The current round of saber rattling aimed at Iran is just part of a long, all too familiar, crescendo. Once again the administration is building a case for war. And once again we find Dick Cheney at odds with more moderate elements of the administration. It is a game that Cheney plays well. In the past he could count on his old friend Don Rumsfeld to counter a moderate like Colin Powell. If this were a chess game, Powell and Rumsfeld were the queens on the board, and their fall now leaves lesser pieces like bishops Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates to jockey with Cheney for control of the center of the board. But if your analysis of the game is limited to these major pieces, you underestimate Cheney. His long service in government dating back to the Nixon administration has left him with long tentacles that reach deep into the knights, rooks and pawns of the game.
So who are Cheney’s pawns in the game now? Take a careful look at military. It seems that Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno is Cheney’s lead pawn. Repeatedly, it has been Odierno who has marched out captured Iranian-made arms that he says are being used against US troops in Iraq. And Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner has made the more tenuous charge that Iranian Quds forces have planned attacks against US forces. It is Cheney’s skillful use of these lesser pieces that help him control the center of the board and lend credence (if I can call it that) to his call for air strikes inside Iran. But notice who is not playing Cheney’s game.
Gen. David Petraeus is a knight on this chess board, a knight who has almost been elevated to the status of a bishop by Republican Senators desperate for a hero capable of saving their careers. In his Senate confirmation hearings, Petraeus was careful to state that he thought that the Iranian matter could be contained by operating within the borders of Iraq, and not by attacking Quds forces in Iran. In this he has the backing of his boss, Secretary Gates. And he has pointedly refused to issue the press releases implicating Iran in the Iraq war. You see, Petraeus is himself a pretty good chess player.
Cheney’s inherent flaw in the game is that he never plans his moves far enough into the future. Having planned to invade Iraq, he never planned on how to secure the peace. Having decided to fire the Iraqi army, he never thought that they might become an insurgency. Having formed a coalition government, he never thought that part of it might be a police force dominated by Moqtada al-Sadr. And as he plans to attack Iran, he seems to have never thought about what consequences could flow from that decision.
Let’s be the better chess player. Let’s consider what comes next, after an air strike against Quds training camps near Tehran. The first, most obvious consequence is that the border that separates the American and Iranian militaries disappears, in both directions. Once the border disappears, the Iranians must strike back in any way left to them. We have to assume that American air strikes will be aimed at quickly destroying Iranian air and naval capabilities. To fail to do so would leave our troops in Kuwait and Dubai vulnerable to attack, and make shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf impassible. And if we know anything about Dick Cheney, it is that he will do anything to keep Saudi and Kuwaiti oil flowing. That can leave the Iranian government with only one option: to invade Iraq to attack the American army there.
Now that alone might be enough to give Petraeus and Gates cause for alarm. But consider also what it does to the government of Nouri al-Maliki. Much of his ruling coalition receives support from Tehran. In an open conflict between the United States and Iran, where Iraq becomes the primary battleground, Maliki would have no choice but to demand that the US withdraw from Iraq immediately. And where does that leave Cheney? Without support from the Iraqi government, Cheney’s war with Iran turns Kuwait into the battlefield.
The bottom line is that any war with Iran must lead inevitably into a war over the rich oilfields of Southern Iraq, Southern Iran, Kuwait and presumably Saudi Arabia. The escalation of the conflict is perfectly predictable. Perhaps Dick Cheney thinks that is a war we can win. Perhaps it is not. The real question is whether it is a war we have to fight at all, or would we be better off finding an alternative to war.
When Gen. Petraeus makes his report to Congress and the nation next month, he will be asked that question. This is the time for decisions, not just about Iraq, but also about Iran. Petraeus can go a long way toward undermining Cheney’s chess board at that time, if he has the courage and intellectual honesty to do so. My guess is that he does. After all, he would be the one charged with fighting the war with Iran.