Who Is to Blame for America's Disturbing Iran Policy?




  • In Business
  • 2019-05-26 09:30:36Z
  • By National Review
 

Difficulties with Iran will recur regularly, like the oscillations of a sine wave, and the recent crisis - if such it was, or is - illustrates persistent U.S. intellectual and institutional failures, starting with this: The Trump administration's assumption, and that of many in Congress, is that if the president wants to wage war against a nation almost the size of Mexico (and almost four times larger than Iraq) and with 83 million people (more than double that of Iraq), there is no constitutional hindrance to him acting unilaterally.

In April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was pressed in a Senate hearing to pledge that the administration would not regard the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against al-Qaeda and other non-state actors responsible for 9/11 as authorization, 18 years later, for war against Iran. Pompeo laconically said he would "prefer to just leave that to lawyers." Many conservatives who preen as "originalists" when construing all the Constitution's provisions other than the one pertaining to war powers are unimpressed by the Framers' intention that Congress should be involved in initiating military force in situations other than repelling sudden attacks.

The Economist, which is measured in its judgments and sympathetic to America, tartly referred to the supposed evidence of Iran's intentions to attack U.S. forces, allies, or "interests" as "suspiciously unspecific." Such skepticism, foreign and domestic, reflects 16-year-old memories of certitudes about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: Remember Secretary of State Colin Powell spending days at the CIA receiving assurances about the evidence. There also are concerns about the impetuosity of a commander in chief who vows that military conflict would mean "the official end" of Iran, whatever that means.

U.S. policy makes easing economic sanctions against Iran contingent on Iran doing twelve things, most of which (e.g., halting development of ballistic missiles, withdrawing from Syria, ending support for allied groups) it almost certainly will not do. This U.S. policy is congruent with U.S. disregard of this truth: Any nation, however prostrate, poor, or ramshackle, that ardently wants nuclear weapons can acquire them. Just four years after Hiroshima, the Soviet Union, which had been laid to waste by World War II, became a nuclear power. China was an impoverished peasant society in 1964 when it detonated a nuclear weapon. Pakistan's per capita income was $470 in 1998 when it joined the nuclear club. In the more than a decade since North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, U.S. policy has pronounced this "unacceptable." But U.S. behavior has been to accept it while unfurling the tattered flag of arms control - hoping to talk North Korea into giving up what it has devoted three decades to developing.

Fifteen years ago, Condoleezza Rice, then George W. Bush's national-security adviser, said that an abstraction (the "international community") would not "allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon." Allow? In 2012, President Obama said: "Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." If - probably when - that policy fails, we shall have a policy of containment, or a major war.

Trump's national-security apparatus might include a plucky cohort of regime changers who, undaunted by 18 discouraging years (Afghanistan, Iraq), cling to the fatal conceit that U.S. policies, such as sanctions, can manipulate the internal dynamics of societies such as Iran's. In any case, today's president is, in one respect, like his predecessor: Obama denied that hundreds of U.S. air strikes that killed hundreds in Libya and helped to destroy a regime constituted involvement in "hostilities."

Trump recently vetoed a congressional resolution that would have terminated U.S. involvement with Saudi Arabia and its allies in the war in Yemen, by the terms of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It forbids the "introduction" of U.S. forces into "hostilities" for more than 90 days without congressional authorization. It defines "introduction" to include the assignment of U.S. military "to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the . . . military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged . . . in hostilities."

VIEW SLIDESHOW: USS Abraham Lincoln

The U.S. military is providing intelligence, logistical support, and, for a time, occasional in-flight refueling of Saudi bombers. This certainly constitutes involvement in the commanding, coordinating, and movement of military forces. This is similarly certain: Whatever the U.S. does to Iran militarily will be decided unilaterally by this president. But his predecessor, and today's Congress and previous Congresses, will be implicated in the absence of restraint by laws or norms.

© 2019, Washington Post Writers Group

COMMENTS

More Related News

US releases photos to bolster claim Iran attacked tankers
US releases photos to bolster claim Iran attacked tankers

In an effort to bolster its public case against Iran, the Pentagon on Monday released new photos that officials said show that members of Tehran's Revolutionary Guard were responsible for attacks last week on two oil tankers near the Persian Gulf. The images, many taken from a Navy helicopter, show what the Pentagon said were Iranian forces removing an unexploded mine from the side of the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman. The release of the photos came as the U.S. works this week to convince members of Congress and allies that the accusations against Tehran are true.

Exclusive: U.S. preparing to send more troops to Middle East - sources
Exclusive: U.S. preparing to send more troops to Middle East - sources
  • US
  • 2019-06-17 21:53:54Z

The United States is preparing to send additional troops to the Middle East in response to mounting concerns over Iran, which Washington blames for attacks on oil tankers last week, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity. The officials did not say how many troops would be deployed or detail the timing of the deployment, which has not been previously reported. If confirmed, it would be in addition to the 1,500 troop increase announced last month in response to tanker attacks in May that it also blamed on Iran.

As promised, Trump slashes aid to Central America over migrants
As promised, Trump slashes aid to Central America over migrants

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Monday cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, after Trump blasted the three countries because thousands of their citizens had sought asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico. The plan will likely encounter stiff opposition in Congress. Lawmakers, including some of Trump's fellow Republicans as well as Democrats, have chafed against the president's repeated decisions to disregard spending bills passed by Congress, some of which he has signed into law himself.

Pompeo tries rallying foreign leaders in alleged oil attacks
Pompeo tries rallying foreign leaders in alleged oil attacks

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is reaching out to wary foreign leaders to frame alleged Iranian attacks in a Middle East oil shipping route as a problem for the world at large, especially for Asian countries vitally dependent on that oil. Pompeo, in a series of Sunday television interviews, emphasized the U.S. international outreach in the wake of what the U.S. says were Iranian attacks Thursday on two oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz . The world needs to unite," Pompeo said.

Saudi crown prince lashes out at arch-rival Iran over tanker attacks
Saudi crown prince lashes out at arch-rival Iran over tanker attacks

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accused arch-rival Iran of attacks on oil tankers in a vital Gulf shipping channel, adding he "won't hesitate" to tackle any threats to the kingdom, according to an interview published on Sunday. Two tankers were struck by explosions on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, the second attack in a month in the strategic shipping lane amid a tense US-Iran standoff, sparking fears of a regional conflagration and sending oil prices soaring. The prince also accused "Iran and its proxies" over May 12 attacks on four tankers anchored in the Gulf of Oman off the United Arab Emirates port of Fujairah.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Business

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.