Is Iran the New Iraq: i.e., Does Bush Plan to Attack?

by Deb Cupples |   By now, we Americans know what it looks like when a president makes a case (however questionable) for war.  It's been obvious for at least the last year that the Bush Administration has been interested in taking some sort of military action against Iran. 

The interest has been there for years.  In 2002, President Bush used the embarrassingly comic-book-ish phrase "Axis of Evil" when talking about Iran. (White House)  It doesn't get much clearer than that.  Last year, Bush Administration officials and allies (e.g., Sen. Joe Lieberman) publicly talked of an attack against Iran.  And yet, yesterday, the Bush Administration publicly denied any interest in attacking that nation.  The Jerusalem Post reports:

"The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon 'through peaceful diplomatic means.'

"Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
 

"The official reportedly went on to say that 'the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice' was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic for the time being.

"The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack." (Jerusalem Post)

It's so hard to know what's really happening, given the Bush Administration's history of hiding, twisting, and possibly manufacturing evidence to support whatever claims it feels like making.  Evidence suggests that Adminsitration officials have used such tactics regarding Iran.

The most recent example I can think of is the dueling videos from the January 2008 gun-boat incident.  Long story short: a few little Iranian boats were accused of threatening to blow up a U.S. naval destroyer.  The U.S. Navy released a video that was edited in such a way as to support the accusation.  The Iranian government released a different video, which didn't support the  accusation. 

Despite our nation's technological ability to discover whether either video had been tampered with, the story simply died.  At one point, U.S. officials said that the threats might have come from a prankster who is well known for heckling on military radio channels. (ABC News)

And then there's the long-made claims that Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities and poses an immediate threat to our nation.  A report from U.S. intelligence sources, released in 2007, suggested that Iran had dropped its nuclear-weapons program in 2003. (CNN)

When the Bush Administration talks, how are we ordinary folks supposed to know what to believe?  Memeorandum has commentary.

Related B-N Politics Posts:

* Navy Suspects Prankster (Not Iranians) Threatened Destroyer

* Dueling Videos Emerge from U.S.-Iran Boat Incident

* Bush's Disturbing Rhetoric: Iran as a "Nuclear Threat"?

* Bush Confuses Public about Iran and NIE

* Is Iran the Next Iraq, and Will a Draft Follow?

* Journalists: Think of Iraq, Be Careful with Iran

*