|
A
Pre-election Attack on Iran Remains a Possibility
President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing
nuclear weapons – and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to
assume that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before
the November election could constitute another failure of
imagination. Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests questions the press
should ask the presidential candidates about what they think the
American response should be to various scenarios in the region –
including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation.
By Leon Hadar
06/02/08 "Nieman" -- -- Since
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was issued at
the end of the last year, much of the reporting and analysis in
the MSM has been promoting the conventional wisdom in
Washington: That a U.S. attack on Iran is now “out.”
The Bush Administration had been
warning that it might use its military power to prevent Iran
from developing nuclear weapons. But with U.S. intelligence
agencies making it clear that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear
weapons, the administration had suddenly lost its casus belli.
Without one, the conventional wisdom suggested, President Bush
would not be able to mobilize American and international support
for an attack on Iran, which in any case would have been a very
costly operation.
And yet, even as this
conventional wisdom was taking hold, the following events also
took place:
1. Reports from Israel during
Bush’s recent to the Middle East suggested that the president
made it clear he didn’t consider the NIE a reliable source of
guidance as far as his policy towards Iran was concerned. It
was not difficult to conclude based on reports quoting “sources”
that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to be
marginalizing the significance of the NIE – recalling a similar
kind of disdain they exhibited towards the conclusion of the
Iraq Study Group. In fact, based on Bush’s behavior then –
increasing the number of U.S. troops contrary to the
recommendation for establishing a timeline for a withdrawal –
members of the press should be considering the possibility that
he is just as likely to act against Iran as he was before.
2. The incident in the
strategic Strait of Hormuz during which Iranian speedboats
buzzed three US navy ships and the Pentagon said that US forces
were “literally” on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats.
That incident should have led journalists to put the scenario in
which the United States strikes Iranian nuclear sites on the
backburner – and instead consider the possibility that a
military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces in the
Persian Gulf could take place as a result of (a) a provocation
by the Iranians (b) a provocation by the Americans or (c) a
misunderstanding.
3. Israeli officials also
dismissed the NIE conclusions. Moreover, the Israelis
expressed concern that Washington seemed to be losing its will
to confront Iran and warned that they might have no choice but
to launch an Osirak-like unilateral strike against Iran’s
nuclear installation. Neither officials in the Bush
Administration nor Republican or Democratic lawmakers in
Congress have challenged Israel’s right to take such a
unilateral action, especially against a regime whose leaders
have disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish state and even made
Holocaust-denying statements. The media should consider the
possibility that the Israelis could take action – and that since
they believe that a Democratic administration would not be quite
as supportive of the Israeli position as the Bush
administration, they could decide to take action against the
Iranians before or after Bush leaves office.
So here are some of the
questions American journalists could be asking the likely
Democratic and Republican presidential nominees:
Q. The recent incident in
the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the danger that provocations by
either side or just misunderstanding could ignite a
Tonkin-Gulf-like military confrontation between the U.S. and
Iran that could degenerate into an all-out war. Do you believe
that President Bush has the legal power to retaliate militarily
against an alleged Iranian provocation without Congressional
authorization?
Q. Are you concerned about a
so-called “surprise” in a form of a
Tonkin-Gulf-in-the-Persian-Gulf that could affect the outcome of
the election? Have you or your aides raised this issue with
officials in the administration or discussed it with your
colleagues in Congress?
Q. Under what circumstances
can President Bush count on your support if he decides to strike
Iran before the election in November? Under what circumstances
would he not have your support?
Q. The Israelis have also
warned that they could take a unilateral action and strike
against Iran’s nuclear sites if the U.S. and the international
community fail to prevent the Iranians from pursuing their
nuclear military program. Should the president demand that
Israel get U.S. permission before deciding to strike Iran’s
nuclear sites? What should the consequences be if Israel attacks
without U.S. permission?
Q. Would you agree to supply
Israel with bunker busting bombs to help it destroy the Iranian
installations?
Q. Can the Israeli government
count on your support if it decides to strike Iran before the
election in November?
Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow at the
Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy, international
trade, the Middle East, and South and East Asia.
E-mail: LeonHadar@aol.com
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
