will bush bomb iran .. j. r. nyquist

WILL BUSH BOMB IRAN?
by J. R. Nyquist

The Israelis and Americans are worried about Iran's nuclear weapons program. The concern is understandable when you consider what the Iranian leaders have said, and what they believe. A government that thinks the holocaust didn’t happen, and a government that talks openly about the nuclear elimination of Israel, craves wary watching. A radical Islamic regime, with apocalyptic notions, may not be deterred by the prospect of Mutual Assured Destruction. In fact, nuclear war might be viewed as a "martyrdom operation" on a massive scale. Iranian politicians have said that a nuclear exchange with Israel would, in fact, favor the Islamic cause. Such an exchange would destroy Israel while the Islamic world would survive.

The question is being asked, at home and abroad, whether President Bush will use air strikes to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, or whether Israel might attack Iran. Almost one year ago, in the April 2006 edition of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh posed the question in the following headline: "Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?" The most interesting thing about the article is its insight into President Bush’s motives. One year ago the Bush administration was publicly advocating diplomacy while "planning for a possible major air attack." American reconnaissance troops were scouting targets inside Iranian territory. War plans were being devised.

The spring of 2006 came and went, and nobody started a war. It is spring again, and we are inundated with further rumors. In fact, we have been treated to two false alarms since last November. What happens next is partly determined by two things: (1) When will Iran acquire nuclear weapons? (2) Are the political and economic consequences of a preemptive strike against Iran acceptable to President Bush? Both questions are difficult to answer. The U.S. president's "regime change" rhetoric leads some observers to conclude that Bush will attack Iran before the end of his term. As Seymour Hersh pointed out almost a year ago, the Bush administration believes that Iran is governed by a Nazi-like regime, hell bent on initiating a regional nuclear war. Such a war would also threaten the developed world's oil lifeline. Furthermore, President Bush expects to be followed in office by a softer, more appeasing politician, who will probably abandon Iraq. The same terrorist cadre presently destabilizing Iraq would then be turned against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

There is also the issue of President Bush's self image: namely, that Bush sees himself as the only American leader with the courage to do what must be done. Unpopular on account of his failed policies in Iraq, President Bush may gamble on a more favorable long-term assessment of his accomplishments. Stopping Iran is therefore uppermost in the President's mind. He is not concerned with winning votes or maintaining his own popularity. He may intend to act without consulting public opinion, in the name of generations unborn. If people do not have the vision to see what must be done today, they will understand when the dust settles. Bush must therefore stand alone, comforted only by the prospect of a successful preemptive war. Such is the thinking attributed to American commander-in-chief.

If we are to trust Hersh's account, there seems to be an error at the root of President Bush's thought process. Military strategy involves two elements: (1) military strength and (2) morale. President Bush may understand military strength, but he has consistently misjudged the morale question – both at home and abroad. He has not won hearts and minds. He has won battles, to be sure, but he has lost the good opinion of the world. Instead of demoralizing America’s enemies, President Bush has undermined his own country's international position, and the position of his own political party. It seems that President Bush does not understand how the grand strategic game is played. Any military attack on Iran exposes America to a kind of diplomatic counter-offensive (prepared by Russia and China).

Officially, the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the CIA deny that an attack on Iran is imminent. These denials are credible for the moment, since the public shows no enthusiasm for widening Bush's Mideast war. The official line holds that matters will be handled diplomatically, with military exercises and veiled threats. Of course, we shouldn't doubt that President Bush prefers aggressive action. But he cannot do as he pleases, especially with the Democrats in control of Congress. After all, the president is answerable to allies, to the business community, to his party colleagues and the general public. He can even be impeached. His weakened political position dictates prudence and caution. To attack Iran without significant political support would ruin the Republican Party's chances in 2008. The president is obliged to consider the survival of the Republican Party.

The most alarming discussions, from within the administration, have been about the use of small nuclear weapons to destroy deep Iranian bunkers. Doesn’t Bush realize that almost the entire world would turn against the United States if nuclear weapons were used against the Iranians? Whatever the consequences for Iran, such an attack would inflict an instant and massive strategic defeat on the American side. The United States would lose many allies. Russia and China would consolidate a new dominance across the global chessboard. American generals would resign, and the U.S. military would suffer a severe psychological blow.

A preemptive attack on Iran doesn’t seem likely, if one credits the U.S. administration with common sense. The idea of the crazy cowboy, Bush, isn’t altogether fair. During an informal interview last year, incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if he thought the Bush administration would ever launch a preemptive attack on Iran. "That's not going to happen," he calmly replied. And Gates is not alone in his thinking. Of course, there are hawks, there are doves, and there are also buzzards.

Last September Alexander C-ockburn wrote a Counterpunch column in which he posed the question: “Will Bush Bomb Tehran?” C-ockburn listed what every analyst needs to know, equivocal as it may be: “The U.S. Army is dead against. A U.S. attack on Iran might prompt Muqtada al-sadr to lead a Shi’a uprising that would sever U.S. supply lines from Kuwait. The U.S. forces in Iraq might [then] have to flee north into Kurdistan or bunker down in their desert bases.” In other words, there are too many strategic complications.

The Telegraph [UK] offered an interesting commentary last November 4 in an article by Philip Sherwell titled, “Bush is planning nuclear strikes on Iran’s secret sites.” The article began by quoting the British foreign secretary, who said that an American attack on Iran would be “nuts.” According to Sherwell, “The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals.” A weakened American president cannot afford to irritate his European allies at this late stage in the game.

Then again, Bush may not care about Europe.

Last November the director of Globalsecurity.org, John Pike, predicted that President Bush was going to bomb Iran in 2007. Israeli military officials have dropped similar hints. Is it mere posturing? Is it an attempt to bluff Iran into compliance on the nuclear issue? Seymour Hersh has further alleged that Vice President Di-ck Cheney wants to attack Iran “with or without the approval of Congress.” What are we to think?

The stories and claims that have appeared in recent months have a rumor-mill quality. Undoubtedly a war plan has been drawn up. And war might happen at any moment. But the situation hasn’t ripened yet. Something more has to happen to justify an American preemptive strike on Iran.

© 2007 Jeffrey R. Nyquist


http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.html

dub