icon caret Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Line Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Whatsapp Youtube
How Iraq War Hawks Can Help Stop Trump from Going to War with Iran
How Iraq War Hawks Can Help Stop Trump from Going to War with Iran
Where Can Europe Best Act for Peace?
Where Can Europe Best Act for Peace?

How Iraq War Hawks Can Help Stop Trump from Going to War with Iran

Originally published in The New Yorker

The Iranian regime remains a source of instability in the Middle East and has brutalized its own people. Sanctions and assistance to Iran’s rivals should continue to be used to restrain Tehran, but there is every reason to believe that torpedoing the nuclear deal or prompting military escalation would only make things worse. 

Fifteen years ago this fall, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, one of the most compelling public cases for war came not from President George W. Bush or his backers on Capitol Hill but from a wonky book written by a former C.I.A. analyst that landed, improbably, on best-seller lists and nightstands across Washington. Ken Pollack, now a scholar at the Brookings Institution, argued soberly but forcefully that a U.S.-led military assault to remove Saddam Hussein was necessary and affordable, what he called “our best option—or at least our least bad option.” The book’s title, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” was less nuanced but more memorable than Pollack’s analysis, which acknowledged the risk of trading “the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam for the threat of an Iraq in chaos and civil war.”

The book quickly became the intellectual foundation for proponents of the Iraq War, many of whom, unlike Pollack, knew nothing about Iraq. Democratic politicians found an excuse to avoid opposing the President, a year after the 9/11 attacks. Skeptics were forced to reckon with an expert endorsement of the Administration’s shoddy intelligence. Like the decision to invade Iraq, the book has not aged well.

These days, it is hard not to think back to 2002. Now, as then, a new Administration seems to have come into office with a Middle Eastern country in its crosshairs: this time, it is Iraq’s neighbor, Iran. Now, as then, a President is making increasingly menacing threats and politicizing intelligence to fit alternative facts. And now, as then, some of the same influential voices outside the Administration will play a crucial role in either legitimizing or discrediting decisions that risk another unnecessary and reckless war.

For the last decade, advocates of the Iraq War from both parties have worn scarlet letters around Washington but few have suffered professionally, even after “Mission Accomplished” turned into a brutal sectarian conflict that cost trillions of dollars, claimed the lives of more than forty-five hundred Americans and many times that number of Iraqis (most of them civilians), and badly damaged the United States’s moral and strategic authority in the world.

But several of the Iraq War’s most prominent proponents have experienced a renaissance of sorts after voicing early, principled, and fervent opposition to President Trump—whose populist rhetoric and isolationist views they found distasteful. As a group, they share right-leaning politics, hawkish foreign-policy views, and strong support for the invasion of Iraq—and they have, to their credit, emerged as some of the most unexpected and effective opposition voices.

Read the full article at The New Yorker

Contributors

Former President & CEO
Rob_Malley
Jeff Prescott
a former special assistant to President Obama on the National Security Council, is a consultant to the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement
Jon Finer
was chief of staff and director of policy planning at the State Department under former Secretary of State John F. Kerry
Podcast / Europe & Central Asia

Where Can Europe Best Act for Peace?

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker is joined by Crisis Group EU experts Lisa Musiol and Giuseppe Famà to talk about eleven countries where the EU could take action to help prevent conflicts and save lives.

The year 2022 looks set to be challenging for Europe. The EU must reckon with growing risks of conflict close to home: from a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine to rising ethnic tensions in the Western Balkans, the EU must brace itself for new wars on its doorstep. Elsewhere, deadly fighting and humanitarian disasters continue to rage across the globe – from Afghanistan to Ethiopia to Venezuela – and threaten to claim many more lives.

This week on War & Peace, Olga Oliker is joined by Crisis Group’s Senior EU Analyst Lisa Musiol and Head of EU Affairs Giuseppe Famà to run through Crisis Group’s 2022 EU Watch List. They discuss eleven conflicts across the globe in which EU action or support could help prevent violence from escalating and humanitarian emergencies from worsening. They assess the successes and failures of the EU’s existing foreign policy toolkit and ask how it can adapt its strategy to contend with a world of mounting great power competition. 

Click here to listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

Make sure to check out Crisis Group’s 2022 EU Watch List in full to learn more about the ten countries to consider in 2022 for early action and relief by the EU and its member states.

This episode of War & Peace was produced with the support of Stiftung Mercator.

Contributors

Program Director, Europe and Central Asia
OlyaOliker
Senior Analyst, EU Advocacy & Research
Head of EU Affairs
FamaNelMondo