U.S. & Iran: A Tale of Two Presidents

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

-- John McCain

I thought that I was experienced enough and sage enough that I was correct in my view that rumors the Bush administration was considering military strikes against Iran’s nuculur . . ., er, nuclear facilities could not be taken seriously. But it turns out that the Crew Without a Clue is indeed considering that bit of profound wignuttery.

There have been a flurry of stories that the White House was flirting with attacking Iran, most recently a front-page New York Times article based on a Niagara of leaks to the effect that Vice President Cheney has been let out of the cellar and is advocating the strikes. (Secretary of State Rice is said to be against them.)

Don’t get me wrong. Iran is bad ju jus. The malevolent hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime can be seen in practically everything that is screwed up in the region from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan. Oh, and Lebanon, too. But the notion that the path to setting the most troubled region in the world to rights is through military action against Iran is in-freaking-sane.

Howcum?

* It can be argued that Iran’s care and feeding of insurgencies in the aforementioned countries is a gross provocation. But with the U.S. similarly bankrolling and arming its own pet groups, including some in Iraq, Washington loses (pardon the term) the moral high ground and it is difficult to argue that Tehran’s provocations rise to the level of acts of war. A U.S. strike would most certainly be one.

* An attack on Iran’s fledgling nuclear infrastructure would be in the form of cruise missiles from U.S. warships and submarines and a variety of bombs delivered by aircraft, including so-called bunker busters. You know, that good old “shock and awe.” But as was the case at the outset of the Iraq war, a massive strike delivered with overwhelming force against a weak enemy looks good on paper but does not guarantee tactically satisfactory results. Most of Iran's nuclear facilities are well underground and cannot necessarily be taken out with the most heavy-duty munitions.

* Then there is the matter of intelligence -- or lack of. The manifold intelligence failues leading up to Iraq, compounded by the White House's political agenda, is legendary. Why are things suddenly going to be very different with Iran?

* * * * *

In the end, there are just too many unknowns for comfort here. That is chiefly because of the instability of both regimes:

Iran is imploding because of a variety of factors, but chief among them is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s squandered mandate. I do not believe that the ayatollahs want war, but it may just be what this president needs to retain his grip on power.

The Bush administration is imploding because of a variety of factors, chief among them George Bush's squandered mandate. Are things so wacked out that Cheney (backed by John McCain and most Republican presidential wannabes) can demand strikes because it may be just what this president needs to retain his grip on power?

I can hear the Oval Office conversation now:

"Okay, Mr. President. You won't pardon Scooter, so you owe me a big one."

"Howz that, Uncle Dick?"

"We're attacking Iran."

"But won't there be a big war?"

"Of course Mr. President. But isn't that what you need?

"Why, Uncle Dick?"

"To divert attention from Iraq."

"Yes, Uncle Dick. You are always right."