Will Bush Attack Iran Before Leaving Office?

[magerette]

Another extremely scary rumor from the international rumor mill, this one supposedly originating with a "top official" with the Israeli government privy to the inside view of Bush's recent trip to Israel. Here's a bit of the article in the Jerusalem Post:

...The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

The official reportedly went on to say that "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic for the time being.

The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack...

Frankly, I'm speechless. Any thoughts on a) the accuracy of the statement that Bush is planning attacks, and b) the likelihood of it actually happening?

 

[JemyM]

Do not worry, I am sure that the next president will be able to handle that just fine:
McCain: Bomb Bomb Iran

 

[blatantninja]

I'd say that short of Iran sending their army (not covertly) into Iraq, attacking Israel, or instigating a terrorist attack on us that we directly trace back to them, the chances of us attacking Iran are less than none.

Now, if we'd have stabilized Iraq a year or two ago, I could have seen us doing it. But right now, we simply do not have the military personnel for it and won't unless we instigate a draft, and even then they wouldn't be ready before January.

It ain't happening.

 

[magerette]

I tend to agree(hopefully not just out of wishful thinking.) I don't doubt that such a remark may have been made to curry some favor or reassure Israel, but I just can't see how it would be financially or physically possible, over and above the ethics of the situation.

 

[dteowner]

Sounds like crap to me. About the only avenue I see for military action will be if Iran is building a uranium enrichment facility. Then we'd send in a couple bombers to make it go away (similar to Israel's visit to Syria a while back). I see exactly zero chance of ground troop involvement because I don't see Iran taking any steps similar to what BN spelled out above.

 

[Squeek]

Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's smart enough not to buy into the nonsense that often passes for wisdom and knowledge in Iran. He's more likely to bomb them before he reconsiders his understanding of them.

That's a scary thought. So is the idea that there are Americans anxious for that to happen, like the guy who posed that question to McCain, which was crazy. What wasn't crazy was his understanding of where things are headed.

The folks over in Iran who are acting nuts and saying nutty things need to stop acting and sounding like they're insane. That's the right first step. The ones who are acting the same way over here in America should do that too, of course.

But the ball's in Iran's court, IMO. They need to be the first ones to shut up and start playing like adults.

 

[Prime Junta]

Very unlikely.

 

[Corwin]

I tend to agree(hopefully not just out of wishful thinking.) I don't doubt that such a remark may have been made to curry some favor or reassure Israel, but I just can't see how it would be financially or physically possible, over and above the ethics of the situation.

While I doubt it will happen, I'm not clear how you can bring ETHICS into the mix!! This is US POLITICS after all!!

 

[magerette]

I'm always dragging things off topic.

 

[V7]

I'm sure they've got filing cabinets full of plans and I suspect they'd be able to have a party and a 'mission accomplished' in three months if they really wanted what would happen after that hardly bares thinking about. Lets hope they learned something from Iraq.

As for sounding crazy, put yourself in an Iranian's shoes for a moment and have a think about how America sounds when they start talking about the 'axis of evil', crusades and singing bomb Iran to beach boys tunes... and then consider that Iraq is next to Iran and Iran hasn't invaded Mexico or Canada in recent memory.

 

[magerette]

More grist to the rumor mill:
Bush to attack Iran by August

The original article in Asia Times is certainly beating the drum on this pretty hard, and has what appears to my eyes a bit of an anti-American slant, but I must admit I find all this somewhat plausible given our president, and very disquieting:

The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Does the reporting here sound accurate to those more knowledgeable or is it just clabbered-together gossip and fear-mongering?

 

[V7]

Reports of rumours... I won't be holding my breath just yet. It may be that the administration is floating balloons to try and gage what sort of reaction they'd get.

 

[Prime Junta]

I still say this is extremely unlikely. I mean sure, they're stupid, but are they really *that* stupid? That's like throwing rocks at the windows of a Hell's Angels chapter house. It won't hurt them; it'll just piss them off.

 

[JemyM]

I still say this is extremely unlikely. I mean sure, they're stupid, but are they really *that* stupid? That's like throwing rocks at the windows of a Hell's Angels chapter house. It won't hurt them; it'll just piss them off.

Within me, the jury is not in on the "are they *that* stupid" part. The US have really gone down during the last 10-15 years. Many of the guys the CIA used to refer to as the "crazies" are now in government. I have to confess that the US is scaring the crap out of me, far more than any terrorist organization. The US have yet to attack a democracy, but people with great power over there have really said and made things that makes me really worried.

 

[Dyne]

In the current economic, political and military situation, it would be utter madness.
Even if you think Bush and his cabinet are nuts, I'd like to think there're enough intelligence and military officers with enough sense to point out how silly it would be.
That said, all great empires come to the historic point of letting their reach extend beyond their grasp.

 

[magerette]

I *know* Bush is nuts(relatively speaking.) That's why I get worried about these things. Also, we've seen a bit more aggression out of Bush in the last few weeks--baiting Obama in Israel, sending curt memos to MSNBC for 'editing' his interview with Richard Engel in a way which didn't please His Autocracy, and through McCain. continuing the Iran saber rattling. Then McCain's latest quote "I will never surrender in Iraq," is all of a piece with the above.

However, it is supremely idiotic, and would, unlike the initial stages of the Iraq invasion, have to be conducted under the full glare of a hostile press and country, so hopefully even if true this is just a bunch of angst on the part of our lame duck pres and wiser heads will prevail.


Edit: Okay, it's being officially denied. If they deny it, surely they can't come back and do it later.

 

[Corwin]

...er, since when does a pre-denial mean anything?? It wouldn't be the first time!!

 

[Zaleukos]

It seems unlikely, if for no other reason than so many US assets already being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I suspect this is just a case of leaking plans that do exist, but war plans tend to exist for a lot of scenarios, it doesnt necessarily mean the plan is going to be put into practice. Heck, Britain and the US had plans for war against each other as late as in the 1920s, only a few years after fighting a world war on the same side...

 

[Prime Junta]

Yup. I'm reasonably certain that the Pentagon has a contingency plan for invading Canada in some drawer somewhere. Not to mention Mexico. Also for defending against an attempted Canadian (or Mexican) invasion.

 

[mudsling3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8rZxa5cnVk

If Bush wont' do, one of these 3 Stooges will.