Today's Washington Post reported:
"The Bush administration has begun mobilizing support for a third U.N. resolution that would impose tougher sanctions against Iran, as the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad said yesterday that one of the biggest and still unfolding surprises in Iraq has been the depth of Iran's intervention."
Who's surprised? For months now, certain politicians have been trying to make a case to attack Iran.
In February, White House Spokesperson Tony Snow said ...
that some roadside bombs in Iraq were tied to the Iranian government; Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace said there was no evidence supporting that claim (AP/WaPo-2). A few months later, Pace was asked to resign.
In June, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent, technically not part of Bush's Administration), advocated attacking Iran while on Face the Nation ....
In August, the Bush Administration considered provoking Iran by labeling part of its army a "terrorist" group (WaPo-3).
The public knows that certain politicians have been itching to attack Iran since even before we invaded Iraq. In 2002, when President Bush used the embarrassingly comic-book-ish phrase "Axis of Evil," Iran was one of the three nations to which he referred. (White House)
The Iranian government has repeatedly insisted that it's not arming insurgents in Iraq. Given my lack of military expertise, I don't know what's really happening. Regardless of the facts, whatever they are, I suspect the Bush Administration will have trouble selling the public on a war with Iran for two reasons:
1) We already face a troop shortage (because of Iraq), and
2) The Administration's credibility is weak.
The troop-strength issue is easy to get around: enact a draft. What other way is there to get thousands more soldiers, given that young people aren't lining up to enlist?
The credibility issue won't be easy to overcome, because the Bush Administration has gotten so many things wrong. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, for example, the Administration persuaded the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was tied to 9/11.
We still haven't found the WMDs -- despite our nation's impressive satellite equipment and 4+ years of presence in Iraq.
In September 2003, six months after we invaded Iraq, President Bush told the world there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (BBC). Just two days ago, Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that he didn't think Iraq had been linked to 9/11 (BN-Politics).
Those are two big things to get wrong, and they aren't the only examples. Before we invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Administration promised a short war (USA Today). In May 2003, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" (CNN). Here we are, 4+ years later...
In June 2006, Administration officials said they would cut in half the number of troops in Iraq by December 2007; in June 2007, they envisioned cutting troops in half by late 2008 to 2009 (BN-Politics).
Even harder for the public to swallow, Administration officials said in June 2007 that the Iraq endeavor would likely become a long-term occupation -- like Korea, which has lasted 54 years (Washington Post).
Incidentally, China, Germany and Russia are resisting the Bush Administration's call for United Nations sanctions against Iran. Apparently, their Middle-East experts don't buy the Bush Administration's take on the Iran situation.
If a stock broker keeps giving advice that leads to losses, clients will eventually stop listening to him.
Related Posts:
Two More ex-CIA Officers Say Bush Knew There Were No WMDs (Sep. 2007)
Are we Inching Closer to War with Iran? (Aug. 2007)
Journalists: Think of Iraq, Be Careful with Iran (Jun. 2007)
Iran is the New Iraq, and Lieberman Wants to Bomb it (Jun. 2007)
Comments