Letters to the Editor
-
GOP's Iran option is still on the table
When the drumbeats to war were loud and clear some months ago, three basic ways for the United States to enter a war with Iran were being actively discussed. Although one is now off the table, the other two are not undermined by the new NIE.
The first and newly discredited approach was to make the case that Iran was a menacing nation intent on obtaining nuclear weapons with the intention of deploying them against US or Israeli interests. The rationale has been effectively silenced within the US, despite the efforts of the likes of John Bolton to mitigate the impact of the report.
The second approach was to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and attack Iran's military for arming and assisting their Shia counterparts fighting against Sunnis in Iraq, destabilizing and complicating the US military mission. This declaration was initiated through the Kyl-Lieberman bill, and marked the first time the US government declared the army of a nation to be a terrorist organization, a novel position indeed. A significant event in Iraq that killed dozens of US troops that was later "traced" back to Iran could easily be translated into military strikes by the US at the time of the administrations choosing.
In my view, a third approach remains the most plausible method of US entry into war with Iran, and some signs point to this approach as the one that may be favored by the administration's neoconservative actors. In this scenario, Israel attacks specific targets within Iran due to stated intelligence findings or some other provocation seen a threat to their national security. Iran then retaliates against Israel in kind, and the United States enters and escalates the conflict under the guise of its enduring security commitment to Israel. This would require no further congressional authorization in the eyes of Bush, and would almost certainly find substantial political backing by numerous interests in the US were it to happen. Such a scenario could literally occur overnight at the moment Israel and US governments decide.
There are signs that with the release of the NIE that Israel immediately began to promote this third option. From early criticism of the NIE as flawed and politically motivated to the release and reiteration of alarming Israeli intelligence concerns on Iran's nuclear armament intentions, Israel has begun to make a case for independent action. Olmert recently directed that scenarios be prepared for "the day after" Iran has nuclear weapons, the prospect of which may contrast unfavorably with a pre-emptive first strike on Iran. Just today the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen was in Israel for high level talks, the first visit by a Chairman in years.
If a war is to be avoided between now and January 2009, it will be because of pressure by Russia and China on the issue, both of whom have been a useful check on this administration in regards to Iran. All other factors, from Israel's political influence in the US, neoconservative doctrine and their power within the executive, and the interests and alignment of the President with the evangelical Christian end times prophecy types drive to the conclusion that little within the US would stop such a conflict should Israel be willing to initiate it.