The Blue Voice

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Iran War: Some pessimistic signs

This Boecklin painting is called The Plague but it seems appropriate to symbolize an air attack on Iran in the current circumstances; war, after all, is a plague in itself (even though plague and war have their own separate Horsemen of the Apocalypse)

With a government as obsessed with secrecy as the Cheney-Bush administration, it's very hard for the public to interpret the signals they are sending in foreign policy.

I've been a bit more hopeful the last couple of weeks or so that the administration would have to give up the thought of expanding the Iraq War into Iran, however dear to the heart of Dick Cheney the idea may be. Recent rattlings about a possible overt tilt toward the Shi'a in the Iraqi civil war would seem to require giving up attacking Iran. Attacking Iran would mean, it seems to me, that the US would have to make a hard anti-Shi'a tilt in the Iraqi civil war, because the Shi'a parties that control the current Iraqi government are very pro-Iran.

But then we hear much more distinct signals coming from the Israeli government. And the Cheney-Bush administration has up until now been an unconditional supporter of Israeli foreign policy. Although, given some of the conspiracy theories that always circulate about anything to do with Israel, it's worth noting that even this administration had a serious tiff with Israel over weapons sales to China, a dispute that went virtually uncovered in the US press.

This article reminds us that the rhetoric from Israel's leaders, both governmental and opposition, seems an awful lot like a buildup to war: Olmert's drums of war By Aluf Benn Ha'aretz 11/17/06.

Benn reports:

Therein lies [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert's problem: After he made his bold statements, Netanyahu's warnings that Israel is faced with a situation similar to that faced by European Jewry when threatened by Hitler in 1938, and Shimon Peres' description of Ahmadinejad as "a Farsi-speaking Hitler," the moment of truth for Israel's political leadership is nearing.

The public will justifiably want to know what has been done to prevent the threat to its existence posed by Iran, and to stop the possible mass exodus of Jews from Israel, as described by Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. Domestic pressure calling for military action will intensify.

However, experts on strategy have voiced doubts regarding Israel's ability to carry out an effective aerial attack on Iran's nuclear installations, similar to the raid that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. The experts say there are three prerequisites for such an operation:

* Accurate and updated intelligence on the locations of the targets, some of which are hidden underground and are well defended

* The right kinds of munitions capable of destroying their targets with a high chance of success

* Diplomatic coordination with the Americans. The U.S. forces in the region could become targets of Iranian retaliation, just like Israel, and therefore there is no way that an independent Israeli action can take place without authorization from Bush. Did Olmert get such a go-ahead and is this why he was pleased with his visit to the White House?

I don't feel fatalistic about this. The public repudiation of the Cheney-Bush administration's Iraq policy in the midterm elections is in itself a political restraint against a wider war. And US military leaders have the most proactical of motives for arguing against such an action, given the great strains the Iraq War is already putting on the Army and the vulnerability of US soldiers in Iraq to a major escalation backed by Iran.

But, as we know, the decision-makers in this administration are willing to act on ill-placed faith in disregard of the most serious practical considerations.

posted at 5:15:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |