Bush and the Consequences of Attacking Iran

Bush's best opportunity for diplomacy with Iran was shortly after 9/11 when Iran had a moderate government and the people offered what seemed to be genuine concerns about the 9/11 attack. Being mostly a Shiite country, Iran has nothing to do with al Qaida or Osama bin Laden. I'm not sure how things stand at this point since Bush has put so little into diplomacy but clearly putting Iran into the axis of evil was not a good first step.

I've been reading a fair number of articles on Iran. For example, here's a post by Michael Levi that I'm not sure is on the right track or not when he argues that many are ignoring:

...the one key Iranian need – assurances against attack – that no clever nuclear energy arrangement can address. This blind-spot seems to be a common problem with a host of recent Iran proposals, like one by Geoff Forden and John Thompson that would provide Iran with booby-trapped centrifuges, and one by Moscow that would enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil. Until we have any prospect of addressing the security question, we’re not going to get anywhere. And recent developments in Iran aren’t driving us in that direction.

Although it was already noted on Donkey Path almost two weeks ago, Americablog suspects Iran is another political game being played by Bush:

George Bush has decided to use Iran as a foil to help his sagging poll numbers and to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections. I'm going to discuss why this is true, and what the Dems should do about it.

Iran is ten years away from developing nukes.

I'll say it again, TEN YEARS away. That would be TEN YEARS at the earliest, according to the best estimate we have. And that's not according to some peacenik liberal, it's according to the best estimate of US intelligence.

Over at Tony Karon's Rootless Cosmopolitan, the argument is made that Iran is the real reason the generals are speaking out against Rumsfeld at this time:

There’s no obvious reason by the logic of the current situation in Iraq, or decisions that may be made shortly, for the generals to choose this moment to launch their offensive. They all believe that the U.S. needs to remain in Iraq as long as it takes to stabilize it in some way (although they may well differ with the administration on what that might involve).

But given what Seymour Hersh’s sources in the military and intelligence communities are telling him about plans for military action against Iran, there’s certainly a clear motive for those seeking to save the U.S. military from further calamitous misadventures to pick a very public battle with the administration over its handling of strategic matters.

Having watched the Iraq debacle take shape in no small part because those from the military establishment in a position to do so (think Colin Powell) failed to publicly challenge what they could see was a disaster in the making, the generals are clearly inclined to act preemptively this time. And given the diverse range of pressures and variables in the Iran equation, they also know that an attack on Iran is not a done deal, and can be prevented.

Over at Donkey Path, we've been looking at the Iran issue for some time beginning back in January. Here are other posts on Donkey Path concerning Iran: here, here, here, and here.

It's difficult to predict the possible consequences of attacking Iran because of a multitude of factors that Bush and his advisers are unlikely to take into consideration. Already, we're seeing high oil prices. The price of dealing with Iran could very well be a much stronger Russia that already is no longer as interested in democracy as it was ten years ago. There are also a series of unintended consequences that may include the rise of new terrorist groups besides al Qaida. By attacking Iran, we could, through an unintended but simple chain of events, be damaging the economies of the very people most likely to buy American products. This is not to minimize the potential problems that Iran poses but we clearly need a national debate on the issue and we need to think through what we're doing and we need to recognize that we have time; a rush to war is not in our interest.

I'll leave with one last thought: some of America's enemies may see advantages for an incompetent and reckless president Bush continuing on his course if it means a weaker America and openings for others. It seems to me that's a dangerous supposition for everyone.