While we've all been focusing on the Bush administration's past (and present) sins in Iraq, including the DSM, the Conyers hearings, the exposure of lies and deceptions, off in the corner Iran is being lined up to be Bush's next target.
Yes, it's been said before. And on occasion loudly. But lately I've watched Iran drift off our radar screen, while at the same time there's some quiet preparations being made to go after Iran.
Aside from the fact that Bush has long considered Iran to be part of the "axis of evil" (and I am not defending Iran here; they do have a lot to answer for), Bush has a history of using external threats and actions to boost his popularity and distract Americans from catching on to what he is really doing.
More below the fold.
Two items in particular caught my eye today:
1) From H.D.S Greenway in the Boston Globe, writing about Facing Facts in Iraq, comes this observation:
In a report to the council, Gelb was scathing about America efforts to train an Iraqi army. ''If you ask any Iraqi leader, they will tell you these people can't fight. They just aren't trained. And yet we're cranking them out like rabbits." As for plans to train a 10 division Iraqi army by next year, Gelb was scathing. ''It became very apparent to me that these 10 divisions were to fight some future war against Iran. It had nothing to do, nothing to do," with taking Iraq over from the Americans and fighting the insurgents. [Emphasis added]
2) Bush has already, preemptively, denounced Iran's presidential elections, being held today:
Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy.
The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record. Iran's rulers denied more than a thousand people who put themselves forward as candidates, including popular reformers and women who have done so much for the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran.
(For a no doubt unintended irony, go to the link to read the entire statement, in which Bush says that the Iranians deserve leaders who can be held accountable, a free press, and an independent judiciary. But I digress.)
Writing in the National Review (which bills itself as a house organ for the WH), Kenneth Timmerman adds this observation:
Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who became disenchanted with the regime and has been jailed twice for speaking out against clerical rule, has called on Western governments not to recognize any government issued from these elections. If the elections themselves are illegitimate, he told me in Washington last month, anyone who comes to power through them will also be illegitimate.[Emphasis added]
And then of course there is the near-constant saber-rattling over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Personally, I am convinced that Iran would like a nuclear bomb and is being far less than candid in its responses to questions about its nuclear program. Nonetheles, the Bush administration has (with only a few execeptions) has not been helpful to those trying a way to check or monitor Iran's nuclear ambitions that does not involve. Only reluctantly did Bush drop his opposition to a 3rd term for ElBaradei, the IAEA head who has been working to get Iran to open up to inspections, and that because he could not get any support for any alternative. (See, for example, the Washing ton Post story from last week: The Bush administration agreed to drop its opposition if ElBaradei "got tougher on Iran.")
We've also managed to forget the "minor" matter of the permanent bases, perhaps as many as 14, that the US is buidling in Iraq. (Here's a little refresher.) Kerry tried to raise this issue during the election and got nowhere, and the story has been quietly ignored ever since.
To sum up (there's lot's more, but I've given you all enough ammo to start with, I hope, and why should I hog all the fun of digging this up):
- Bush has had Iran in his sights for a long time;
- The US is building permanent bases in Iraq which have no other purpose than as forward staging areas for military action in the region;
- The US is training Iraqis in ways that might be more suitable for an Iranian invasion than for internal peacekeeping and control;
- Bush is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran.
Some other observations, and then I'll yield the floor:
a) Bush would welcome any external action as a distraction from his sinking polls, domestic difficulties, and the increasing embarrasment of the British revelations (add to that an admission today by the British defence minister that the US lied to him about its use of napalm in Iraq);
b) Despite admissions by US military commanders that our armed forces are stretched too thin already, Bush and Rumsfeld still believe they can fight yet another war relying on technology and a few troops. Besides, they have those Iraqis (assuming they can be trusted to go fight yet another useless war with Iran);
c) There have long been rumors that Bush has already signed off on an attack on Iran to take in June or July 2005. For example, Seymour Hersh, who has a long history of being accurate, predicted this back in January. Scott Ritter, former UNSCOP inspector, made more detailed claims in February (see the Kos diary on his report).
Time to start speaking up on this, folks, while we still can.
Update [2005-6-17 20:13:49 by Dan K]:Additional Bush motive: By far the major element in the new Irqai government is Shi'ite, who have religious ties to Iran. And we also know that Iran has been in close contact with members of the new government for quite some time. Now, it's more complicated than it looks, because the Iraqi Shi'ites are Arab and the Iranians are Farsi, so there are some considerable animosities to overcome. But it is clear that Iran intends to exercise substantial infulence in the new, Saddam-less Iraq. Not an outcome that Bush would find desirable.