The Next Gulf of Tonkin
(update below)
As paranoid as it sounds, I find myself thinking exactly what Josh Marshall's thinking. It seems like the Bush administration is trying to provoke some sort of conflict with Iran.
As things stand now, there's no way the Bush administration could convince more than a handful of members of Congress to vote in favor of a force resolution against Iran. And I doubt that even this White House has the stones to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran in the absence of such a resolution. But what if Iran were to strike first? Certainly no one could blame the president for responding, right? The country might even rally around him.
As crazy as it sounds, that may well be what the White House is thinking. They may actually be trying to provoke such an event. I certainly hope I'm just being paranoid, but it's hard not to notice that the White House's rhetoric has ratcheted up dramatically of late, as have its actions in Iraq. Bush has mentioned Iran in nearly every speech and has made clear that he intends to take action to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. Iran is said to be funding and training Iraqis, though the basis for these allegations has not been provided and independent reporting has called into question the extent of this supposed influence.
The U.S. has raided an Iranian embassy and arrested men it claims are Iranian agents (but who Iran claims are diplomats). And now, anonymous officials are claiming that the "sophistication" of a recent attack on U.S. forces in Southern Iraq suggests Iranian involvement, whatever that means. Now the AP has filed this ominous report:
That seems about right to me. I'd love to be proved wrong, but Bush gives every appearance of being someone obsessed with how future historians will view his presidency. He knows that nothing is likely to improve the way people view him in the short term, but wants to do something bold, something he thinks his successors won't have the courage to do. And that's a recipe for reckless action.
I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that another Gulf of Tonkin type incident is just around the corner.
UPDATE: At least I'm not alone. Here's the testimony of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:
As to the suggestion in the comments below that Iran is clearly fighting a "proxy war" with the U.S. in Iraq, I say, where's the evidence? The Los Angeles Times reported the following this morning:
Despite the administration's ramped up rhetoric, almost no evidence has been provided of Iranian meddling in Iraq. There have been anecdotal reports of Iranian guns and munitions being found in Iraq, but what exactly does that prove? Most of the al Qaeda members blowing themselves up in Iraq are Saudi nationals. Does that mean Saudi Arabia is waging a proxy war against us in Iraq? The IRA was funded primarily by Americans. Does that mean the U.S. was waging a proxy war on Britain? Of course not. Given that Iran and Iraq are neighboring countries, it would be shocking if Iraq's Shiite militants didn't receive some funding and support from Iranian Shiites across the border. But that doesn't necessary mean that the Iranian government is behind such support, and that's what matters. It's time for the Bush administration to put up or shut up on this issue.
As paranoid as it sounds, I find myself thinking exactly what Josh Marshall's thinking. It seems like the Bush administration is trying to provoke some sort of conflict with Iran.
As things stand now, there's no way the Bush administration could convince more than a handful of members of Congress to vote in favor of a force resolution against Iran. And I doubt that even this White House has the stones to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran in the absence of such a resolution. But what if Iran were to strike first? Certainly no one could blame the president for responding, right? The country might even rally around him.
As crazy as it sounds, that may well be what the White House is thinking. They may actually be trying to provoke such an event. I certainly hope I'm just being paranoid, but it's hard not to notice that the White House's rhetoric has ratcheted up dramatically of late, as have its actions in Iraq. Bush has mentioned Iran in nearly every speech and has made clear that he intends to take action to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. Iran is said to be funding and training Iraqis, though the basis for these allegations has not been provided and independent reporting has called into question the extent of this supposed influence.
The U.S. has raided an Iranian embassy and arrested men it claims are Iranian agents (but who Iran claims are diplomats). And now, anonymous officials are claiming that the "sophistication" of a recent attack on U.S. forces in Southern Iraq suggests Iranian involvement, whatever that means. Now the AP has filed this ominous report:
Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives inWhy would we be seeking conflict when conflict is absolutely the last thing the U.S. needs right now? Well, as Josh explains:
Iraq and Lebanon.
The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn. . . .
As the rhetoric grows more strident, a U.S. military official in the Gulf likened the U.S.-Iran standoff to the buildup in hostility in Europe before World War I, when the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne triggered a tragic war that engulfed a continent.
"A mistake could be made and you could end up in something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it's August 1914 all over again," the U.S. officer said on condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the issue. "I really believe neither side wants a fight.". . .
In Tehran, political analyst Hermidas Bavand said U.S. force increases were leading many Iranians to believe Washington is looking to pick a fight.
"It's an extremely dangerous situation," Bavand said. "I don't think Tehran wants war under any circumstances. But there might be an accidental event that could escalate into a large confrontation."
I've said this before. But perhaps it seems like hyperbole. So I'll say it again. The president's interests are now radically disjoined from the country's. We can handle a setback like Iraq. It really is a big disaster. But America will certainly survive it. President Bush -- in the sense of his legacy and historical record -- won't. It's all Iraq for him. And Iraq is all disaster. So, from his perspective (that is to say, through the prism of his interests rather than the country's -- which he probably can't separate) reckless gambits aimed at breaking out of this ever-tightening box make sense.
That seems about right to me. I'd love to be proved wrong, but Bush gives every appearance of being someone obsessed with how future historians will view his presidency. He knows that nothing is likely to improve the way people view him in the short term, but wants to do something bold, something he thinks his successors won't have the courage to do. And that's a recipe for reckless action.
I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that another Gulf of Tonkin type incident is just around the corner.
UPDATE: At least I'm not alone. Here's the testimony of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
As to the suggestion in the comments below that Iran is clearly fighting a "proxy war" with the U.S. in Iraq, I say, where's the evidence? The Los Angeles Times reported the following this morning:
The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans.
Despite the administration's ramped up rhetoric, almost no evidence has been provided of Iranian meddling in Iraq. There have been anecdotal reports of Iranian guns and munitions being found in Iraq, but what exactly does that prove? Most of the al Qaeda members blowing themselves up in Iraq are Saudi nationals. Does that mean Saudi Arabia is waging a proxy war against us in Iraq? The IRA was funded primarily by Americans. Does that mean the U.S. was waging a proxy war on Britain? Of course not. Given that Iran and Iraq are neighboring countries, it would be shocking if Iraq's Shiite militants didn't receive some funding and support from Iranian Shiites across the border. But that doesn't necessary mean that the Iranian government is behind such support, and that's what matters. It's time for the Bush administration to put up or shut up on this issue.
5 Comments:
You make it sound like Iran is doing nothing wrong.
I know that there's sound reason to doubt the government's intelligence, but there really have been too many obvious signs of Iranian involvement. Serial numbers on weapons showing up in Iraq and other stuff.
If we have a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, it won't be because Iran was bullied into responding to us. They've been fighting the beginnings of a proxy war in Iraq, and President Bush is finally calling them on it.
Anonymous, I haven't seen anything that would warrant a war with Iran. Serial numbers on guns? Are you kidding? What about serial numbers of our weapons located in just about every country on earth? Why not Pakistan, which is known to harbor Al-Qaeda camps, and even the big-wig himself?
What 'other stuff' are you referring to? If there were 'other stuff' of such import, I'd imagine the Administration would be shouting it from the rooftops--but they're not (and don't tell me that such evidence would 'compromise on-going intelligence' because that line has been used too much and just doesn't work anymore).
I'm afraid, sir, that you are buying into yet another series of statements by this Administration of 'proof' or 'circumstance' that got us into Iraq in the first place. Are you purposefully blinded, or simply obtuse? I mean that not as insults, but as honest questions. What exactly do you need to see/hear before you take anything that this Administration says with the largest grain of salt that would fit in your gullet? I have recent history on my side on this--what do you have?
@ Anonymous:
Forgetting for a moment the reliability of this administration and even accepting as true their "proxy war" claims... we cannot afford to make war with Iran.
Full stop.
We cannot afford it in terms of Iraq, oil production, the affect on the rest of the Muslim world and Israel, our European allies... none of it. It simply can not and should not happen.
I wish the press and people in general would understand this simple point. If we've learned nothing else from the Iraq experience we must internalize this: just because we would like to make a war, it does not mean that making war is in our ultimate interests.
NPR came on as my alarm a couple days ago and I heard two tragic news stories. First, Molly Ivins dead at 62. Second, Undersecretary Burns once again ratcheting up the war rhetoric. Having kept up with blogs like Unclaimed Territory and Digby (and you too, A.L.) I heard this for what it was, yet another step towards the likely real reason behind the surge.
What I found even more tragic than this news was the fact that so few news outlets seem to recognize this war buildup for what it is. As Digby described it, it's like watching an event unfold from underwater.
As far as I'm concerned most of you have your heads in the sand. If you remember Iran was the state that attacked an American Embassy, held the occupants prisoner for over a year, taught children as young as 11 or 12 years old to fight Iraquis in that war and used these same kids as cannon fodder. What's the matter with all of you? Don't you think Iran is capable of supporting anyone they like? Let's see what happens when they get a nuke. Atomic energy for power? You must be kidding, they have enough oil to produce electricity for decades.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home