Several readers have emailed lately to suggest I’ve been giving a looming conflict with Iran the short shrift. There were several reports last week that the White House was gearing up to launch a major p.r. offensive about a confrontation with Iran immediately after Labor Day, and the public needs to appreciate the gravity of the situation.
To which I’ve said: maybe. As Kevin Drum noted, “Iran rumors make the rounds of the liberal blogosphere every couple of months, and they never pan out.” That’s largely true, though I’d add another caveat — I’ve been a little skeptical about an attack on Iran because Bush just doesn’t have the troops.
The White House has stretched the military beyond reason, to the point that some troops are going to have to come home from Iraq next year whether the president likes it or not. If Bush launches an attack against Iran, he would commit the U.S. to yet another dangerous Middle Eastern conflict with an Armed Forces that’s unprepared for a third war.
It’s not that I doubt the White House’s intentions; I’m certain Cheney & Co. would love to start dropping bombs immediately, to the delight of Kristol, Lieberman, and others. My concern is that even they realize that they lack the resources to pull it off, and are blustering now as some kind of twisted diplomatic exercise. (I think the idea is for Ahmadinejad to look at the White House and say, “I better give in; those guys are nuts.”)
With that in mind, Kevin raises a compelling argument, “There may be nothing to this, but I’d rather get paranoid now and feel a little embarrassed later than shut up now and feel like an idiot later. Forewarned is forearmed.”
Good point.
Todd Gitlin has a very good post in which he notes that a variety of prominent DC insiders all seem to believe that a war with Tehran is a distinct possibility, fueled in part by a presidential speech last week in which Bush raised the specter of a “nuclear holocaust” in the Middle East if Ahmadinejad gets atomic weapons.
Gitlin said he was reluctant to add “a link to a child’s game of Telephone,” but it’s a warning worth delivering: “If there’s anything we understand about the occupants of the White House, it is that worst-case scenarios are, if not dead certain, to use the phrase of the day, worth taking seriously.”
There’s a genuine passivity to fear. The Democrats have to stand up this week, loud, clear, and demonstrative, and declare that they will not get hustled into supporting a mindless, counterproductive attack on Iran. They will not appropriate funds for it. Half of them in the Senate got hustled at the equivalent moment in 2002 and now regret it, even if are only willing to use the euphemism “if I knew then what I know now.”
One thing they all must know now is who they are dealing with in the White House. The mania of George Bush and Dick Cheney is not the sum of all dangers today but it is, after all, a known quantity.
This time, for sure, post-facto regret won’t do.
It’s painful to realize, from time to time, that we’re dealing with an administration for which very little is beyond the pale. Most sensible people would hear about a military confrontation with Iran right now and say, “Well, that’s madness. A president would have to be crazy to even consider it.”
But therein lies the point — we’ve said that before and should no longer be surprised.