I’ll tell you who’s ba-bombing right now: John McCain. Sure, we still have to do a lot of work to prevent him from mounting a comeback, but barring big surprises, the odds are against him.
If Iran stays unbombed to Obama’s inauguration day, it will probably see only diplomatic pressure for the next four years. So any Strangelove in the administration must act fast if he wants to make sure that Iran receives its fair share of timely shock and awe. In this diary, I want to explore whether this is likely to happen in the waning months of the Bush presidency.
Bush is a wounded political animal, but that does not make him less dangerous. He has alarmingly little to lose from a massive bombing campaign of alleged Iranian "nuclear sites" (the scope will quickly widen to include "key points of military infrastructure" like radar stations, bridges, powerplants, dams, roads and people’s homes). US presidents are popular when presiding over a bombing blitz. It looks great on TV, brings out the flags and ribbons, makes us feel tough, seems to justify all those trillions spent on killing machines, and generates few US casualties. All experts now agree that any operation in Iran would be an air-only affair, leaving the subsequent nationbuilding to whomever fills the political vacuum. Whoever that is, they will be anointed "the good guys," and since they "won," the mission will be declared a glorious success. Meanwhile, oil prices may break $200/barrel, Exxon profits will surely shatter old records, and McCain might have a new hand to play against Obama. The ugly consequences of the invasion will not enter the public consciousness until 2009 – after we’ve voted.
All of this is my speculation, and I’m only a careful reader of the news – not an expert.
So here is what genuine foreign policy experts have to say. John Robb thinks the bombing will be initiated by Israel, who are certainly making large-scale preparations for it. There is already a vigorous debate inside Israel about whether to put the plan to action, and according to Robb:
Iran nearly decided that debate with this week's very provocative and well timed missile tests (particularly of Shahab-3, a missile with a range of 1,250 miles). Missile launches are the ultimate in provocation given that Israeli civilians, less than two years ago, suffered a month long barrage of Iranian missiles -- if this had occurred against US civilians, we would have already attacked/invaded. This, in combination with uncertainty of the upcoming US elections (see McCain's 'greenlight' above), makes an attack by Israel on Iran almost certain.
If that happens, it is likewise "almost certain" that the US would be involved in such an attack. But why would Robb call the missile tests "well-timed" if their effect is to provoke Israel into launching a devastating attack? It turns out that Bush is not the only wounded political animal in this game. Ahmeninejad is in the same position: His government is also on its way out of power, to be replaced by saner and more moderate politicians. A hasty attack by Iran’s greatest enemies might be the only way to prevent his collapse, since fear and fire would surely drive people back into his arms.
Famous strategist Thomas Barnett says that all systems are go for war, since nobody with the power to pull the brakes has all that much to lose from the attack.
A detailed Alternet article by Tom Engelhardt paints a slightly more reassuring picture of the situation, arguing that
...it is next to inconceivable that the present riven Israeli government would be politically capable of launching such an attack on Iran on its own, or even in combination with only a faction, no matter how important, in the U.S. government. And such a point is more or less taken for granted by many Israelis (and Iranians). Without a full-scale "green light" from the Bush administration, launching such an attack could be tantamount to long-term political suicide.
However, Engelhardt admits that the Bush administration might just do the job on its own, if the "adults in the room" don’t take the reigns form Cheney and his minions. Optimistically, Engelhardt concludes the following:
Yes, there is a powerful faction in this administration, headed by the Vice President, which has, it seems, saved its last rounds of ammunition for a strike against Iran. The question, of course, is: Are they still capable of creating "their own reality" and imposing it, however briefly, on the planet? Every tick upwards in the price of oil says no. Every day that passes makes an attack on Iran harder to pull off.
I wonder whether this administration really would be so moved by the pain that this country would suffer from a massive oil shock. Paranoid readers of Naomi Klein might suspect that a shock is exactly what they want. In any case, they don’t often let empathy direct their policy. If we are to hang our hopes on a sudden outbreak of responsibility, and on the wisdom of the "adults in the room," shouldn’t we be scared? And if this thing is still being debated, might this not be the best time to shout to Washington that we don’t want another war?