First up, Ambassador John Bolton gets his war face on vis-a-vis Iran in an appearance on (wait for it) FOX NEWS’ Your World with with Neil Cavuto (courtesy Think Progress):
Transcript:
BOLTON: And I think when the President says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that is that it’s unacceptable. So it’s important…
CAVUTO: But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you’re going to do something about it…
BOLTON: That no option is taken off the table. And Secretary…
[ snip ]
CAVUTO: Unilateral military action?
BOLTON: Secretary Rice made that point again today. But that’s why I think…
CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?
BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.
Put up or shut up time. I guess the Cheney cabal in the White House still expects to see the missiles fly and the bombs fall. Before they get all orgasmic about that possibility, perhaps they should heed this shot across their bow fired by the current Prime Minister in Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.
What connects these two stories? Follow me below the fold for the answer.
First though, more from the NYT about Prime Minister al-Maliki’s charges:
. . . Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a “daily phenomenon” by many troops in the American-led coalition who “do not respect the Iraqi people.”
“They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion,” he said. “This is completely unacceptable.” Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added.
The denunciation was an unusual declaration for a government that remains desperately dependent on American forces to keep some form of order in the country amid a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency in the west, widespread sectarian violence in Baghdad, and deadly feuding among Shiite militias that increasingly control the south.
Put aside the seriousness of these charges, and the certainty that al-Maliki is trying his best to placate the Sunni elements of his “Unity” government. Does anyone seriously doubt that an attack on Iran at this time would send the region into chaos far worse than what we are experiencing at the moment? That al-Maliki would use such rhetoric against the very country whose military is keeping him and his colleagues in their nice safe offices in the Green Zone tells me just how shaky the new Iraqi government is. We bomb Iran and al-Maliki’s government likely collapses overnight.
Further, any attack on Iran would bring massive assaults on our understaffed and widely dispersed units throughout Iraq. Shia militias would provide the main source of such attacks, but no doubt Sunni insurgents would act opportunistically to kill isolated American forces when they could. This may be the real reason for the purported strategy of an American redeployment to their “enduring bases” which has been much bruited about by various sources in the media. But does anyone really think we can keep our troops safe anywhere in Iraq once the bombs start to rain down on Iran?
Why do Bolton and his handlers continue to insist on this tough line with Iran? It’s certainly not the threat posed by Iran’s puny efforts at enrichment. Even our EU allies are only “with us” on the “diplomatic track” because they hope to forestall another military misadventure by the US in the Middle East, not encourage one.
I understand that the theory of US hegemony imposed by force in the oil rich states of the Gulf is driving their policy, but at some point you have to wonder if anyone in the Bush administration truly understands the situation on the ground in Iraq and Iran. We know they didn’t foresee the consequences when they deposed Saddam, so I can only assume they are in complete denial of the risk any attack on Iran poses to our forces and our national security. I can only assume that they believe attacking Iran will put right the strategic situation in the Middle East, and restore the balance that was shattered when US forces invaded Iraq.
Sadly, it appears we are at the mercy of the dreams of madmen.