The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
There is a nasty, internal debate going on within the Bush White House as to whether or not the U.S. should attack Iran. In one sense, that is not surprising, considering that the debate falls down along the ideological battle lines that have been drawn between the realpolitiks and the PNAC neocons. It is even more interesting that the Guardian has identified the leaders between the two ideological movements here, with the realpolitiks being led by Gates and Rice, while the neocons are led by Cheney. But this is old news.
What is scary here is how the administration's thinking is shifting over towards a military confrontation with Iran--a move that Cheney advocates. This Bush administration is under a lot of political pressure, coming from a variety of sources. There is the administration's fight with Congress over the U.S. attorney firings, Scooter Libby's commutation, the intelligence failures, Harriet Miers, and the withdrawal timetables of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Bush administration has lost the PR-war regarding Iraq. The Iraqi government has failed to meet the political benchmarks set for determining the Bush administration's success in the war. Al Qaeda has regained its pre-September 11th strength. And a majority of the American public not only believe that the U.S. war in Iraq has been a mistake, but they've abandoned President Bush to a below 30 percent job approval rating. This is an administration that has retreated into a bunker mentality as it lashes out to blame everyone for its own mistakes. What is scary here is that President Bush may just be thinking that a U.S. attack against Iran would allow the White House to institute a "rally-around-the-flag" PR-theme in hopes of increasing President Bush's job approval ratings, and continuing the Bush war in Iraq until after President Bush leaves office in January 2009. So there is a PR factor here with the Bush administration's consideration of going to war with Iran.
There is also a time factor here. Vice President Cheney knows he has got less than 18 months to continue the PNAC neocon's dream of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. If Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran, then now is the time--both before 2008 presidential elections, and before a new president takes office. Consider this quote from the Guardian:
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.
Cheney knows that a Democratic president will not attack Iran, while the U.S. is still entangled in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican president is probably a little more nuanced. While a Republican president will certainly continue the U.S. war in Iraq, such a president may end up purging the executive branch of the PNAC neocons who have gotten the U.S. into the Iraq mess in the first place. The PNAC influence in the executive branch may have been somewhat diminished, but it still has a great deal of power within the hands of the vice president. So time is not on Dick Cheney's side here. If he is able to sway President Bush's thinking towards a military confrontation against Iran, I fear that the best time to attack Iran will be before this year is out. The key factor here is the 2008 presidential elections. A U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities will most likely be air strikes conducted over several days. If President Bush orders a U.S. attack against Iran sometime in 2008, then such an attack becomes an election year issue that could cause even more problems against the Republicans--the air strikes may fail at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran may retaliate by attacking U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. There may be increased terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. There may also be domestic outrage and anger against the administration by a majority of Americans who oppose such an attack. Right now, the issue of an American attack against Iran is a speculative issue. It becomes a whole new ballgame once President Bush orders the attack against Iran.
If President Bush orders an attack against Iran before 2008, there will certainly be political, economic and military consequences that both the Bush administration and the Republican Party would have to endure. But the thinking here would be that these are short-term consequences, just as the U.S. air strikes against Iran would take place over a few days. Americans may be outraged, but the Bush administration may be hoping that the outrage would subside as the White House PR-machine starts spinning that this is only a one-time U.S. attack, and that the Pentagon does not have any plans for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran, or any invasion of Iran. The outrage would be short-term and not stay current through the 2008 election season--the U.S. attack against Iran is done now, it is time to move on. And remember the PR-factor here where the Bush administration may also be wishing that a U.S. attack against Iran would create another rally-around-the-flag-and-president mood within the country to support the president, thus providing an uptick in the president's job approval ratings, and greater approval for the GOP presidential candidates.
Now this is all speculation here, and I could be completely wrong in my analysis. It is difficult to make sense of the internal debates taking place within the Bush White House--especially since this administration refuses to divulge anything except their own PR-talking points. What this Guardian story reveals is that there is an internal war taking place within the Bush White House as to whether the Bush administration will attack Iran. And at this point, Vice President Cheney has President Bush's ear towards provoking a military showdown with Iran. I don't believe that President Bush has signed the order for the U.S. to conduct air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But I'm guessing that the order is sitting in the president's desk drawer, just waiting for the president's signature.
No comments:
Post a Comment