The potentiality of an Iran invasion has been the subject of hot debate on these pages and it is likely to get hotter as we approach November. I admittedly have been one of the more staunch optimists, holding on to the belief that sanity will prevail and pre-emptive military action averted. (If I have to eat these words come six months, it will be the lesser of my worries).
Recent events this past week would appear to have thrown some cold water on Bolton and Cheney's campfire, but skeptics will be quick to argue that Rice's embrace of diplomacy is but a thinly-veiled tack to impart the illusion of going through all of the necessary channels.
So it was with some relief to read Helene Cooper's Week In Review essay, It's Just Like Iraq, Only Different this morning, where she does a great job explaining why she believes the winds have changed for good.
More below the fold:
Ms. Cooper hits the proverbial nail on the head with a concise and convincing argument that we will not be using military force because the landscape is vastly different today than it was in 2002 and as a result, Bush's options are greatly constrained. Let me cite the following:
DOES this sound familiar? The Bush administration, after months of hinting that it is considering military options to rid a certain oil-producing Middle Eastern country whose name begins with "I" of its alleged weapons program, says that it's willing to try diplomacy.
Publicly, American officials say the offer shows the United States is keen to work with other countries diplomatically to resolve the crisis. But it soon starts to look as if the public diplomacy is just a way for American officials to say they have exhausted all options and tried to play nice. In reality, American officials had already begun planning for war.
That was the chain of events playing out on Sept. 12, 2002, when President Bush, in a speech to the United Nations, committed himself to seeking an international consensus on confronting Saddam Hussein. "My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge," Mr. Bush said, calming fears that the United States would bypass the United Nations. As it turned out, that's exactly what Washington did six months later when it went to war in Iraq without the United Nations behind it.
For a lot of critics of President Bush's handling of Saddam Hussein, the announcement Wednesday that the United States is willing to join Europeans in talks with Iran over its nuclear program, provided Tehran suspends its uranium activities, was like a recurring dream:
Was the administration again using public diplomacy for political cover while preparing to use military force?
This time, all signs say no.
Rice's concession has taken a lot of people by surprise, and as a result, pundits and analysts and engaged citizens like you and I have been pontificating out-loud whether this move is a feint or a genuine shift in policy direction. The rhetorical build-up towards war in 2002 remains fresh in our minds, so it is easy to draw similarities and expect more of the same this time around. But those who are quick to yell "fire" should take a deep breath and scan the horizon and take note of the red flags that exist EVERYWHERE for this administration - flags that did not exist in 2002. Cooper does a neat job of bringing today's worldview into perspective:
The world of June 2006 is fundamentally different from that of September 2002, just one year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Back then, the United States was fresh from toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, in a war viewed sympathetically at home and in many other countries.
And while a connection between the Sept. 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein was never proved, there was widespread belief that the Bush administration was correct in its determination that Mr. Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. After a wave of anthrax attacks in the United States, the idea of ridding Iraq of chemical and biological weapons seemed a noble one. And President Bush's domestic approval rating was at 69 percent.
Fast forward to today. Thanks to the botched intelligence on Iraq's weapons program, it would be harder to rally a coalition of the willing, let alone the United Nations, for military strikes against Iran.
American troops are stretched, and polls show that most Americans think the war in Iraq is going badly.
Iran has vastly different options and resources than Iraq did. If attacked, it could retaliate in Iraq, for instance, given its close ties to Shiites who now hold power there.
Some skeptics argue that Iran poses a unique threat because it has openly demonstrated a desire to acquire the technological know-how and engineering to produce weapons grade enriched uranium, therefore increasing the likelihood of an invasion (Chris Matthews and a guest the other night were pegging the chance at 80 percent that we would wake up one morning to discover that we have commenced airstrikes - still searching transcripts). But I disagree with that notion as Cooper does here:
But even if the military option isn't palatable to the United States and its allies now, neither is the idea of living with an Iran with nuclear weapons. If Iran gets closer to acquiring -- or acquires -- a bomb, policy makers could one day be tempted to think that a military clash is worth risking.
But that point hasn't been reached yet.
Emphasis mine.
Keeping in mind that this administration operates under the strict tenet of politics and party first, one can make the case that Bush needs this war. He needs it to rattle the populace before election day. He needs to reaffirm the canard that our security is best gauranteed under single party (read: GOP) rule. Problem is, he has five months and a few days to convince the world that Iran is so close to acquiring a bomb that immediate military action is necessary. The world agrees that in the face of evidence to the contrary, there is absolutely no argument for such expedient military action. While intelligence sources may differ on the timeline (3-10 years), most of the community agree that Iran will not be a member of the nuclear club anytime soon. So what does that add up to? Not a whole lot for the war drummers.
"The U.S. doesn't have the stomach for military invasion, and the world community is not going to stand by this time," said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University.
James B. Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser under President Clinton, said that this time Bush administration officials "recognize they don't have a lot of unilateral options."
Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Milani praised the administration move toward Iran, saying it puts the United States in a good position no matter how Iran responds.
Iran says its uranium enrichment activity is peaceful, and it is technically correct in saying that such activity is allowed under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Last week, Iranian officials reiterated that their nuclear program is a sovereignty issue.
The initiative agreed to late Thursday by the United States and five major powers offers incentives if Iran suspends its pursuit of nuclear activities. But even if Iran declines the administration's offer, the United States, by making it, has broken the Security Council impasse and pushed the United Nations closer to coercive measures.
Such an outcome might not surprise the Americans, since there is at least one similarity to the events leading up to the Iraq war: American officials start out pessimistic about what can come from talks with a deceptive and mendacious adversary.
But even if this initiative proves to be a feint that only shows up the Iranians' bad faith, instead of resolving the crisis, the consequences would presumably be very different than they were with Iraq: sanctions by a united group of allies this time, rather than a war that splits American alliances.
So let's review:
2002 - Bush at 69 percent, 9/11 still fresh in everyone's minds, wmd intelligence relatively short on scrutiny, and an untested but rosy-colored neocon agenda openly embraced.
2006 - Bush at 32 percent, no wmd's, exposed 'misleading' statements made to sell Iraq, exposed failure of the neocon's agenda, Iraq war going very, very badly, 2500 dead US soldiers, ever-expanding coalition of the 'unwilling', total loss of credibility with our partners, $72 oil, $3 gasoline, $450 billion spent to date in Iraq and Afganistan.
It is easy to remain skeptical. Few believe this administration could ever develop the capacity to act in a sane and rational manner. I understand and appreciate that sentiment as equally as the next person. But we must not ignore the fact that the climate has changed, and changed dramatically.
Iran is a political tool with which certain members of this administration believe will help cement their grip on power. But making a case for an invasion, where so clearly none exists, will be a task tantamount to reversing history. This administration is severely handicapped and they KNOW IT. While I have a hard time displaying any respect toward Rice, I am tempted to think she may actually have a good hold on the president's ear. If she were clever enough, she may have even communicated to him that a diplomatically negotiated solution to this 'crisis' might indeed be the legacy booster he so desperately, desperately needs.
Bolton's little drum session on Fox News the other day probably sent shivvers down a number of viewers' backs. But I thought it looked desperate. To me, it looked like the actions of an individual whose audience and influence are quickly dwindling. Bolton has every reason to act in such a manner, a shift in policy is a threat not only to his agenda, but to his entire career.