With its time in office ebbing and the outcome of the war in Iraq so uncertain, the Bush administration may be calculating that drawing Iran into the rhetorical maelstrom diffuses its responsibility and thus will temper history’s judgment. If so, it is a dangerous game which could escalate through misinterpretations or simple accident.
What may be a speed bump in the road is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He had intended to pull another 1,500 troops from Basra, reducing the UK contribution to 3,000. In the press gaggle at the White House on April 17, when the statements and the questions turned to Iran, the focus was on the nuclear question. On this point, both Bush and Brown insist that the resolution will come from diplomacy, sanctions, and the continued activity of the IAEA.
On Iran in Iraq, diplomacy is the course that Brown needs. He has a timeline for leaving Iraq and will, I suspect, oppose any U.S. move that jeopardizes the withdrawal from Basra. Bush wants more NATO troops in Afghanistan – and that is where Brown has the trump card. Unfortunately, that card will be played before January 20, 2009 at 12:00 pm Washington time.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
