TEHRAN Eliot Cohen, a political scientist who promoted the 2003 Iraq invasion on the premise that Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat to Washington than any prospective replacement, is now on the cusp of seventy.But what takes place when this advocate of a war that cost trillions of American taxpayer dollars and over a million lives wishes to steer Washington into another devastating conflict? Will he lastly get his facts straight? Or will he, when again, neglect the lessons of history and focus on an agenda that appears far removed from the realm of factor and reasoning? He appears to have actually gone with the latter.A ticking clock.
Thats the image Eliot Cohen paints in his December 8th Atlanticpiece, prompting a preemptive strike on Iran.
He argues that the past fifteen months have left Iran weakened and Israel strengthened, producing a best storm.
This, he declares, will undoubtedly drive Tehran towards nuclear weapons, leaving the U.S.
with a plain choice: act now, before Iran sprints to the bomb, or deal with the consequencesHis evaluation of the current circumstance strangely mirrors the arguments he presented to a congressional House committee in 2002 when he similarly pressed for urgent military action against Iraq.
The option before the United States is a plain one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the program of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, get weapons of mass destruction and posture a lethal risk to his neighbors and to us, or to act to topple him.
In my view, the latter course, with all of its threats, is the appropriate one.
The risks of failing to act in the near future are inappropriate, he claimed.The Iraq Wars outcome for the U.S.? A significant rise in Iranian influence throughout Iraq and the broader area.
Simultaneously, the invasion sustained American disillusionment with its government and foreign policya sentiment that has actually only deepened in the years since.
Including the loss of over 2 trillion dollars, the war yielded absolutely nothing but hinderances for the United States.Cohens justification for the Iraq War rested on two now-debunked claims: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.
Ironically, he now appears to commemorate the rise of those very groups responsible for 9/11 in Syria.His existing justifications for attacking Iran needs to be seen through the same lens.
Individuals of the authors kind are the closest one could be to a bloodthirsty Neocon.
They are thirsty for murder and destruction however are not constantly the cleverest when trying to find validations to make their dreams come through, a minimum of not anymore.Here is a take a look at Cohens analysis of the current circumstance in West Asia, and why it is wrong.Israel has actually pulverized HamasIsrael has actually not crushed Hamas; it has actually crushed Gaza and its civilian population.
In doing so, it has actually ended up being ostracized all over the world.
Public support for Israel, once readily used, is now largely restricted to American congress members paid off by the pro-Israeli lobby.
Israels leading leaders once offered as the worlds leading democratic leaders are now desired war crooks.
Hamas meanwhile, continues to combat Israeli forces without any signs of tiredness.Israel has actually shattered Hezbollah in Lebanon, forcing it to accept a cease-fireThe Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire has actually drawn sharp criticism from across the Israeli programs political spectrum, even from those who support a Gaza ceasefire.
The factor? Many think that Lebanon, not Israel, determined the regards to the truce.
Israel, escalating tensions after nearly 11 months of reasonably contained skirmishes, intended to get rid of Hezbollah.
While the assassination of essential Hezbollah figures was a setback, it didnt attain Israels goal.
Far from being incapacitated, Hezbollah not only sustained its attacks however intensified them daily, right up to the ceasefire.Furthermore, the factor Hezbollah agreed to the ceasefire was not because its military abilities were decreasing.
Hezbollah has always prioritized the well-being of the Lebanese population.
Israels attacks primarily targeted Lebanons civilians, a tactic the program appears to use in every scenario.Irans attempts to attack Israel stopped working, but Israel ruined Irans air defensesDismissing the frustrating visual and intelligence proof verifying the success of Irans Operations True Promise I and II versus Israel, while all at once accepting Israels October 26th attack on Iran as a successbased solely on the noises of Iranian air defenses responding to quadcopters, with absolutely no proven proof of damage or impact recommends just 2 things: Either Cohen does not know how to run a smartphone which can give him access to uncensored and unbiased information, or he likes to lie to himself and everybody around.
Both could be the case as well.Iran has no option however to develop nuclear weapons because it has actually grown weakThe IAEA and the Pentagon have both acknowledged the absence of any Iranian intent to develop nuclear weapons for the minute.
Domestic calls for nuclear development are increasing.
This isnt driven by a lack of belief in existing Irans military deterrence, however rather by a growing sense that negotiations with the West are useless.
Irans experience with the 2015 JCPOAwhere nuclear constraints were expected to lift sanctions, just to be followed by even harsher banshas fueled widespread wonder about.
The dominating belief is that, because Iran is currently bearing the economic expenses of a robust nuclear program, it may too gain the potential benefits.The ball in this case remains in Donald Trumps court.
He might pick diplomacy, or go back to a confrontational path that could ultimately require Iranians to go nuke.Moreover, a military strike versus Iran uses no guarantee of removing its nuclear capabilities.
Iran has the necessary know-how, and any effort at disruption would likely just hold-up, not avoid, its pursuit of nuclear weapons if it so chooses.
Such an attack may even accelerate Irans nuclear ambitions.Why Iran is not IraqUnlike Iraqs defenseless position during the 2003 intrusion, Iran possesses considerable military abilities.
While a major dispute would unquestionably inflict considerable damage on Iran, the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is whether the West is prepared to bear the significant consequences of such an attack.Irans extensive network of underground and dispersed rocket and drone facilities makes a thorough military strike practically difficult.
This indicates Iran would have ample opportunity for retaliation, potentially targeting numerous American and European military bases in the region, and crippling West Asian oil fieldsa scenario with globally devastating financial repercussions for the whole planet.
These are choices Iraq did not have throughout the 2003 invasion.Additionally, the U.S.
is ill-equipped to introduce another expensive and ineffective war.
Currently involved in the Ukraine conflict and dealing with growing difficulties from China across numerous sectors, the U.S.
economy is considerably weaker than in the early 2000s.
A staggering $36 trillion national debt and degrading living standards for many Americans badly restrict the resources offered for a dispute widely condemned as dumb.