Propaganda Watch: January 30, 2006

The "opinion-makers" of the Washington Post today continue the "debate" about if, how, and when the United States should pull the trigger on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Jackson Diehl pens an op-ed that soberly tackles the main question: a little more diplomacy (which equals a nuclear-armed Iran) or a war to make the region safe for some indefinable concept?

(T)wo of our more principled senators, Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman, have this month faced the Iranian Choice -- and both endorsed military action. McCain was most direct: "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option," he said on "Face the Nation." "That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Using the word "principled" in the same sentence with the name "Lieberman" is a journalistic abuse of literary license to put it mildly.

A few paragraphs of unconvincing advocacy of diplomacy is followed by the conclusion a "security-minded" reader is supposed to reach.

(I)f McCain is right, then the current diplomatic campaign should be compressed. As in the case of Iraq, the United Nations and sanctions should be explored just long enough to show that the United States has tried them. That's because the timeline for military action is much shorter than that of containment: While it might not complete work on a weapon for five or even 10 years, according to most intelligence estimates, Iran will probably pass what Israel calls the "point of no return" far sooner. After that point, when Tehran will have acquired all the means it needs to manufacture a bomb, it would be considerably more difficult to stop the Iranian program by force. So, if military action is preferable to containment, then brinkmanship is called for, while promotion of Iranian democracy, or painstaking cultivation of Russia and China, is a waste of time.

So what is the Bush administration doing? It is allowing talks to drag on, and slowly courting Russia and China, but doing next to nothing to help Iranian democrats; it is drawing up lists of sanctions that, if imposed, might trigger a crisis, but it is also laying the groundwork for long-term containment. Perhaps the president has decided what course he will choose if Iranian uranium enrichment proceeds in spite of negotiations, U.N. resolutions or even sanctions. If so, his administration's current tactics show no sign of it.

By pretending that it is reasonable to be debating whether to attack a sovereign nation over some bugaboo fears serves to legitimize the war-monger position.

Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, the proper policy should be one of deterrence. The promise of nuclear annihilation will deter any nation from allowing it's WMDs to be used against the United States.

Preventive war does not pass muster.