United States Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke publicly against military intervention against Iran. He acknowledges that tensions exist, particularly between Israel and Iran, but warns against a military offensive designed to Iran's incipient nuclear program.
This is at the culmination of almost a month of posturing on the parts of the United States, Israel, and Iran. Is this the prelude to a third American offensive in the Middle East?
In the article, Admiral Mullen recognizes that the American military is already under a great deal of pressure. The prolonged conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking a toll on our strength and our military might not be prepared for another arena.
Ultimately, the problem with a military assault on Iran would be
extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict.
While he believes that Iran has been a destabilizing influence for Middle East peace, he questions whether anything is to be gained from initiating armed conflict. He also goes so far as to point out that should Israel unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear program that the United States "could not avoid becoming involved."
He strongly advocates the use of financial and diplomatic pressure, even though the White House continues to assert that everything, including military combat, is on the table.
So, what has gotten us to this point?
A little over two weeks ago, diplomats from the EU struck a deal with Iran. In exchange for helping Iran develop a peaceful nuclear program, Iran would not enrich uranium, which could be used to develop nuclear weaponry. The BBC indicated that such a deal would help avoid the need for sanctions or other diplomatic pressures.
Bush, last month, directly sabotaged these same attempts to diplomatically resolve an understanding between Iran and Israel (and the rest of the world) by pre-emptively denouncing out of hand any peace with Iran. This came as a shock to the diplomats who were just concluding their negotiations. It was also surprising considering that the United States wasn't even involved in the negotiations.
Shortly afterwards, Israel conducted what has been described as a rehearsal attack against Iran. In response to this, the Bush White House reminded us
A spokesperson said the US was focused on making diplomacy work with Iran but insisted that all options were still on the table, echoing remarks made recently by President George W Bush.
In response to the Israeli show of force, Iran defiantly responded with words, but no overt military action. In fact, Ahmadinejad began to claim that there was an American plot to kidnap and/or assassinate him. Our government denied any such plan.
And here we are, a little over a week later and the Bush government is still considering the use of military force in Iran. After Bush ruled out a diplomatic solution. After Bush's continued sabre-rattling. After the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has strongly discouraged it.
It seems like Bush has already made up his mind. How soon until Bush (or Israel on our behalf) orders an attack on Iran?
Update: Apparently the US government has come out and said that plans to attack Iraq (because Iran is nearing the "red line" of producing enriched uranium) don't exist and are ill-informed and discourteous. Great. As we all know, when Bush's government says one thing, they nearly always do the opposite. It's not too late to change your response to the poll...