Last week, the Princeton Project on National Security -- an ambitious, years-long effort to outline a course for American foreign policy spearheaded by Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ikenberry, and involving a wide range of accomplished figures -- released its final report, Last week, the Princeton Project on National Security -- an ambitious, years-long effort to outline a course for American foreign policy spearheaded by Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ikenberry, and involving a wide range of accomplished figures -- released its final report, Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security In the 21st Century. As one would expect from any project of this scope, there are various elements in the report with which one might quibble or disagree. Fundamentally, however, it gives the lie to the myth that liberals have no alternative to Bush's futile quest for unilateral hegemony and gunpoint democratization.
The report calls for a recommitment of American policy to international institutions and legitimate mechanisms of action, which entails a renewed effort to revitalize, reform, and deepen existing institutions while also creating new ones. It also advocates a rebalancing of grand strategy away from a narrow focus on terrorism and toward the full range of transnational threats.
One could go on, and perhaps one should. But there's a problem. Days after the release of the Princeton report, I attended a small conference (coincidentally hosted at Princeton) that brought together various more-or-less likeminded journalists and academics interested in national security policy. We had interesting discussions and even, I dare say, some good ideas. Then I took a train to New York to visit my father. Coming home, I greeted the building's doorman. We chatted for a while, and he mentioned that his nephew, who serves in the Navy, is about to be dispatched to the Persian Gulf.
He's not alone.
Rather a lot of naval assets are being readied for deployment to the Gulf these days, and rumors are flying that more may be on the way. Nobody knows exactly why this is happening. No official explanation is forthcoming from the White House or the Pentagon. But it is happening, just as the United States is constructing a large airbase in Tallil, Iraq, also with nobody talking about it.
One strong possibility, outlined in a recent report for the Century Foundation by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, is that the decision has already been made to launch air strikes against Iran. Less dramatically, the administration may simply be making sure that the option is in place in case they decide to unleash it later.
What is certain is that the possibility of war is significantly higher than many people seem to appreciate. The administration has spent a lot of time attempting the "diplomatic option" with Iran, but they haven't conducted any actual diplomacy. Instead, the White House has offered Iran various opportunities to surrender on all the points under dispute, in exchange for which the United States will stop seeking to punish the country. A nice deal if you can get it, to be sure, but why would the Iranians give it to us? And, indeed, all signs point to us not being able to get it, which seems to be the real point. Bush isn't interested in a meaningful exploration of possible diplomatic agreements, but merely wants to be able to claim that he "tried diplomacy" and it "didn't work" before he unleashes the bombs and missiles.
This would be a bad thing on any number of levels, as I've had occasion to argue previously. One point, however, is especially important for liberals hoping to think creatively about the future of American foreign policy: a war with Iran would, in essence, render all of our grand schemes moot.
We all know what damage the invasion of Iraq has done to the international system and America's standing in the world, but the damage caused by a second war in the Persian Gulf -- even one not involving a land invasion -- would be incalculably larger. Unlike in the Iraq case, there isn't anything even vaguely resembling a case for American action under international law. This war would be unilateralism on steroids, leaving the United States utterly isolated in the global community. The international agenda, as a consequence, would shift largely to one dominated by the question of how to contain, constrain, and control American military power. Schemes to reform existing institutions and make them more effective would be moot. The only problem anyone would be genuinely interested in solving would be Washington's erratic behavior. Meanwhile, the worthy cause of waging war on al-Qaeda would become more and more indistinguishable from a looming clash of civilizations.
Perhaps worst of all, it's not clear that there's much liberals can do to prevent all this from happening. By most accounts, the White House is contemplating giving the military orders to launch a surprise attack on Iran. That, in turn, implies that the administration believes there's no need to seek congressional authorization for strikes before launching them, which would make the outcome of the midterm elections beside the point.
The best we can do, it seems, is to at least raise this issue and try to bring pressure to bear on the administration before anything happens. The War Powers Act states that "the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by a attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Iran, rather clearly, fits none of these cases, which would render an unauthorized strike illegal. But waiting for war and then filing a lawsuit afterward isn't going to do. Democrats should press the administration on this point. Many of its members have opined from time to time that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Does the Bush administration intend to follow it as a matter of policy? So far, Iran has played only a tiny role -- if any role at all -- in the midterm campaigns, but at the moment this may be the most important question we face as a nation.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
