Fake Diplomacy with Iran Beginning to Resemble Fake Diplomacy with Iraq
Despite the foreign policies failures of George W. Bush, it's apparent that unilateralism and the preemptive strike principle are still in play. Think Progress has the story of an interview with Col. Sam Gardiner by Wolf Blitzer:
Whether Bush may be thinking about an attack on Iran before or after the November midterm elections, Americans should make it absolutely clear that we do not need a third war by our arrogant and reckless president. If we launch a war against Iran, and don't anyone think for a moment that a major bombing campaign is anything but an act of war, it will be without the consent of Congress. We are entering dangerous territory and Americans need to raise their voices. Experts are already making it clear that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may only delay Iran's nuclear programs two or three years. Bush's war in Iraq never made any sense and it's now a fiasco. A war with Iran will make even less sense.
Even Republicans in Congress are beginning to recognize we have a problem and that it's time to put on the brakes. Finally, when people like Wolf Blitzer raises the possibility that Bush may be bluffing Iran, let's not forget that we're talking about an incompetent president who has a very poor understanding of the Middle East and who has been repeatedly wrong so far in his presidency.
Note: I've done several posts on Iran in the last nine months. Here's a post I did a few weeks ago with some background material and links, including links to posts on Sy Hersh's New Yorker articles on Iran.
BLITZER: How likely is the U.S. strike against Iran? And would it lead to all-out war? Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force colonel Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, the Air War College, and the Naval War College. Colonel thanks very much for coming in. He just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled “Considering the U.S. Military Option For Iran.” You speak to a lot of people plugged in. What is your bottom line? How close in your opinion is the Bush Administration to giving that go ahead.
GARDINER: It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming
(snip)
BLITZER: What is “military operation?” Define that.
GARDINER: Sure. They probably have had two objectives going back 18 months. The first was to gather intelligence. Where is the Iranian nuclear program? The second has been to prepare dissident groups for phase two which will be the strike, which will come as the next phase, I think.
(snip)
GARDINER: ... The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and Defense to come and answer this question because it’s serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the hearing. There are sources that I have talked to on the Hill who believe that that’s true and that it’s being done without congressional oversight.
Whether Bush may be thinking about an attack on Iran before or after the November midterm elections, Americans should make it absolutely clear that we do not need a third war by our arrogant and reckless president. If we launch a war against Iran, and don't anyone think for a moment that a major bombing campaign is anything but an act of war, it will be without the consent of Congress. We are entering dangerous territory and Americans need to raise their voices. Experts are already making it clear that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may only delay Iran's nuclear programs two or three years. Bush's war in Iraq never made any sense and it's now a fiasco. A war with Iran will make even less sense.
Even Republicans in Congress are beginning to recognize we have a problem and that it's time to put on the brakes. Finally, when people like Wolf Blitzer raises the possibility that Bush may be bluffing Iran, let's not forget that we're talking about an incompetent president who has a very poor understanding of the Middle East and who has been repeatedly wrong so far in his presidency.
Note: I've done several posts on Iran in the last nine months. Here's a post I did a few weeks ago with some background material and links, including links to posts on Sy Hersh's New Yorker articles on Iran.
posted by Craig at 6:34 PM
4 Comments:
We're in an extremely dangerous situation, with a president who evidently thinks he's on a mission from God. He's no doubt convinced that he's incapable of being wrong in the end because he's the recipient of divine guidance.
This is compounded by the fact he has the backing of a majority in
Congress whose members in all cases put politics before the integrity of their institution. Equally bad, they put politics before what common sense would convince a half wit is in the nation's best longterm interest.
This toxic mix has developed an M.O. that defines the terror war as anything the president says it is, while supposedly authorizing him to do anything he decides to do in waging it, on his own say so.
Something's got to give. American democracy is an experiment. Bush, Cheney, et al, plus our no-account Republican Congress are close to proving it's a failed experiment.
I hate to say that, but I've never perceived greater danger for our country and its system — far greater than any danger posed by Iran and the world's jihadists put together.
Blitzer said:
"He just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled 'Considering . . .'"
Is it asking too much for someone with Blitzer's worldwide media platform and really big-bucks salary to get and keep straight that "titled" and "entitled" are different words that have distinct definitions?
Not that Blitzer is alone in doing this.
S.W., 'toxic mix' is the right description.
People are already arguing that Bush gave a better speech at the UN than they expected. But giving a single speech on Iran that's sort of diplomatic after five years of doing nothing, after five years of allowing American credibility to erode doesn't mean anything. This is in the category of making a twenty-minute call to China once in a blue blue on important mutual issues such as North Korea.
Some day it's going to finally dawn on the pundits that a strong president isn't someone who talks tough but can't get anything done. A strong president is not someone who delegates diplomacy to other nations. Bush is the opposite of presidents in the last sixty years who could get things done. The irony is that Bush had the Middle East jumping in 2002; quickly getting the job done in Afghanistan, and I mean getting it done for real, and then just waiting would have given Bush enormous leverage. That leverage is gone. Bush has blown that leverage in Iraq and he should be spending far more time rebuilding that leverage than playing third rate games with Iran and letting neocons blather about more war. This is truly a lame president.
You're so right about the leverage. But I don't think there is any way he can rebuild it now.
Lame duckness sets in by this point in any presidency. In Bush's (ahem) presidency, lame duckness is compounded by an almost universal understanding he's fatally damaged goods.
Everyone who's anyone among world leaders is going to hang on for whoever comes next to the presidency. That's because whoever that is will surely be much better to deal with.
Post a Comment
<< Home