us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>But he also seems to have lost some confidence in the imminent collapse of the regime:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[I]t is long overdue for the Bush administration to get serious about \tbuilding clandestine mechanisms to support Iranians who want to change their \tregime. This will take time and be brutally difficult. And overt democracy \tsupport to Iranians–which is the Bush administration’s current game \tplan–isn’t likely to draw many recruits. Most Iranians probably know that \tthis approach is a one-way invitation to Evin prison, which isn’t the most \teffective place for expressing dissent. However we go about assisting the \topposition, <strong>the prospects for removing the regime before it acquires \tnuclear weapons are slim<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>David Wurmser is married to Meyrav Wurmser and it is tempting (if risky) to take her voice as a proxy for his.<\/p>\n<p>Meyrav Wurmser is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.weeklystandard.com\/Utilities\/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13785&R=113D7C48D\"> certainly feeling hawkish<\/a> about Iran and Syria.\u00c2\u00a0 But she appears to be somewhat skeptical about a narrow approach based on “military toughness.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Syria and Iran now seek to further derail Western ambitions. They are \tescalating their offensive….<\/p>\n<p>Syria and Iran see an opportunity they cannot pass up: The United States has \tno answer to the worsening situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. \tEvincing perplexity and weakness, not consistently willing to confront its \tenemies, the United States entered direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, \tnaively hoping that the purveyors of violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and \tLebanon would willingly help resolve those problems….<\/p>\n<p>As Israel’s war in Lebanon demonstrated, <strong>military toughness alone does \tnot meet the growing Syrian\/Iranian challenge<\/strong>. Instead of seeing all the \tproblems in the Middle East solely as localized conflicts, we must \tunderstand their regional context. Only then can we devise <strong>a broad \tstrategic vision<\/strong> to confront these threats. Toughness is necessary, but \tit will remain ineffective without <strong>a purpose and a plan<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Is that a call for a policy of regime change, beyond “military toughness”?<\/p>\n<p>Unclear.<\/p>\n<p>What is clear is that David Wurmser’s 1999 manifesto, <em>Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein<\/em>, is essentially one long “plan” for using Shiite power in Iraq to achieve regime change in Iran.<\/p>\n<p>Here is an extended excerpt from my essay, “<a href=\"http:\/\/www.zmag.org\/content\/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10185\">Beyond Incompetence: Washington’s War in Iraq<\/a>,” that lays out the heart of Wurmser’s 1999 position as it relates to “dual rollback” in Iraq and Iran.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“U.S. policy makers have long presumed that the majority Shi’ite \tpopulation of Iraq would serve as Iran’s fifth column there; but would it?” \t(TA, p.72). Wurmser thinks not. Instead, he argues that “Iraqi Shi’ites, if \tliberated from [Saddam’s] tyranny, can be expected to present a challenge to \tIran’s influence and revolution” (TA, p.74). More specifically, Wurmser \tclaims that “Shi’ite Islam is plagued by fissures, none of which has been \tcarefully examined, let alone exploited, by the opponents of Iran’s Islamic \trepublic” (TA, p.74, emphasis added). The idea of exploiting fissures is \tentirely consistent with realist theories of power balancing.<\/p>\n<p>Wurmser argues that at the theological core of the Iranian revolution is “a \tconcept promoted by Ayatollah Khomeini, the wilayat al-faqih — the rule of \tthe jurisprudent” that served as “the bulldozer with which Khomeini razed \tthe barrier between the clerics and the politicians” (TA, p.74). For \tWurmser, the central strategic fissure within Shiite Islam is between those \twho favor Khomeini’s vision and those who reject the rule of the \tjurisprudent. “The concept of wilayat al-faqih is rejected by most Shi’ite \tclerics outside Iran (and probably many of those within Iran, too)… The \tcurrent leading ayatollah of Iraq, Ayatollah Sayyid ‘Ali Sistani, has \treaffirmed [this rejection], much to the chagrin of the Iranian government” \t(TA, p.75)…<\/p>\n<p>The core of the Regional Rollback… is Iran. For Wurmser, so-called \t“realists” have always been correct to emphasize the link between Iraqi and \tIranian Shiites, but they have misunderstood the potential nature of the \tlink. If realists have traditionally feared Iranian influence in Iraq, \tWurmser argues that the more likely scenario is Iraqi influence in Iran. The \tdemise of traditional Sunni rule over the Iraqi Shiites “could potentially \ttrigger a reversal” of fortune for the Iranian regime.<\/p>\n<p>“Liberating the Shi’ite centers in Najaf and Karbala, with their clerics who \treject the wilayat al-faqih, could allow Iraqi Shi’ites to challenge and \tperhaps fatally derail the Iranian revolution. For the first time in half a \tcentury, Iraq has the chance to replace Iran as the center of Shi’ite \tthought, thus resuming its historic place, with its tradition of clerical \tquiescence and of challenge to Sunni absolutism… A free Iraqi Shi’ite \tcommunity would be a nightmare for the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran” \t(TA, p.78-79).<\/p>\n<p>For Wurmser, the liberation of Najaf and Karbala would promote and empower \tpotential US allies in Iraq and Iran. Wurmser’s strategy foresees US \tmilitary intervention against the Sunni minority in Iraq, not primarily as a \tspringboard for further military intervention in Iran, but as the Iraqi \tdetonator for a populist, Shiite-led rebellion against rival clerics in \tIran. Neo-conservative support for the political ascendance of Shiite Iraq \tis not about the principle of democracy. Nor are neo-conservatives blind to \tthe ways in which regime change in Iraq might transform the relationship \tbetween Iraq and Iran. Neo-conservatives who favor de-Baathification in Iraq \tmight seem like blundering fools who would unwittingly hand Iraq to Iranian \tclerics. Wumser’s scheme, however, is to hand Iran to Iraqi clerics, \tespecially the followers of Ayatollah Sayyid ‘Ali Sistani. For Wurmser, the \troad to Tehran begins in Najaf.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Does Wurmser still believe, with Ledeen, that the road to Tehran begins in Najaf?<\/p>\n<p>Or, has Wurmser–like Podhoretz–“lost confidence” in his old plan for regime change?<\/p>\n<p>And where is Cheney himself in all this?<\/p>\n<p>Note well: Cheney was <a href=\"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=300\"> not always considered part of the Right Zionist “family<\/a>.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Helene Cooper of the New York TiHelene Cooper of the New York Times has a front-page article–“Iran Strategy Stirs Debate at White House“–that is, essentially, a reprint of her June 1, 2007 article, “U.S. Not Pushing for Attack on Iran, Rice Says.” After writing in relatively vague terms about “the few remaining hawks inside the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6,11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}