There has been some disagreement about the Bush administration’s response to the developing war in the Middle East. Hilzoy sees an administration in disarray; Steve Clemons sees an administration whose options have been constrained by Israeli actions; and conservatives, not surprisingly, see an administration reaction that they would describe as “so far, so good.”
What are our ultimate intentions in the current war? This comment by Dan Kervick on the Steve Clemons post sums up what I suspect (and fear) is going to happen (via a comment on Obsidan Wings):
There is no reason to suspect that this is all an attempt to drag the US into a war it doesn’t want. If that were the case, we would be able to detect that fact from the statements and diplomatic maneuverings of the administration. But we see nothing of the sort. Instead, the administration has gone out of its way to link the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah to Syria and Iran, and to escalate diplomatic tensions rather than defuse them.
I believe Dick Cheney is still in charge of this administration’s foreign policy - not Rice. So to understand what is going on, you need to think like a Cheneyite or neoconservative hawk, and look at events from a broad geostrategic perspective that reflects their values and priorities. From their point of view, the US has a rapidly closing window of opportunity to consummate the war whose opening battles were Afghanistan and Iraq, a war that (they hope) is going to remake the Middle East to the advantage of Israel and the US - and a war which they think is in some sense unavoidable, and so is better fought sooner rather than later. Iran’s power is growing; China’s power is growing; Russia’s power is growing and Europe’s political culture is changing. Before long the balance of power will have shifted so as to drastically curtail US options, and place Israel on the wrong side of unstoppable regional trends. It’s now or never for the hawks.
The administration has decided to go for it, and throw the Hail Mary pass now. Israel in Lebanon is the first back out of the backfield. That this is an election year gives them all the more reason to strike.
Posted by: Dan Kervick at July 15, 2006 06:23 PM
This is only one possible scenario of many, but it sounds right to me. I’m not sure I agree that there will be “major US military operations against Iran and Syria” — I think we’re much more likely to tacitly condone Israeli strikes than to commit our own overstretched forces — but, given the history of the Bush Administration, the low approval ratings of the president, the administration’s obvious desire to attack Iran, and the current rhetoric (Kervick notes in a later comment that U.S. and Israeli leaders are striking similar notes, which he summarizes as “Hizbollah ‹— Syria ‹— Iran”), all signs point to a larger conflict.
The one word that sticks in my craw is “coordinated” — and only partially because the close ties between the U.S. and Israelis are often used in the context of anti-semitism (I want to make it clear that I am not, in any way, accusing Dan Kervick of that). I just don’t think that the Bush Administration necessarily has a plan, or that it was involved in Israel’s decision to begin bombing Lebanon. Now that it’s happening, though, and given the current bloodthirsty mood among neoconservatives, I think that the administration will make up a plan on the fly, just as it did in the aftermath of the attack on Iraq. And it’s quite possible that that plan will include an attack on Iran by the U.S. or Israel.
I’m also reminded, now more than ever, of Seymour Hersh’s The Iran Plans. In case you missed it, consider this passage, about secret meetings on Iran between White House officials and members of Congress:
Perhaps the Rapture-Ready folks were right to be excited — it does feel like the beginning of a World War.
Update: James Wolcott: World War Two-and-a-Half (here’s the Gingrich comment he mentions):
But I don’t know about this. It might have worked as a portentous sales device in the immediate aftershock of 9/11, but we’re nearly five years on and the US stature has shrunk. If a majority of Americans want us to withdraw from Iraq, how eager are they going to be to sign on to a declaration of world war against a stateless enemy?
They’ll only do it notionally, as long as nothing is actually required of them.
One Comment on "Strategery"
The Hindsight Factor:
Links…
These are some blogs that I visit every day:
AMERICAblog – An impressively active multi-blogger site with news of interest and opinions from a wide spectrum of politics, human interest, and get-a-clue-angry-dudes.
DoubleSpeak – A truly beautiful a…