So what about Iran?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(See my SOTU live-blog here.)
Bush didn't say much about Iran in his SOTU address. By my count, reading through the prepared text, he mentioned "Iran" five times. Four of those mentions concerned Iran's support for Hezbollah and Shiite elements in Iraq. The fifth mention was just this quasi-internationalist statement: "The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons." (The first part of that statement is true; the second is a bit of an exaggeration.)
But what about all the heightened rhetoric about how Iran is arming the Shiite militias in Iraq? What about the warmongering? Whither the neocon worldview?
Perhaps Bush just didn't want to get into it. Given his low approval ratings, given that he's facing criticism from both parties over the upcoming surge in Iraq, perhaps he (or his minions) thought better of drawing attention away from Iraq and to Iran. Bush is having enough trouble selling his "new way forward" in Iraq. How is he to secure support for war against Iran? He's already facing a Democratic majority in Congress. Tough talk on Iran could lose him much of his own party as well, those that haven't already abandoned him.
Or there's this: The L.A. Times yesterday reported that "evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq's troubles is limited". Mortars and mines have been found, but "there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found". In his "surge" speech earlier this month, Bush "promised to 'seek out and destroy' Iranian networks that he said were providing 'advanced weaponry and training to our enemies'". Although he was "expected to strike a similar note in [his] State of the Union speech," he didn't. And that may be because there are no such networks. Indeed, "the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support [its] claims". Again, that may be because there is no hard evidence.
Bush defended his "new" strategy in Iraq and requested more time to pursue victory. In that respect, his speech last night mirrored his "surge" speech. But the differences are more striking than the similarities, and the key differences concern Iran. This is not to say that Bush has given up his hard line against Iran. Military action is hardly out of the question, even now. But, for whatever reason, the content of the public rhetoric has changed within a matter of weeks. And that should worry us. With a lack of evidence, Iran 2007 looks a lot like Iraq 2002/3. Which is to say, Bush may be pursuing military action against Iran even without evidence of Iranian malfeasance in Iraq and even with Iran's nuclear program in its early stages. And if he is, he's doing so privately, without informing the public. He downplayed Iran in his speech last night, but before we know it there could be war.
**********
For more, see co-blogger/asst. editor Creature at State of the Day. He got to this story long before I did. And then go see Greenwald. And then c'mon back.
(See my SOTU live-blog here.)
Bush didn't say much about Iran in his SOTU address. By my count, reading through the prepared text, he mentioned "Iran" five times. Four of those mentions concerned Iran's support for Hezbollah and Shiite elements in Iraq. The fifth mention was just this quasi-internationalist statement: "The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons." (The first part of that statement is true; the second is a bit of an exaggeration.)
But what about all the heightened rhetoric about how Iran is arming the Shiite militias in Iraq? What about the warmongering? Whither the neocon worldview?
Perhaps Bush just didn't want to get into it. Given his low approval ratings, given that he's facing criticism from both parties over the upcoming surge in Iraq, perhaps he (or his minions) thought better of drawing attention away from Iraq and to Iran. Bush is having enough trouble selling his "new way forward" in Iraq. How is he to secure support for war against Iran? He's already facing a Democratic majority in Congress. Tough talk on Iran could lose him much of his own party as well, those that haven't already abandoned him.
Or there's this: The L.A. Times yesterday reported that "evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq's troubles is limited". Mortars and mines have been found, but "there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found". In his "surge" speech earlier this month, Bush "promised to 'seek out and destroy' Iranian networks that he said were providing 'advanced weaponry and training to our enemies'". Although he was "expected to strike a similar note in [his] State of the Union speech," he didn't. And that may be because there are no such networks. Indeed, "the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support [its] claims". Again, that may be because there is no hard evidence.
Bush defended his "new" strategy in Iraq and requested more time to pursue victory. In that respect, his speech last night mirrored his "surge" speech. But the differences are more striking than the similarities, and the key differences concern Iran. This is not to say that Bush has given up his hard line against Iran. Military action is hardly out of the question, even now. But, for whatever reason, the content of the public rhetoric has changed within a matter of weeks. And that should worry us. With a lack of evidence, Iran 2007 looks a lot like Iraq 2002/3. Which is to say, Bush may be pursuing military action against Iran even without evidence of Iranian malfeasance in Iraq and even with Iran's nuclear program in its early stages. And if he is, he's doing so privately, without informing the public. He downplayed Iran in his speech last night, but before we know it there could be war.
**********
For more, see co-blogger/asst. editor Creature at State of the Day. He got to this story long before I did. And then go see Greenwald. And then c'mon back.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
12:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home