RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Beinart writes: "Only Dick Cheney could interpret the last decade or two of U.S. foreign policy as a testament to the efficacy and morality of war."

Dick Cheney. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
Dick Cheney. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)


What Dick Cheney Has Learned From History

By Peter Beinart, The Atlantic

10 September 15

 

The former vice president has proposed an alternative to Obama’s Iran deal. It sounds an awful lot like war.

omething revealing happened over the weekend on Fox News Sunday. Dick Cheney had stopped by to bash President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal and promote his new book (co-authored with his daughter Liz). But moderator Chris Wallace, to his credit, wanted to ask Cheney about his own failings on Iran. On the Bush administration’s watch, Wallace noted, Iran’s centrifuges for enriching uranium “went from zero to 5,000.” Cheney protested, declaring that, “That happened on Obama’s watch and not on our watch.” But Wallace held his ground. “No, no, no,” he insisted. “By 2009, they were at 5,000.” Cheney paused for an instant, muttered, “right,” and went back to his talking points.

The exchange illustrated why the former vice president is such an effective purveyor of untruths. Even when caught in a falsehood, he displays no discomfort. Unlike Rick Perry, he never ever says “oops.”

Cheney has needed that sangfroid in recent days, because his falsehoods keep piling up. On Fox, he said that in the nuclear negotiations, the Iranians “got everything they asked for.” Really? In a June 24 tweet, Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, declared “we do not accept 10, 12 years long-term restrictions.” But under the deal signed a few weeks later, the Iranians accepted restrictions on their uranium enrichment and their plutonium reprocessing that last 15 years. They accepted international inspections of their uranium mines and mills for 25 years. And they agreed to implement the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives inspectors the right to see undeclared nuclear sites in perpetuity. Khamenei also demanded “immediate removal of economic, financial and banking sanctions,” adding that, “We do not agree with IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] verification as precondition for the other side to implement its commitments.” But under the agreement, U.S. and European economic, financial, and banking sanctions imposed against Iran’s nuclear program are not immediately removed. They will remain until, you guessed it, “IAEA verification” that Iran has curbed its nuclear program.

On Fox, Cheney also said Obama had paid “cash to the Iranians just to get them to come to the table.” That’s false too. It’s true that in the interim nuclear framework signed in November 2013, the United States and its allies agreed to release $700 million per month in frozen Iranian funds. But what they got in exchange wasn’t merely Iran’s agreement to “come to the table.” They got Iran to pledge not to enrich uranium beyond 5 percent (a bomb requires 90 percent), not to install any new centrifuges, and to allow daily IAEA access to the key nuclear sites of Natanz and Fordow. Cheney claimed the Obama administration gave away something for nothing. In fact, what the U.S. got in return for releasing some frozen funds was a halt to Iran’s nuclear program so effective that even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for extending the interim deal.

There’s more. In a speech on Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney claimed that the “Obama Iran agreement lifts sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC-Quds Force, and the Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani.” That’s misleading too. Yes, under the agreement, UN sanctions on Soleimani will expire in eight years. But not American sanctions. The U.S. sanctioned Soleimani and the Quds Force in 2007 for both nuclear proliferation and terrorism. And it sanctioned Soleimani again in 2011 for his alleged role in the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in the U.S. Those sanctions remain, as do all U.S. sanctions against Iran for terrorism and human rights.

Finally, at AEI, Cheney said “President Obama went on Israeli TV and effectively ruled out the option of force” against Iran. Actually, Obama has said military force remains an option to stop Tehran’s nuclear program again and again and again and again. As recently as August 21, Obama wrote in a letter to Congressman Jerry Nadler that “Should Iran seek to dash toward a nuclear weapon, all of the options available to the United States—including the military option—will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond.”

Cheney’s reference was to an interview with Israeli TV in which Obama said, “A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.” But in that interview, Obama wasn’t ruling out military force. He was merely acknowledging what even advocates of military force admit: that the Iranians can rebuild their program after a strike. Claiming that Obama “effectively ruled out the option of military force” is not only dishonest. It’s also ironic—because Cheney was vice president for eight years in an administration that watched the Iranian nuclear program progress and never took military action against Iran.

One gets the feeling, however, that Cheney regrets that. Near the end of his AEI speech, the former vice president turned to his proposed alternative to Obama’s accord with Iran. Most critics of the nuclear deal argue that the United States can reject the current agreement, stiffen sanctions, force its allies to maintain theirs, and thus force the Iranians into a better deal. Cheney, however, said nothing about toughening sanctions. His substitute plan for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons consisted of only one thing: military force.

“[T]here are lessons from the past on which we can draw,” Cheney declared. He then cited Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor; the Gulf War, in which the U.S. destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program; the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Cheney said convinced Libya to abandon its nuclear program; and Israel’s 2007 attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria. “In each of these cases,” Cheney argued, “it was either military action or the credible threat of military action that persuaded these rogue regimes to abandon their weapons programs. Iran will not be convinced to abandon its program peacefully unless it knows it will face military action if it refuses to do so.”

The closer you look, the more revealing Cheney’s litany is. Obama has been vilified for suggesting that opponents of the nuclear deal are putting the United States on the road to war. But at the end of his AEI speech, Cheney all but proposes war. Sure, he says America just needs the “credible threat of military action.” But he offers no suggestions for how Obama could make that threat credible without actually going to war. Nor does he explain why his own administration’s military threats against Iran weren’t credible during its eight years in office.

In fact, Cheney doesn’t cite historical examples of America or Israel threatening military action. He cites historical examples of America or Israel taking military action. Even Muammar al-Qaddafi, the one leader Cheney cites as having abandoned his nuclear program without being attacked, didn’t give up his program because the U.S. threatened war against Libya. Qaddafi gave it up, according to Cheney himself, because the United States waged war against Iraq. Cheney says he’s drawing on the lessons of history for his alternative to the Iran nuclear deal. But the only lesson he’s drawing is that war works.

For all his dishonesty about the details of the agreement with Iran, there is an underlying honesty to Cheney’s broader perspective. Recognizing that Americans have no appetite for another Middle Eastern war, most deal opponents have spent the summer insisting that they really, really believe in diplomacy with Iran, just not Obama’s kind. Cheney doesn’t bother. The end of his AEI speech is a paean to the effectiveness of military force as a means of stopping nuclear proliferation. Only Dick Cheney could interpret the last decade or two of U.S. foreign policy as a testament to the efficacy and morality of war. But the former vice president has his own relationship with reality. When dissonant information intrudes, he simply mutters “right,” and keeps on going.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+36 # tswhiskers 2015-09-10 09:13
Thank you for dealing truthfully with Cheney. I don't understand why the media continue to deal with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeldt as "experts" in whatever (war? foreign affairs?). The Obama Admin. is still having to deal with the messes caused by the Big Three: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt; and their messes, eg. Gitmo, war in the Middle East aren't going to end any time soon. Even Fox News, as evidenced by Chris Wallace, seems to have lost patience with the neocons. Can't the media call the poseurs and liars that they are and consign them to the dustheap of history?
 
 
+17 # davidr 2015-09-10 09:35
At the end of the day, the bedrock assumption of the right is that order is necessarily a product of force, or as Maggie Thatcher so succinctly put it, "There is no such thing as society". Cheney speaks for a large faction on the right in saying (implicitly), "There is no such thing as others." There is only my country, my unreflective sense of its interests, & my will to enforce those interests. Such a view admits only violence as a style of interaction. Cheney, in fact, views Clausewitz as a simp. War is not "diplomacy by other means"; it is diplomacy, full stop.
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2015-09-10 10:31
Extract from William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", referring to Hitler's Last Will and Testament, which was meant to survive him.
"They confirmed that the Man who had ruled Germany with an iron Hand for more that twelve years, and over most of Europe for four, had learned NOTHING from our experience;NOT EVEN HIS REVERSES AND SHATTERING FINAL FAILURE HAD TAUGHT HIM ANYTHING. Indeed, in the last hours of his he reverted to the young man he had been---------cu rsing the Jews for all the ills of the world, SPINNING HIS HALF-BAKED THEORIES about the Universe, and whining that fate had once more had cheated Germany of victory and conquest.-------
It was a fitting epitaph of a POWER-DRUNK TYRANT WHOM ABSOLUTE POWER HAS CORRUPTED ABSOLUTELY and destroyed." (quote; especially relevant capitalization mine).
Well, maybe there is something to reincarnation after all, in Torquemada Cheney's case at least.
 
 
+20 # Archie1954 2015-09-10 11:44
Cheney is a megalomaniac monster of no morals, no ethics and no redeeming features whatsoever. He is the first VP to run an assassination squad out of his office on capitol hill! Creepy beyond belief.
 
 
+11 # angelfish 2015-09-10 13:05
WHY does the Media continue to give this "dick" Air Time? He is a MENACE to children and ALL other living things and should be locked away from Society where he will be unable to inflict any MORE destruction, murder or mayhem! He is INCAPABLE Of learning from History or ANYTHING as evidence by his single and simple minded cure for ALL our ills! WAR! What this country DOES need, is JUSTICE! WHERE are ANY investigations into the lies, Lies and MORE LIES that cost us SO much, not only in treasure, but Human loss of life and terrible injury? Not to mention the decimation of so many Innocent Men, Women and Children of the Middle-East who had done us NO harm? Getting colossally Rich in the process just adds obscenity to his and the entire Bush Administration' s Crimes! All the TeaTHUGlican fundamentalist "christians" who prate about being discriminated against because a few LGBT folks want to get married, is laughable considering that they SUPPORT this Egomaniac and his murderous, nay, Suicidal Plans for our country! I guess it's too true that there is NO overestimating the ignorance of SOME of the American Electorate!
 
 
+12 # capt400 2015-09-10 13:32
It's hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
 
 
+16 # elizabethblock 2015-09-10 14:41
He should be in the dock for war crimes, not on talk shows.
 
 
+8 # tm7devils39 2015-09-10 23:35
If I had a million dollars...I would spend half for a bounty on Cheney's head. The man is a traitor and pure evil.
 
 
+2 # Walter J Smith 2015-09-11 17:18
Yes and he has that in common with lots of bipartisans elected to the US Government. Taking that road would bankrupt Trump and the Koch Bros. together.
 
 
+2 # Walter J Smith 2015-09-11 17:16
What Cheney has learned from history is a question with a one word answer: NOTHING! In fact, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that Cheney ever learned to read - ANYTHING! How could he possibly learn anything from history? There is also no evidence to suggest that Cheney can listen to anything or anyone but himself, and he never misses any opportunity to demonstrate that he learns nothing from that either. Indeed, where is there any evidence to suggest there is any evidence suggesting there is any connection whatsoever between learning and Cheney?
 
 
+1 # newell 2015-09-12 17:36
saying or believing that cheney is stupid does not steel us for the next cheney or trump. people that thought hitler was stupid were responsible for his power.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN