I know lots of people have warned of a strike against Iran by the US military before the end of Bush’s term, I being one of them. Believe me, I’d love to be proven wrong on Obama’s inauguration day about what I consider a very grave risk to peace in the world. And fortunately, to date, it hasn’t happened. Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Chris Floyd and everyone else who has sounded the alarm bells over Iran has yet to see their direst predictions turn into reality. Whatever the reason, a reluctant Joint Chiefs or pushback from our Arab allies in the region, I’m very grateful for that fact.
But before you get that warm and fuzzy feeling, here’s the latest story from McClatchy’s Washington Bureau, the people who got the Iraq story right before Shock and Awe hit the fan in 2003. And what they have to report is not encouraging:
JERUSALEM — Six months ago, after American intelligence agencies declared that Iran had shelved its nuclear-weapons program, the chances of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran before President Bush left office seemed remote.
Now, thanks to persistent pressure from Israeli hawks and newly stated concerns by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the idea of a targeted strike meant to cripple Iran’s nuclear program is getting a new hearing. […]
“Temperatures are rising,” said Emily Landau, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies, an independent Israeli research center.
Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met twice in recent weeks for extended talks on Iran. America’s intelligence chief, Mike McConnell, has traveled to Israel for private briefings, and Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz publicly declared that a military strike on Iran may be “unavoidable.
”
In Germany on Wednesday, Bush said that “all options are on the table” if Iran doesn’t abandon its uranium enrichment programs.
Bush has used that “all options are on the table” line so often even he must feel like the little boy who cried wolf. However, sending the head of the CIA the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) for top level meetings in Israel does concern me, especially considering the tenor of the Israeli government’s public rhetoric. And of course, we all know Dick Cheney is just waiting to whisper in Bush’s ear that he should go out in style by bombing Tehran. After all, Bush already believes he’ll be proved right about Iraq by future historians. I’m sure he’s just as willing to believe the same thing about attacking Iran. Maybe this was why the CEO of GAZPROM was warning crude oil prices could soon hit $250 barrel. In any event, Israel is certainly putting the screws to those Bush officials (Condi? Gates?) who have been reluctant to sign on to the “military option.”
The very fact that a military strike is percolating back into mainstream debate is a significant shift in the political discourse.
Most analysts dismissed the military option last December after U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Iran had shelved its nuclear weapons work in 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 or 2015.
Though Bush and Olmert challenged the assessment at the time, the analysis made it more difficult to make a case for swift military action.
Since then, Israel has shared more of its intelligence with the Bush administration.
Last week, Olmert traveled to Washington for extended talks with Bush that focused primarily on Iran.
I’m not saying Israel would be prepared to lie in order to get the US to approve strikes against Iran, but their interests in this matter are not the same as ours, and our recent experience with sexed up intel from Israel to justify destroying an alleged nuclear facility in Syria last September (which has yet to be proven to have any connection to a nuclear program) ought to give anyone pause about the reliability of the current Israeli government’s intentions when it comes to encouraging the United States to strike at its enemies in the region. Regrettably, I don’t think our current Decider in Chief understands this in the least.
And considering his past record in starting a Middle Eastern war for no good reason, I’m not feeling particularly comfortable relying on his judgment regarding whether we should launch another one.
