OPINION & EDITORIAL
War rhetoric comprises policy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
- Green movement missing key link (November 16, 2007)
- War rhetoric comprises policy (November 2, 2007)
- Familiar slogan to be flipped around (October 19, 2007)
- Guantanamo's end an unsolved misery (October 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Senators step perilously toward war (October 8, 2007)
- Bush laughs in face of new report, marches toward war (December 10, 2007)
- U.S. has no right to regulate nukes (February 7, 2007)
- Iran key concern for Israel (January 26, 2006)
- Iran not threat West perceives (February 24, 2006)
by John Sprangers
Friday, November 2, 2007
With all the harsh rhetoric being tossed around on Iran, the situation there must really be worsening, right? Someone must’ve found concrete evidence that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to create weapons, or spotted Revolutionary Guard battalions readying for invasion at the borders Iraq and Afghanistan, or, at the very least, uncovered an invitation to a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-Osama Bin Laden costume party (They went as giant axes of evil).
Why else would the president, vice president and secretary of state come out, within the span of a few weeks, with bellicose statements that “all options” for dealing with Iran remain on a mysterious “table” — unless, in the Halloween spirit, this table only has “Sonic Warheads” and BombPops.
The funny thing is that there is actually little reason to believe in an imminent threat, at least according to International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who earned some serious credibility and a Nobel Peace Prize after being absolutely right on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons program earlier this decade. On Monday he said on CNN, “Have we seen having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.” He admitted that these are “possibilities” and “concerns” but he worried, like the rest of the world, that if the U.S. continued to up the rhetorical ante, “we would end up in a precipice; we would end up in an abyss.”
I consider this a startling new development in American foreign policy. What’s scary is that the escalation in rhetoric is not connected to a material crisis. The war drumbeat is reaching a crescendo while the rest of the song is being played softly. The saber is being rattled while it is still unclear whether the opponent is attempting to produce a blade.
Throughout most of our nation’s history, it took a dramatic catalyzing event — from the firing on Fort Sumter to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait — for the United States to commit to full-scale war. The merits of entering Cold War proxies and the checkered history of small-scale and covert operations aside, it was some consolation that America would not rush into the hell of major combat without verifiable and significant casus belli. Yet, in Iraq Part Deux, and possibly also in Iran, the U.S. has verbally forced the moment to its crisis prior to any such event.
In 2003, the U.S. theatrically gave Saddam 30 days to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, but the moment didn’t warrant an ultimatum. IAEA chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was still strident in his claim that not a single piece of WMD evidence had surfaced, and in any case it was very difficult to argue that Iraq then posed a greater threat than, say, North Korea. The U.S., however, waited for its self-imposed timeframe to pass and jumped headfirst into a conflict it imagined, a war not forced upon it but which it created.
Five years’ time brings us to another act in the same play. The U.S. is making unsubstantiated assertions about weapons in a Persian Gulf country beginning with I-R-A, and though the IAEA is heeding caution and qualifying the claims, the U.S. is chipping away at whatever relationship remains between itself and that country and is using diplomacy with the skill and nuance of Genghis Khan. And slowly, the public is becoming resigned to the fate of war.
Why is this happening again, and why aren’t we more outraged? I can only offer a hypothesis.
Say you have an administration notorious for a lack of tact and foresight in diplomatic statements. True to form, this administration makes a series of overly aggressive declarations about a foreign power — we’ll call it Ira.
In our modern times, where the media is ubiquitous and lightning-fast, airwaves, televisions, newspapers and computer screens are soon flooded with information about the government statements. Bloggers, columnists, fake news anchors, Fox News blowhards and many others with a societal soapbox tirelessly pour over the Ira issue.
No matter the media’s stance on its merits or implications, Ira has taken on singular importance in the public discourse vis-à-vis the infinitude of world politics.
The only equivalent means of directing public attention in the past was the half-page newspaper headline; an extraordinary action was reserved for major world events. Now, though, nearly anything that the government decides to make a focus in the politically sexy realm of foreign policy — in this case, the conflict with Ira — finds its way into the minds of its citizens via the multiplicity of informational conduits.
This inescapable onslaught of news about Ira gives the citizen a psychological illusion of escalation, the feeling and eventually the belief that the Ira situation is worsening. The government, in turn, is emboldened by the attention from the media and the reaction of the citizenry and continues to pursue, even escalate, the crisis with Ira. And these three spheres, government, media and public opinion, go on mutually reinforcing one another until there is a sort of synthetic national consensus for war with Ira.
If I’m right, it means the onus is on us citizens to navigate the sea of information at our disposal, and to maneuver out of the strong currents emanating from the government to develop informed, independent opinions. Should the push for war with Iran become more real, it’s our duty to make intelligent determinations as to whether the cause is worth the sacrifice. If we don’t, and they fool us twice, shame on us.
The government, on the other hand, needs to respect the power of its megaphone. I appreciate the imperative to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and I don’t mind the new sanctions in the context of the broader diplomatic strategy that we’re all waiting on, but I don’t see much good that can come from today’s sound and fury. Our leadership needs only look back a few years to see that rhetorical belligerence can set the real thing in motion.
It should also look further back to a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. That piece of lumber is still rather large, and Tehran can just look to its eastern or western border if it doubts our willingness to employ it. And for that reason, as well as the need to give real diplomacy a chance, let’s refrain from putting it, or yelling about its presence on a table.
John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:02am):
They should be more kind to Ahmadinejad, like Chamberlain was when attempting to appease Adolf Hitler. And remember that Chamberlain was a Conservative - not a Liberal.
"Peace in our time" is just an agreement away!
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:24am):
And the fact that Iran announced that they've reached the 3,000 centrifuge number means nothing. These centrifuges are just producing pudding, you know.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392516377&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:31am):
Yup, Iran wants peace alright... American retaliation for 28 years of proxy attacks and declarations that the "Great Satan will be destroyed!" will get in the way of the rebuilding the Persian Empire.
Nothing bad can come from Iran boasting that United States wouldn't dare attack; that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth; that they're enriching Uranium and developing Plutonium in bunkers hundreds of feet below surface at breakneck speed in "bomb proof" bunkers with AAA sites all over the place.
Oh, and don't forget that Iran said it'll take over Iraq once the US military retreats from their jihad.
Go to sleep, little sheeple. Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten-Cankles will sweet talk the Iranians away from their jihad.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:34am):
I wouldn't be too harsh with Nobel laureate Inspector ElBaradei. After all, he did catch the secret development of nukes in both Libya and North Korea.
Oh wait... no he didn't.
Scratch that.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:37am):
Can we kick the UN Parliament of Thugs out of New York, yet?
I'm voting for the first candidate to stand up and say "The UN is past fixing and a bad joke. The USA is withdrawing from it, and giving the UN thugocrats 24 hours to get out."
Or will we need the approval of Security Council member Colonel Kaddafi for permission?
Oh, you didn't here Libya and Vietnam are on the Security Council now?
Screw the UN.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 10:44am):
By cracky, this will solve the Iranian nuke problem! Get the two biggest jihad-enablers to enrich uranium together -- in the heart of Europe! Now, why didn't I think of that?
"Saudi offers deal to end Iran nuclear stand-off," by Richard Beeston for The Times (UK)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2787799.ece
Saudi Arabia today revealed details of an ambitious offer to Tehran, aimed at defusing the growing crisis over Iran's controversial nuclear programme.
Speaking at the end of the state visit to London by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, his Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that every effort must be made to avert what many fear could turn into a military confrontation between the United States and Iran.
Washington and Tehran again attacked each other over the issue today. Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of political affairs, said that America was pushing to impose new sanctions on Iran. In Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened retaliation against Europe if it followed America's lead.
At the heart of the problem is Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Iran insists that enriched uranium will be used purely as fuel for its nuclear reactor at Buhsher. America and other Western nations suspect that the Iranians want to produce highly enriched uranium for use as a warhead in an atomic bomb.
Prince Saud said that to defuse the row, Saudi Arabia and a consortium of Arab Gulf states had invited Iran to produce enriched uranium jointly, where the plant could be properly monitored by international observers.
"We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium to do it in a collective manner that would distribute (nuclear fuel) according to need," he said. "We hope the Iranians will accept this proposal."
He said that the proposed plant would be built in a neutral third country, like Switzerland.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 2:24pm):
Six consecutive comments by the same wing-nut... classy.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 5:01pm):
Yes, I love the hardcore pro-Israel people citing jpost and calling for the destruction of the UN
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 8:23pm):
2:24pm whined: Six consecutive comments by the same wing-nut... classy.
And you know this how?
Moonbat can't address the evidence... typical.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 8:30pm):
5:01pm whined: "Yes, I love the hardcore pro-Israel people citing jpost"
...no, that would be JPost REPORTING Ahmadinejad's own announcement, f^ckt@rd.
Maybe you'd prefer to hear it from the Fwench?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/06/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Nuclear.php
Any evidence to refute?
No?
Didn't think so.
Checkmate, you anti-Semite scumbag.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
