Aug 29 2007
Does the USA pick a fight with Iran?
It was fighting talk against Iran from George Bush yesterday, followed by briefings to assure us policy towards Iran had not changed after all. So what is going on?
The President clearly wanted Iran to know that he expects them to change their approach to intervention in Iraq, and to stop developing nuclear weapons. His speech was followed rapidly by the arrest of 7 Iranians in Iraq with no explanation yet of why or how they will be questioned or charged.
Today it sounds as if the Administration is keen to rule out early military action against Iran. They are walking a very difficult tightrope. They want the Iranian regime to change its conduct. They think they need to threaten the regime to get it to change, but going too far with the threats will upset the rest of the world.
The sad truth is the US invasion of Iraq has destabilised that part of the Middle East. It has given Iran more power by limiting the power of Iraq, her great rival. The neo con idea that creating a couple of new democracies in the Middle East following US invasion would lead other states to adopt a democratic route has not worked. It is proving very difficult to sustain and support the new democracies, whilst the non democratic states are projecting their power into the vacuum. The US now sees it needs policy change if not regime change in Iran, but is in a weak political position to bring it about following the difficulties in Iraq.
Iran is likely to assume the current President does not have enough political support to launch an invasion of Iran, and the Presidential candidates are unlikely to put that on their agenda to strengthen their case for election. That leaves the President with words. I am not sure the ones he chose yesterday help advance a Middle East settlement.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
One has to question the judgement of Mr Bush. There are enough problems already in Iraq without extending tensions to Iran. The interference coming from Iran is not helpful. However an armed response from the United States would be a case of overkill. The best way to keep Iran in check is through dialogue. The Iranan regime is unsavory and unstable. There have been street protests against Ahmadinejad, such feeling may eventually lead to his downfall, the ruling clique in Iran may deem Ahmadinejad to be a liability. However if Mr Bush persues a military option with Iran that will re-enforce Ahmadinejad’s position and make him stronger than ever.
You have got things back to front; it is not the USA that picked this fight, it was and is Iran and it kicked off after the Shah was sent packing by the Theocrats.
“That leaves the President with words”. Which president are you talking about? Could it be the one promising to wipe Israel of the map? Or is it the one hogtied by the naive liberal politicos, media and fence sitters.
You will not be remaining unsure for too long, one way or another.
Reply: I am talking about the US President. Are you saying that you think a US invasion of Iran is a likely option before the end of this current Presidency? For whatever reason, I do not think it is likely. If I am right, the President has to deal with Iran with words. I am not sure he chose the right ones yesterday.It is possible to understand the nature of threats to our peace, without having an easy answer on how we reduce them or eliminate them.
I agree that an actual invasion is unlikely, but the president has more than words at his disposal: there is a good case to be made for limited military action against Iran in the form of airstrikes targeting the Revolutionary Guard, nuclear sites and possibly oil refineries. See
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/insurgencies-ar.html
The 1st link is by an advisor to Rudy Giuliani.
John, do you think there is a possibility that Israel may take a limited form of military action against Iran? Say, an air strike at specific targets? If so how should the west react?
reply: Israel would only do so if the USA was in support or prepared to turn a blind eye. I don’t see it happening in the immediate future, both because the US would I suspect be reluctant to sanction it, and because Israel is still recovering from her last military action. An escalation of US action is also possible but I would be surprised to see it soon.
I agree with Dontmakelaugh and Powell. Bush is slowly opening up for either a US attack on refineries or for Israel to attack a nuclear site.
There will be no attack on Iran, there is no political support. The Ayatollahs will wind up the Bush administration as they know they can, they will kepp their population mobilised against the ‘Great Satan’ just in case. All the pressure is surely being applied behind the scenes, by the USA making concessions to Putin in return for a Russian change of heart over Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Putin put Iran on their nuclear program long before 9/11 and the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. He did so in retaliation to the ‘Son of Star Wars’ program, which a cynical person such as myself considers a way of draining US taxpayers dollars to help out political allies. ‘The Star Wars Plan’ is and has always been a white elephant. Putin played the smart move here, but I doubt Bush really cares.
If the USA wanted to attack Iran, from what I’ve heard, the nuclear facilities are so deep down (Putin has been helping) that we would need to invade on the ground or use nuclear weapons ourselves. The nuclear option is a no-go area, invading would mean surrounding Iran with 5th generation fighters and trashing their whole airforce on day one before lauching a ‘blitzkreig’ ground assault accompanied by massive air support against a 10 million strong army including reservists. The result would be regional war.
Having said all this Iran, Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda are to bame for what is happening in Iraq, not Bush.