Iran in the Crosshairs

June 27, 2008

This week two resolutions have been circulating in Congress “demanding” that Bush take action “imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.” (H.Con.Res.362 and Sen. Res. 580).

The measure was initially drafted by the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and is being driven through Congress by supporters of that committee. The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

Some believe that an embargo of both trade and officials will be treated by the Iranians as an act of war. Indeed, that may well be the intended interpretation. If the Iranians think we have attacked their vital interests the probability of violent response by them is very great. That in turn, will justify a military response from Mr. Bush. That this fits the president’s plans is demonstrated by a systematic build-up over the last two years of ever greater pressure on Iran.

First, has been the constant repetition for the last two years of accusations. No occasion to blame Iran for armaments into Iraq has been missed. No opportunity to paint them with evil intentions to wipe out Israel has been missed. No opportunity to thank them for their assistance in resisting the Taliban in Afghanistan has ever been taken.

Second, the Pentagon has had in place specific plans for this attack at least since the spring of 2006 and these plans have been leaked to the public.

Third, Mr. Bush has stationed two huge American carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf. They have no strategic or tactical use in Iraq. They can, however, be used in a widespread bombing attack on weapons installations and nuclear sites in Iran.

Fourth, Admiral Fallon who was CentCom commander until this spring was reportedly relieved of his job because he opposed an attack on Iran. He was replaced by General Petraeus who has repeatedly been willing to repeat the president’s aggressive slogans in testimony to Congress.

Fifth, the president and the AIPAC resolution utterly dismiss diplomacy. The president equates Ahmadinejad to Hitler and told the Israeli parliament that anyone who talks to Iran is an appeaser. He obviously believes that talk is weak; war is strong.

Sixth, the president ignores the fact that Iran has a greater natural interest in Iraq than we do. He characterizes Iranians as meddlers and our destruction of Iraq as a war for freedom, a characterization that reflects an utter lack of understanding of tribes, history, or the politics of oil.

Seventh, Mr. Bush has said that he will not talk to the Iranians until they give up their treaty rights to uranium enrichment. Since they are legally guaranteed that right, and he will not talk until they give up what is legally theirs, he has assured that they will not come to the table and he will not have to talk.

Finally, and perhaps more persuasive than all other reasons, there are the fall elections here at home.

In October, 2002, when there was no activity of any hostile nature coming from Saddam Hussein, Bush nevertheless stepped up his verbal assaults against that country with a fury. He began in September and continued through October and then—after electing hawks in November—let the matter smolder until January, 2003. The trumpeting of the mushroom cloud offensive was timed perfectly to bring about the election of more belligerent Republicans but as it turned out had little to do with any facts on the ground in Iraq. Winning the elections was clearly the purpose of the timing of the fall campaign.

Now the country faces into another election and, ominously, Republicans have been losing seats in the House of Representatives this spring. What else can a desperate president do to save his party than to thunder to the nation the existence of a great new danger, an evil enemy, then start a new war and plead to the American people to elect a loyal supporter of his, a man of acceptable belligerence and indomitable will?

Nothing about the folly of such an attack, or the facts which speak against it, should lead us to overlook the administration’s orchestrated campaign leading to this conclusion. This weeks AIPAC resolution is one more trumpet in this effort. The attack, if it happens, will not be this summer, but look out for September and October.