Apparently, having learned nothing from their wrong-headed push for going to war with Iraq based on questionable evidence, Bill Kristol and the gang is back once again banging the drums of war.  In the wake of last Tuesday’s revelations about an alleged assassination attempt against the Saudi Ambassador in Washington D.C., a cacophony of calls from Iran hawks to authorize “the use of force against Iranian entities,” “respond militarily to this outrage,” etc. have arisen from the usual suspects.

But unlike in 2003, this time around we have learned better than to follow the neocon clarion call to arms. We saw firsthand with the Iraq War fiasco what happens when we take their advice .  Today, their claims that military strikes will usher in a democratic government in Iran should ring false to most  our ears.

And given what we learned in Iraq and given that military experts have made it abundantly clear that the challenges of a war in Iran would dwarf those that we faced in Iraq, never mind that we can little afford to another war, it is obvious that the military response Kristol and Co. advocate for would be disastrous.

But don’t just take my word for it.  Here is what military leaders have said about so-called “targeted strikes” or all out war with Iran:

Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense

“Conner’s axiom — never fight unless you have to — looms over policy discussions today regarding rogue nations like Iran … Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels.”(Think Progress: Gates: War With Iran ‘Would Be Disastrous,’ It’s ‘The Last Thing We Need’)

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.” (NY Times: Warning Against Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan)

Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

“No strike, however effective, will be in and of itself decisive.”

“We haven’t had a contact with Iran since 1979.  Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union.  We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other.  If something happens it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right – that there will be miscalculations – which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world.” (Haaretz: Military Strike Won’t Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program

General David Petraeus, Director of the CIA, former head of CENTCOM and commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

“It’s possible (a strike) could be used to play to nationalist tendencies. There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment. So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike on Iran).”(Reuters: Petraeus Says Strike On Iran Could Spark Nationalism)

With the ad nauseum invocations by American political figures that an Iran military option (or even “military solution”) is “on the table”, there has been an alarming lack of substantive discussion on what such an option would actually entail. Recently though, two pieces have provided some needed perspective on the consequences of going to war with Iran.

The first is a report by U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Leif Eckholm, who serves under Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Mullen has gone on the record to say that the only military “option” that would end Iran’s nuclear program would be a ground invasion and occupation.  Eckholm’s echoes this and says “the price of an invasion would be astronomical…”  An Iran war, he says, may require 1.4 million troops, “nearly double the current end-strength of the active duty U.S. Army and Marines combined.” 

He bases this on the one soldier to every 50 inhabitant ratio recommended by former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, noting that Iran has three times the population and four the landmass of Iraq.  Shinseki’s advice was notoriously ignored and discredited by Donald Rumsfeld in the drive to invade Iraq.  We’ve learned from the last decade what are the grave ramifications for discarding honest assessments just because they are inconvenient for Washington.

So, the forces required to wage a successful war against Iran are completely unrealistic.  Unrealistic, that is, unless war advocates are willing to advocate a national military draft.

Republican primary front-runner Gov. Rick Perry, was recently quoted as saying that, while he rejects military adventurism, he was “never going to take off the table our ability to have a military solution to a country like Iran.”  At first glance, this might appear to be more of the same tough talk that we have grown accustomed to hearing.  However, there is a subtle but important difference in Perry’s substitution of “option,” the commonly used term, for “solution.”

A military option for Iran typically revolves around U.S. and/or Israeli airstrikes against their nuclear facilities.  However, given that there is near universal agreement that even the most successful airstrikes will do little more than delay Iran’s nuclear program (not to mention be a gift to the regime that will galvanize Iranian public support), it seems implausible that by military “solution” he could be referring to airstrikes.  Thus, his talk of a military “solution” could reasonably be thought to refer to a military action requiring the use of ground forces, a la Iraq 2003.

Admittedly, focusing on Perry’s use of “solution” rather then “option” might be splitting hairs, and it would not be the first time that a politician was imprecise with his choice of words.  But given the importance of potential presidential candidates’ positions on Iran, it is critical that we become familiar with their stances and be wary of subtle shifts in terminology, lest we find ourselves with a president advocating for a war with Iran.

With this in mind, here are some of the other Republican presidential candidates’ quotes and stances on Iran to date:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney:

In the run up to the 2008 Republican presidential primary, Romney said:

Of course, the military option has to be on the table. Anyone who’s considering being president hopefully will say that military options are always on the table when you consider a nation, which is a genocidal nation, a suicidal nation, in some respects, coming from Ahmadinejad…This is a nation where the genocidal inclination is really frightening and having a nation of this nature develop nuclear weaponry is unacceptable to this country and to the Middle East.

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman:

When asked what he would do if Iran develops WMD, Huntsman responded that if ever there was a time to consider using U.S. force, it would be to prevent a nuclear armed Iran.

Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann is a lead supporter of House Resolution 271, green-lighting Israeli military strikes on Iran.  She is also a vocal supporter of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and has spoken at pro-MEK events.

Rep. Ron Paul:

At a recent primary debate Paul said there is no concrete evidence to that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.  He said a war with Iran would be worse than a nuclear-armed Iran. Paul has said he would “tolerate” a nuclear armed Iran before he would support sending U.S. troops off to fight a war with Iran.  Paul has repeatedly voted against sanctions as he sees them as increasing the likelihood of war.  He supports dialogue with Iran, saying at the recent debate that the Soviet Union posed a much greater threat than Iran and we had a dialogue this them.

Former Senator Rick Santorum:

At the previously mentioned debate, Santorum rebuked Paul’s positions, saying that Iran has been in a state of war with the U.S. since 1979 and saying that Iran has killed more soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan then the Iraqis or the Afghanis have.  Santorum has highlighted that, while in the Senate, he authored the Iran Freedom Support Act to provide U.S. funds aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.  At the debate, he conveyed support for the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, saying, “I don’t apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time…”

Over the past 9 years, many different cases have been made by Iran hawks in support of a military strike against the country. Much of the focus is on Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, and the possible threat that it would pose against U.S. allies in the region. But many war supporters also justify “the military option” by exploiting the worsening of human rights abuses in Iran and suggesting that the support of Iranian citizens can be gained through a war of regime change. In reality, neither group takes the voices and concerns of Iranians within Iran into consideration. These concerns include the disastrous effects war would have on the worsening human rights abuses within the Islamic Republic, and for Iran’s peaceful democratic opposition.

Last week, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran published “Raising Their Voices, Iranian Civil Society Reflections on the Military Option”. In an attempt to document the perspective of Iranians inside Iran in their report, the organization interviewed 35 of Iranian writers, human rights defenders, members of the political opposition, lawyers, student activists, cultural leaders, and journalists.

The report shows an overwhelming response rejecting a war against Iran: “military action against Iran by the United States or Israel would be futile, counterproductive and irrational. Accordingly, while achieving none of the goals used to justify such action, a strike would lead to further political regression and repression, deeper enmity between the Iranian people and the United States, and severe humanitarian problems.”

Even though many Iran hawks claim that military action is a threat to the Islamic Republic and could be helpful to the reformists or the opposition of the regime, the fact is that many extremists within the regime welcome the idea. Nationalism is and has always been a powerful factor within the Iranian society. “A war with Iran,” says the report, “would strengthen the current regime by stoking nationalism and dividing the opposition, and undercut the Iranian public’s goodwill toward the United States.”

Many Iranian citizens do want change and reform; they do not however, want a foreign imposition of such change for many reasons. “An attack would further militarize the state, exacerbate the human rights crisis in Iran, and undermine Iranian civil society and the pro-democracy movement,” says the report. War would put into the lives of political prisoners in Iran in further danger–Iranians remember well the many political prisoners who fell victim to mass executions during the Iran-Iraq war. A US military strike would also lead to more human rights violations, more extreme government crackdowns, economic, and environmental consequences.

Mohammad Seifzadeh, a leading human rights lawyer, who has served a prison sentence in Iran, has voiced his concern: “If a war were to take place right now, the atmosphere would definitely become more restricted and more limitations would be imposed upon intellectuals, human rights activist, social elites and students.”

The debates concerning a military strike against the Islamic Republic have not taken the voices of Iranian citizens, the people who will be affected the most by military action, into consideration. Iranians have essential insight to administer about the repercussions of a US military strike against Iran in regards to the future of US-Iran relations, regional and domestic stability, and protection of human rights.