New Dem Dispatch on Iran from the DLC calls for “Effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force.” Obviously, I think it’s the case that diplomacy can be rendered more effective through credible threats of force. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people — especially hawkish Democrats seeking out a sensible middle ground here — seem slightly confused about the concept of credibility. The credibility of a threat is overwhelmingly an objective property of the threat, and not something that’s seriously altered by, say, noting that “all options are on the table.” Thus, important aspects of the wisdom of threatening to use force against Iran actually wind up reducing to the wisdom of actually using force against Iran. Or, in the immortal words of Outkast, “don’t pull that thang out, unless you plan to bang.”

The reason people in the sensible center don’t think we should just go bomb Iran next week is that it’s quite unclear how much this would really set the nuclear program back, while reasonably clear that it would improve Iran’s diplomatic situation and strengthen the hand of the hardliners at home. If I thought (as, say, Reuel Marc Gerecht does) that was wrong; if I thought airstrikes would significantly set back the Iranian program, weaken the Iranian regime, and leave our diplomatic efforts against Iran intact, then it would seem to me that the case for actually bombing after a period of curt diplomacy (“verifiably disarm or we’ll bomb you”) would be strong. But if you don’t believe that — and I think the sensible center mostly doesn’t — then the threat isn’t credible. If a bombing campaign would do more to strengthen the regime and relax its growing diplomatic isolation than it would to set back the nuclear program, then the regime would be relatively eager for us to bomb them. Insofar as they think counterproductive airstrikes are the likely alternative to negotiations, they’re less — not more — likely to negotiate.

That’s the crux of the matter. Credible threats are good. But the threats must actually be credible. If your threat is credible, you can make it clearly and plainly. But it’s clear from the overall policy proposal that the DLC (rightly) doesn’t regard our threats as very credible. As they say, “our security goals can best be advanced by maintaining a united front with leading powers and world bodies that share our interest in stemming nuclear proliferation and discrediting terrorism.” But if the threat’s not credible, you’re best off not making the threat; you can’t magically turn a non-credible threat into a credible one by wishing.

As I believe I’ve acknowledged, I wrote some pretty dumb things back in the day. Nevertheless, I never came even remotely close to writing anything as inane as this: “Even after September 11th, Marvel Comics and other publishers are disseminating comic books that actively promote a destructive cynicism and mistrust of the United States Government.” That was April 2003. Shockingly, though, Cliff May is actually bragging about his small role in bringing that pearl of wisdom to light. He must really not like the Ultimates 2 story arc.

Pelosi fires back:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Cheney’s remarks prove that “the administration’s answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people.”

I still don’t feel that Democrats have located the appropriately disrespectful tone for responding to Cheney’s foreign policy pearls of wisdom. If David Duke were to slam Pelosi as insufficiently committed to white supremacy, she wouldn’t start quibbling with him. Getting smeared by Cheney isn’t the same as that (but let him complain then come back with, sorry, it’s easy to get confused when you’re talking about one of congress’ foremost supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa), but it’s still a situation where his attacks should be worn as a badge of honor. Substantively, the man is a horror. Conveniently, he’s also wildly unpopular. I mean, he’s got to be one of the least-popular major American political figures ever. It seems to me that “When Dick Cheney criticizes the House Democrats, that’s how we know we must be doing something right” is along the right lines. I mean, I think the period during which Cheney and his “gravitas” were well-respected around the nation is long behind us at this point.

A mysterious coalition of conservative Democrats and “lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel” have persuaded the party that it would be a mistake to flex some legislative muscles and make an effort to constrain the Bush administration’s ability to take the country into a war with Iran. Since history has, after all, shown that when granted broad military authority Bush usually uses it wisely as a subtle negotiating tool and with brilliant results. Or something.

To state the obvious, while Israel and the United States are different countries with presumptively different interests, on really big region-wide issues one doesn’t really see a ton of divergence. Insofar as letting a reckless and incompetent administration guided by a blinkered ideology have a free hand to launch a misguided war with Iran is bad for the United States it’s also not going to end well for Israel.

UPDATE: Let me be clearer about the point of convergence. My analysis of the situation is that bombing Iran is not merely a poor policy option all things considered, but is likely to prove very ineffective at delaying Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon (physical damage done to the program will be undone by diplomatic damage done to the fairly successful international effort to curb Iranian acquisitions). Insofar as this is correct, we’re not going to be doing Israel any favors by bombing. Obviously, the myth of the Osirak raid has even more power in Israeli politics than in US politics, so Israeli politicians don’t necessarily see it that way, but they’re still mistaken.