Bombing Iran: The Clamor Persists

Listening to the questions asked of Gen. David Petraeus in the Senate Thursday, you might think the U.S. was headed for a new war in the Gulf. Senators from both sides of the aisle spent as much time asking him about Iran as they did about Iraq and Afghanistan. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran's anti-U.S. activities in the region. Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii plaintively asked about the utility of negotiations with Iran. And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."

In theory, the idea of a war with Iran should be a non-starter in a nation whose war-weary public has no appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East, no matter how determined Iran may be to get a nuclear weapon or to arm and train anti-U.S. forces in Iraq. Republican candidates on Capitol Hill, already facing their worst electoral prospects in a generation, are equally disinclined to support military action against Iran. Even Bush's own cabinet officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public.

But those expressing caution and skepticism in Washington are not the only voices the commander in chief of U.S. armed forces is hearing. In Israel, from which President Bush recently returned, one doesn't have to go far to find deep, existential concern. "A military option is not a good option," for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, a senior Israeli official told TIME on the sidelines of one of Bush's meetings, "But there's only one thing worse than that, which is Iran going nuclear." Those outside the Israeli government express even greater urgency. "I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense. On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem." (Emphasis added.) MORE

In an article I posted last week, Bias Against Bush Is Clouding Our Judgment And Posing Its Own Security Risks, I stated that President Bush was in the Middle-East to shore-up support for an attack against Iran - however it was speculation, as I didn't have substantiating evidence when the story was written that this was Bush's primary reason for his recent Middle-East tour; now, it's no longer a matter of speculation, but fact which has now been substantiated by Time Magazine. The statement made by Yossi Kuperwasser is also telling when you examine it in context and note how it was worded; it's obvious he was frustrated, but his language is telling when he said:

"Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem." (Emphasis added.)

"Our" problem??? The context in which this statement was made appears to indicate he wants President Bush to solve Israel's problem with Iran through military action - not diplomacy, and it's more than obvious by the tone of his remarks that he is frustrated that military action has not yet begun, even though "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public."

Further down in the article, as I had speculated, it's now been confirmed that some Arab nations are also jumping on the band-wagon and rather than in public, behind the scenes appear to be aligning themselves with the Bush administration, and oddly, even with Israel as it pertains to reigning-in Iran's military build-up and suspected nuclear aspirations:

Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."

When you dissect Time's article, it is unsettling and may be indicative of future military action against Iran with tacit approval from Arab nations that publicly condemn such action, but in reality, behind the scenes are fearful of Iran's new military and political power in what many Arab nations consider their own backyard, especially as it pertains to Lebanon. Further, in light of several Arab nations who are also fearful of Iran and wish to see their military/political ambitions brought to a halt, it's likely that Israel's involvement in such an attack would be minimal if not absent; given the hostilities between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, I see the possibility that Israel will be busy with military issues on their own door-step rather than being actively involved in an attack on Iran.

Time Magazine speaks of the possibility of an attack on Iran as if it were at the sole discretion of President Bush, which supposedly is not legal, however, based on Congress refusing to stand-up to an administration that is out-of control, apparently whatever Congress and the people want or vote upon has little if no impact on Bush and Cheney's desire to "bring it on" as we likely face a further escalation of a Middle-East that is rapidly reaching the point of being embroiled in a full-scale war. Why is our Congress allowing the Bush administration to flaunt our own laws and refuse to exercise their power of oversight as the entire world watches in horror as Washington readies itself for another war? Are they all cowards, or do Bush and Cheney have a hold on Congress much like J. Edgar Hoover did when he was in power, using information gathered by illegal surveillance to blackmail anyone who stood in his way? Whatever the reason(s) or rationale for refusing to uphold their duty, our Congress will be as much to blame as the President himself, and none of them deserve to be re-elected if we still have a November election.

William Cormier