“Spengler” is an anonymous writer for Asia Times who appears to have been weirdly prescient about Bush’s actions so far:
One hears not an encouraging word about US President George W Bush these days, even from Republican loyalists. Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.
Two years ago I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president but live to regret it. Iraq’s internal collapse and the president’s poll numbers bear my forecast out. But Bush’s Republicans will triumph in next November’s congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry in 2004. Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.
One factoid encapsulates Bush’s opportunity: in a February 14 CNN/Gallup poll, 80 percent of respondents said they believed that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists; 59 percent said Iran might use nuclear weapons against the United States. A slight majority of those polled, to be sure, did not wish to use military action against Iran, but that should be interpreted as “not yet”, for two-thirds said they worried that the US would not do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked. President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little.
IF this happens, that is a big IF, I honestly think that there is a big chance it would backfire. I think the last thing Americans want is ANOTHER war.
At least that is what I think.
I’m not sure I agree with your analysis here, Jon. While I agree Bush may be desperate enough to attack Iran, especially with nukes (since only one other President has ever ordered a nuclear strike it’s a pretty exclusive club, much more so than “just” being president), I’m am not sure that congress and the military will cooperate.
Our military is broken and Iran isn’t a chickenshit, relatively “unarmed” country lacking the ability to hurt us like Iraq. There was NEVER any threat to America from Iraq; they were a convenient foil for us to play bully without taking serious losses.
Iran WILL retaliate, and do so in a manner designed to demonstrate that the US is plainly the aggressor nation, it will be supported in their war effort by Russia and China (both of which have much to lose), and it is armed to the teeth and trained to use those weapons. Imagine hundreds or even thousands of terrorist strikes with suicide bombers coming to a mall near you; Americans worldwide under attack.
I have to believe in my heart that our military will “refuse” to engage with nuclear weapons and I agree with Stephen above that we Americans are already sick of this “long war” and the people running it.
No, we don’t have the army, cannot win by airpower alone, and the economic consequences would be staggering when gas goes to $10-$15 a gallon. We cannot completely control the gulf and straits which would be mined, and with missiles fired from the high ground.
I also believe the international uproar and the hue and cry, “There they go again!” might cause many nations to join together to effect “regime change” in America.
So, while Bushco NO DOUBT wants to attack, this country cannot absorb even more losses to our prestige, security, and our treasury (If you think it’s expensive trying to control Iraq, wait until you see how expensive it would be to attack Iran).
The danger is not so much that the administration can carry out attacks against Iran, but that they think they can. As much as the administration seems to do whatever they want while thumbing their nose at the rest of the world, in the case of Iran the presence of WMD is all but a foregone conclusion.
That, along with the overt Iranian anti-USA hostility and rumored support of terrorism, pretty much dispenses with the pre-Iraq arguments against preemptive military strikes. So what’s to stop Bush from attacking Iran thinking that hell ride the polls to a nice soft landing at the end of his term, indeed? Who can stop him?