After the Iraq Debacle: Next Stop Iran?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Although William Kristol explained in Sunday’s Washington Post, “why Bush will be a winner” and after all a successful President, even most Kristol-like conservative ideologues draw different conclusions. Whatever “political capital” George W. Bush accumulated, when he was reelected in 2004, is not just spent by now, but overspent.However hard the White House tries to repackage the non-existent links between Iraq, 9-11, and al-Qaeda Central, the already weak support for the post-invasion failure in Iraq is waning by the hour. Never mind Kristol’s ridiculous assessment that in Iraq “we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.” The question is, of course, what a "successful outcome" means for those who, like Kristol, pushed for the Iraq war in the first place. Frank Rich may well be right, when he suggests that the White House creates “a new fictional story line to keep the war going until President Bush can dump it on his successor.” But according to an alarming story in today’s Guardian, Vice-President Cheney doesn’t want to go quiet and is not satisfied with dumping just the Iraq mess on the next president. Instead, he wants to make Iran the next stop for military intervention according to the Guardian. As the British newspaper puts it, “The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President Bush leaves office in 18 months…”

The rationale for using military force against Iran on George W. Bush's watch is reportedly that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney do “not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.” In other words, the duo that has not been able to move successfully against the real culprits of 9/11 (al-Qaeda’s leaders and their Taliban allies), has failed in Iraq, and has been far from successful in Afghanistan still see themselves as the most competent leaders so that they entertain another try for a military triumph, if the Guardian’s source in Washington—obviously one part of or siding with the anti-Cheney forces in the Departments of State and Defense--is right. It isn’t at all comforting that a final decision on this will not be made before sometime next year, according to the source. After all, a new military deployment—a new war—in the midst of the presidential campaign would be tempting for the Bush-Cheney duo and move them again as war-time leaders into the limelight at the expense of the presidential candidates—especially the nominee of the Democratic Party and, presumably, the most outspoken critic of the current regime.

P.S. William Kristol is not the only Washingtonian who gives George W. Bush high marks for his performance as president. This is what Senator Joseph Lieberman said the other day at the end of a lengthy radio interview on the radio show of conservative host Hugh Hewitt:

Hewitt: Oh, that’s fascinating. Last question, how do you think history’s going to evaluate George W. Bush?

Lieberman: Well, I personally believe look, mistakes were made, and I know the polls are down, but I think on the largest issue of our time, which is the rise of Islamist extremism, that he will be judged as a president who saw the threat, and in the midst of an unpopular war, he stuck with it. And so I think overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today.

 

Comments

[Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig]

One can argue whether it would be wise to attack Iran and certainly whether this is a competent Administration to do so. However, comparing Iraq and Iran is misleading on several accounts:
1- We KNOW that Iran is attempting to go nuclear. If the UN is placing sanctions, can there be doubt of Iran's intentions?
2- Iraq never tried to export terrorism in massive fashion; Iran is the world's #1 terrorism exporter and supporter. Nuclear weaponry in the hands of such an irresponsible nation constitutes a danger of the highest order to the world at large.
3- While Hussein was a threat to contiguous states, he had no all-encompassing Jihad strategy for destabilizing the entire (Sunni) Middle East. We in the West tend to forget how fearful the ARAB states are of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Thus, if Iran were successful, this would start a nuclear arms race among other Middle East countries -- a highly destabilizing (not to mention dangerous for the West) development.
4- Iraq's Baath secular ideology -- while brutal -- never looked at the world in cataclysmic fashion. Iran's religious fundamentalists might not be as "rational" or behave in the same self-interested fashion as Saddam Hussein did. Belief in "Allah" can be a dangerous negator of Realpolitik considerations, especially with nuclear Mullahs.
5- If the Bush Administration attacks Iran, it is certainly not thinking of a full scale invasion but rather primarily of precision bombing from afar, from the air and sea -- few American soldiers will be at immediate risk and certainly there will be no "land campaign" to get bogged down in.
In short, arguments can be made pro and con for attacking Iran. The mess in Iraq is not one of them.

[Brigitte]

Prof. Lehman-Wilzig's comment is well taken--and particularly the third point. Yes, Sunni Arabs are troubled by Iran's obvious ambition to become the leading power in the region and in that context also concerned about Iran's nuclear program. All efforts should be made to win those Arab governments over to join into a united front against Iran and, yes, if everything else fails, joint military actions. That would be very different from the U.S. going it alone.

nuclear program in pa