Warmongering Does Not Support Diplomacy

Hawks assume that threats of attack strengthen the U.S. bargaining position, but all that they do is signal the other side that the U.S. is unreasonable and will lash out at the first opportunity.

A group of former U.S. officials, retired officers, and members of Congress with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), including Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Michele Flournoy, and Dennis Ross, released a letter this week calling for the Biden administration to threaten Iran with attack more than it already has:

Therefore, for the sake of our diplomatic effort to resolve this crisis, we believe it is vital to restore Iran’s fear that its current nuclear path will trigger the use of force against it by the United States. The challenge is how to restore U.S. credibility in the eyes of Iran’s leaders. Words—including formulations that are more pointed and direct than “all options are on the table”—are also necessary but not sufficient.

Much like Democratic hawks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, these mostly Democratic hawks present a threat to attack as a way to support “our diplomatic effort.” Ross and the others want us to think that they are actually helping Biden’s diplomacy to succeed when they are actually just pressuring him to take dangerous and provocative actions. They imagine that the problem is that Iran doesn’t believe that the U.S. would ever attack them, but it’s not clear why that would be the case. The U.S. has repeatedly initiated hostilities against other states when their governments have not capitulated to U.S. demands. It is all too easy for the Iranian government to believe U.S. threats. It is American promises of relief that they don’t believe, and with good reason.