[Originally published in the Rutland Herald.]
Serious commentators in America state unequivocally that the Bush administration will attack Iran and that this will happen without notice because of the president’s interpretation of his powers as commander in chief. It would almost have to be that way, because there are few American supporters of such an insane scheme.
Overseas, Israel is the only country that has been quite openly encouraging the U.S. to attack Iran. However, although it is extremely unlikely that it will ever become public, some Sunni Arab regimes might not see such an attack as wholly undesirable. There are the perennial Sunni-Shia tensions. In addition, the ancient struggle over hegemony in the gulf is still alive and well, and there is a fairly high level of anxiety in the Sunni Arab world that Iran, if it goes nuclear, will become the dominant power in the region at the expense of those Sunni Arab regimes.
That notwithstanding, there is zero support among what’s left of our allies around the World for a U.S. attack of any kind on Iran.
Support for such an attack here at home stems mainly from our most conservative political elements. In Iran, it seems likely that the only support for that policy would come from the Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guards.
The only two players who really matter are Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, who sound like two gunslingers in the old West. Neither of them enjoys much support from their people.
Bush is in trouble over a multitude of issues from Iraq to Scooter Libby. His poll numbers are abysmally low and unlikely to rise. He has lost his majorities in the Congress. He is beginning to lose support from Republican congressmen who are coming up for re-election and who see further blind support of failed Bush policies as virtual political suicide.
In Iran, President Ahmadinejad enjoys roughly equal popularity. Nothing he has promised has worked. Inflation is rampant. Housing costs have risen steeply. Food prices are up, and just recently we have learned that the price of gasoline has been raised significantly. Instead of tending to the needs of the Iranians, he has spent massive amounts of money on Iran’s nuclear program and in support of foreign adventures. There are protests and rioting in the streets of Iran.
So we have two presidents with much in common. They are both in deep political trouble. They both shoot from the hip. Unfortunately, it is quite possible that they see the same salvation for themselves in a military confrontation.
President Bush has “promised” that he would attack Iran if they did not give up their nuclear program before he leaves office. In the absence of rational foreign policy guidance from his “team,” he may honestly believe that his best contribution to the welfare of the world would an unannounced, massive precision missile strike. Apparently we already have such a plan on the books in the Pentagon. Never mind that military experts agree that this would not eliminate the nuclear threat for more than a short period of time.
The only thing, it would appear, that has the potential to unite a now discontented and divided Iran behind Ahmadinejad would be just such a strike. Any U.S. military action against Iran would be likely to unify the country, despite its difficulties and differences, against us and cause us major problems around the world.
So both presidents would appear to believe they have something to gain from a military confrontation. The situation is ripe for provocation. We have a large chunk of our Navy sitting in the narrow confines of the gulf. We have our Army and Marines stretched out all over Iraq. The Army now says that Iran is providing materiel that is killing our soldiers. If that is true, Iran must know that it is taking a major risk of providing the rationale for an American attack against them.
The Iranian navy has recently run a provocation against the British navy in the Gulf. The Brits reacted calmly and rationally and that threat appears over. What will happen if they do the same to us? Will we find a casus belli in that or in some other Iranian provocation? Are we seeking that? Is that what Iran wants?
This is an extremely dangerous situation in which the leaders of both countries seem to have reason not to avoid military confrontation. It would only take one well-planned provocation for the whole thing to blow up. With the cowboys in charge, there’s no telling what will happen.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in Iran and Lebanon and as chief of the counterterrorism staff. He lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 