For all our criticism of Chuck Todd (well-deserved criticism of Chuck Todd, in many cases), he occasionally asks a very good question. Or, if not asks then implies a good question.
Yesterday, Sunday 5 January 2020, for example, he implied this question:
Let’s say a Democrat is elected next November. What would a Democratic administration do with regard to Iran?
Todd posed this question, vaguely, to Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair of the Intelligence Committee. To which Sen. Warner responded it’s not clear how to follow up Donald Trump’s handling of Iran. Warner:
How we get a path off this, in a way where you can bring the American people, you can bring allies, you can bring people in the region—those are the questions that I think we all, Democrats and Republicans, need to ask the administration this week.
He was referring, as you might expect, to the aftermath of the death of Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani last week in a drone attack launched by the United States at the Baghdad Airport.
I want to come back to the central question almost posed by Todd in a moment, but let me interject part of his interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), where she addressed this issue.
Todd:
[Re Soleimani] What do you believe was the right call, here?
Warren:
We are not safer because Donald Trump had Soleimani killed. We are much closer to the edge of war. The question is: Why now? Why not a month ago, why not a month from now? And the administration just simply can’t keep its story straight. It points in all different directions.
The last time we saw this was this past summer over Ukraine. When people started asking questions about what had happened on the phone call between Donald Trump and the president of the Ukraine, and why aid to Ukraine had been stopped, the administration did the same thing. They pointed all different directions and gave a whole lot of different answers. And, of course, what it turned out to be is that Donald Trump was doing what Donald Trump does. And that is that he was advancing his own, personal political interests.
I think the question people reasonably ask is: Next week, Donald Trump faces the start, potentially, of an impeachment trial. People are starting to ask: Why now, did he do this?
First of all, I don’t think Sen. Warren directly answered the question. She should have said “Yes” or “No.”
Second, Democrats do need to point out killing Soleimani was a thinly veiled attempt to get Americans to rally behind Trump. However, Warren should not have spearheaded this. As a presidential contender, this is too political, especially when framed as “People are asking…”.
Here is a stronger response:
No, I don’t think that was the right call. It is not our goal to kill people. Our goal is to develop peaceful and productive relations with Iran and other countries. Killing Soleimani did not further that goal.
Donald Trump, standing alone, withdrew the United States from a multi-lateral agreement that had begun to ratchet down tensions in the region. It was an agreement that put Iran on a path to renounce terrorism and work with the international community. Nothing Donald Trump has done with Iran is furthering our interests in the region.
And he was only able to withdraw from our agreement with Iran over their nuclear program because Republicans in Congress opposed it. Republicans apparently want war with Iran. That’s not in the best interest of our country.
First, this directly responds to the question. The answer is No. This was not the right call. Presidents need to be decisive when making major foreign policy decisions, so you need to say No to this question.
Second, it states the proper goal. Iran may be an enemy and we may be fighting them both militarily and in other ways, but that’s not the goal. The goal is to establish peace and to have productive relationships with other countries. That’s a statement of policy, and it’s one both the Democratic Party and the country can get behind.
Third, the important point is Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear program framework hammered out between Iran and members of the UN Security Council plus the EU. The Security Council consists of the five most powerful countries in the world. So, it represents the consensus among world leaders of the best way to keep the peace.
Forth, this isn’t just a Donald Trump failing. It’s a Republican failing. The legislation that provided for this deal allowed either house of Congress to pass a resolution approving or disapproving of the deal. Republicans mounted full-scale efforts in both houses to prevent approval, but were unable to pass resolutions disapproving it. Republican opposition allowed Trump to pull out of the deal, which would have been much harder if Republicans had signed on to bipartisan approval.
Also, since I have your attention, Senator, I need to talk with you about Medicare for All. I’ve heard it speculated that you made a “mistake” with it because you haven’t done internal polling. That implies that you would have softened your stand on it if you had just known it was “unpopular”. This is complete nonsense.
No one has proposed Medicare for All in a general election, and if they did the American people would support it. They would support it because you would be comparing it to what Republicans want, where each person is expected to go out on their own and negotiate healthcare with multi-billion dollar corporations. Medicare for All is a clear winner against Republican DIY healthcare. No one wants to pay private companies for inferior healthcare coverage and then have part of their healthcare dollars handed over to million-dollar executives so they can go drink mai tais by the pool in Puerto Vallarta.
Beyond that, only single-payer will fix the healthcare system, and that is going to destroy the for-profit health insurance industry. Good riddance. The profits in that industry come from the suffering and death of the insured. It’s not a legitimate industry.
Let’s just be clear what would have happened if you’d polled and decided not to back Medicare for All, unequivocally and with force. I wouldn’t be contributing to your campaign. I contribute to it exactly because you’ve made it a signature issue and stood up strongly for it. So, if you’d followed the advice of these ill-advising pundits, it would have undermined your entire campaign. Progressives would have abandoned you. Don’t let foolish people deter you from taking on the big corporations. Softening up on them is not a path for you to get elected President of the United States.
Let’s now return to the central question. Todd said this to Sen. Warner:
Let’s say there’s a Democratic President coming next, how does the next administration--Iran’s not going to deal with any presidential administration for a while. They’re not going to trust anything. So, it feels like we’re going to get backed into something, here. Backed into a military conflict, whether we like it or not.
Sen. Warner:
I hope and pray that’s not the case.
Don’t we all?
By the time the next President takes office, Trump may well have found a way to start a war with Iran. Killing an Iranian major general, by some accounts the second most powerful man in Iran, would normally start a war. If it does, the next administration is going to have to clean up that mess, and that may involve finishing a war Donald Trump started.
So, let’s stipulate that we are not at war with Iran, either because we avoided the worst impulses of Trump or we won said war. What should be our policy with regard the Middle East? Or, as I posed the question at the start:
Let’s say a Democrat is elected next November. What would a Democratic administration do with regard to Iran?
I don’t think merely offering to go back to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal on Iran’s nuclear program is called, will fly. How would we convince Iran to do that after assassinating one of their key generals? Do we even think our allies in Europe, let alone Iran, would trust us after Trump reneged on the original deal?
First, we need to bring a new solution to the problem. That solution should be to invite the countries in the region, even the ones we have the strongest disputes with, into a new security framework where they need to work together toward regional security. That’s a policy that should be fully developed, but the key is to go up a level in terms of everyone’s interests.
And, second, we have to attack the underlying cause of wars in the Middle East: oil.
There would be no wars in the region if the world didn’t depend on oil for cheap fuel. It’s our willingness to burn oil for power that makes it valuable, and it’s the wealth it generates in the region that powers wars.
All the wars in the region are, to the first order of magnitude, about oil. Why did Iran and Iraq fight a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s? Because the combined oil reserves of the countries and their combined oil production would put whoever controlled it on par with Saudi Arabia. It would make whoever controlled it instantly one of the most powerful men in the world. Why did Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990? Because it increased amount of oil controlled by Iraq by about 80%, giving them the opportunity to defeat Iran and achieve oil supremacy. Why did the U.S. kick Iraq out of Kuwait? Because it is not in the interest of the U.S. to have a “mad man” (Saddam Hussein) dominate the oil market.
Why did the U.S. invade Iraq in 2003? Officially, this was because of al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. in 2001 and the professed belief by the Bush Administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were threatening the U.S., but really, it was because the oil gluttons, like Dick Chenney, lusted after Iraqi oil. They still do. Trump wanted to “take” Iraqi oil, as if it were just another spoil of war. He appears to want Iran’s oil now.
But, if oil were worthless, there wouldn’t be any notable wars in this region. There might be minor wars between rival tribes, but there would be no compelling U.S. interest to involve us. The U.S. could ignore wars there. Iran would be no threat to our country. People from Europe would go there on holiday.
The way to stop wars in the Middle East is very simple. Stop burning oil.
And this is a goal well within our reach. Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuel in many cases. Putting our money into renewable energy, rather than fighting Iran, is the most effective way to bring peace to the Middle East. It is the most effective way to protect Israel from attack. It is the most effective way to get our troops out of there, permanently.
In fact, reliable estimates of the financial cost of the Iraq War range from about $1.7 trillion to as much as $6 trillion. It is not unreasonable to believe it cost the U.S. $5 trillion, much of it added to our national debt. It has also spurred an increase in military spending in the U.S., which now spends about as much on our military as all other countries combined. In examining recent federal budgets, I’ve estimated our military spending to be in the range of $750-800 billion a year, and the Republicans keep raising it.
My 5X proposal would limit military spending to the combined total of the next five largest military budgets in the world, around $400 billion. Even before the Iraq War we were spending like drunken sailors (no offense intended to sailors), but that’s a premium of about $350 billion a year to maintain a force capable of controlling the world. That’s totally unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible.
Let’s attribute just $100 billion a year to the knock-on effect of the war in Iraq. Over the 17 years since that war started that’s $1.7 trillion right there, without counting a dime actually expended on fighting in the Middle East. We never needed to waste that money.
Let’s put $100 billion a year into converting to renewable energy, rather than going to war with Iran. That does two things we really need to do. It makes a solid dent in global warming. And, it makes wars in the Middle East very difficult to fund. Because it will knock the bottom out of the price of oil.
What would have happened if the U.S. had spent $5 trillion on moving to renewable energy starting in 2003 instead of invading Iraq? Right now, we would be much further down the curve to renewable energy, with a major impact on climate change and possibly having ended major wars in the Middle East. Invading Iraq was a major grand-strategic error, maybe the most serious one ever made by any country in the history of the world. We need to avoid making that same mistake with regard to Iran.
That’s the actual answer to Chuck Todd’s attempt to formulate a question on Meet the Press, “What would a Democratic administration do with regard to Iran?” The best answer is this: “Stop burning oil.”