Gary Hart Is Right
About what a U.S. strike on Iran would mean:
1. Bombing a sovereign nation is a de facto declaration of war. Our Constitution requires the Congress, not the President, to declare war. Simply because we have launched a number of wars without a Congressional declaration does not mean the Constitutional requirement has been suspended;
2. Such an attack will have economic consequences for us. The Iranians most likely would blockade the Strait of Hormuz, thus reducing the shipment of Persian Gulf oil–almost one-quarter of our imports–and dramatically increasing world oil prices. This would have a powerfully negative affect on our already fragile economy;
3. Such an attack would place great stress on our military. We cannot continue the Afghan war, prop up the neighboring Iraqi government, and create a third battlefield in the Middle East. It is folly to assume that a US-Iran war can be carried out by the Navy and Air Force alone. Our ground combat forces are near exhaustion;
4. Bombing Iran would virtually assure an attack of considerable dimensions carried out against Israel. This would involve both Iranian and Lebanon-based missiles. Israel would necessarily retaliate. We would then have all-out war in the Middle East.
I am inclined to believe that items two through four would be just as applicable were Israel, rather than the United Snakes, to launch the first projectile.
Actually, strike that: Number one is relevant, too.
I used to discuss this with my students in the Turkish Navy (was helping them with english, I am not a Turk). They, I, and most people looking at this soberly agree with him.
Re: 4. An all-out war in the Middle East.
So?
It would not be the first, and most definitely not the last!
The key is to KEEP
AMERICAN
MEN AND WOMEN
OUT OF IT.
Iran probably can’t keep the Strait of Hormuz closed for more than a week or two, max. They probably know that. Remember, they’re not like us: they’re weak, and can’t afford to do pointless things.
And it’s hard to see how an all-out war in the Middle East could happen. Provocation isn’t enough: it has to be feasible. In 1973 the Arabs were heavily armed by the Soviets: nothing like that is happening today. Iraq we occupy, Egypt we rent, Syria is weak. And so is Iran.
I think Hart misses the idea that, except to a much much greater extent, just as was the case in taking down Saddam (which effect hasn’t even made itself much felt yet, but will), an attack on Iran would so strengthen regard for it in the muslim world that it would in effect be consecrating and empowering it as the undisputed Islamic leader. Much like Nasser came to be seen as a hero in the arab/moslem world.
Except … Iran isn’t just one person, and is smarter than Nasser. And in addition to the attack itself the sympathy it would engender towards Iran by others would almost assure it of having all the arab/muslim help it needs to really really build a nuke.
Given the clarity of the fact that an attack on Iran can only strengthen Islamic hatred of the U.S., and strengthen the conclusion that Islamic states need nukes to prevent them from being permanent victims, it doesn’t seem all that far-fetched to believe that those advocating such a U.S. attack simply desire to see a permanent state of hatred and conflict existing between us and the Islamic Middle-East.
[...] Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative, Gary Hart: if you’re the sort of brainless, death-worshiping moron who thinks bombing Iran [...]