Two glimpses into the Administration's subconscious about Iran today.
Krauthammer delivers the usual prefecatory warnings that war with Iran will be fraught with grave risks before urging we jump over the cliff anyway. Krauthammer, in the Stiftung's experience, speaks for a number within Cheney's office, the NSC and Pentagon.
And Ignatius reveals an interesting take away from a conversation with Dubya, leaving him to believe that Dubya wants a coercive way short of all out war to escape the strategic American cul de sac in the Middle East. This would not only reflect the Hadley, Rice and James Baker point of view but also the Newt/Ledeen regime change camps', too. The triple play is that such a line also happily supports the RNC strategy to suppress talk of military campaigns and keep the focus on terrorism for the Fall elections.
Ignatius may be a solid foreign affairs writing now and then yet his column today strikes us as naive. He is certainly correct that discussion of military strikes on Iran is reaching a fever pitch among the chattering classes and even within lower levels of the Administration. Yet his column serves the purpose of sending the Dubya peace message to distraught security Moms everywhere, vital to keep the focus this Fall in terrorism, not Iraq or Iran.
Even on its own terms, Dubya himself has dug the hole in which we find ourselves with Iran. If he speaks now of peace it is because he himself has blown his other options. And Ignatius surely will recall as well as we do the outright lies of omission Dubya told the nation, claiming he did not have a “war plan” on his desk when he was intimately working with Franks and Rumsfeld on the disasterous campaign into Iraq. Or his other protestations of peaceful intent in 2002 and early 2003.
At this moment, however, ceteris paribus we still think strikes on Iran before 2009 are 40%. Not because Dubya is a man of peace but because he has so recklessly squandered American strategic capital. An Iranian campaign must still likely await the “National Greatness” of McCain et al.
They're Both Right
Comments
Comment wrote:
Monday 18 September 20:55
Comment wrote:
Comments can only guess - because we cannot read Bush's mind and we do not receive his briefings, etc.
But as with Iraq, Intel briefings about Iran may not be that meaningfull - who knows?
Here's what we think - about the reality in Iran and the politics.
1.) Iran's wnd program exists - even though there is no solid proof and proof that maybe marketed may be fakeed. We guess it exists.
2. This threat may or may not be a threat to Israel - but if it is , it may take ten years and by that time Iran and Israel may not be enemies anymore - They were once allied.
3. The risk to Sunni interest from Iran exists too - but why should be protecting these dictatorships - Bush already had Condi say that we are abandoning that policy.
4. Bush says we cannot let Iran enrich - fine. Maybe he's right - But he should explain why - and he should then should ask that the NPT treaty that allows Iran to enrich to be changed to say that - otherwise, we look insincere and hypocritical. True, the base hates treaties - but is that what this is all about.
4. Why not just wait a while and see what develops? An attack on Iran that is inconclusive would likely lead to a greater threat to Israel than currently exists - all for a goal that is regime-contingent.
Tuesday 19 September 12:22
DISALLOWED (TrackBack)
Add Comments
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
Bush has been suspiciously truthful when he repeats the fact that Iran is threat to Israel. (though more managable threat than he lets on)
If Bush really planned on attack Iran, it seesm he would be more circumspect about bring up the Israel-related aspect of the Iranian challange.
But since he repeats this over and over - it's not a gaffe. That may mean that he does not want to attack Iran.
Afterall, if he wanted to attack Iran, he would probably want to cast the conflict in such a way that would make it easier to generate support or at least silent assent in the Sunni Arab world -
Krauthammer, for his part, seems to be setting up a false binary - with tough sounding though understated itemization of risks/costs, that he later refutes. It looked like a rough draft of a Cheney 2007 speech.