Yeah- with Reagan love among the Republicans (Never mind how fucked up the Grenada Invasion was, or how he fucked up in Lebanon, or how he made big big debt), realism has nothing to do with this.
And yes, the President does need Congress to Declare War. Except...
Under War Powers, the President can put soldiers in harms way for 60 days before he has to pull them out.
In Bush's imagination, this is enough time for a punitive air and naval strike.
War? I don't think the administration wants a war. Not when it can send a A-130 gunship to hose down terrorists in Somalia or shoot cruise missiles from naval vessels at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and military targets in Serbia or send bombers to blow up targets in Libya.
To the administration, a military strike does not necessarily equal war.
But what if the Iranians decide to declare war on the US and begin to launch strikes on US targets in Iraq? Then you have a war no matter what Congress wishes for. The Power of Commander-in-Chief can force a nation to war regardless of a declaration.
This goes back to the Cold War- Vietnam started because the US lured North Korea into an attack. The US tried the same game in Nicaragua not so long ago under Reagan.
Yes, I agree an Israeli surgical strike on Iran is more likely, with the US (and others) clapping their hands.
That said, would W like to do a smack down on Iran? The US sank the Iranian fleet back in the 1990s during that reflag the Kuwaiti tanker thing. This could be seen as more of the same with more drama.
Drama sells popularity.
So-
- dismiss realism from this calculation.
+ Assume that W is willing to launch a strike- because realistically no one in the Pentagon will say no.
+ Consider that the administration likes to play a "best results" game in its expectations.
- And dismiss any project of boot on the ground in Iran- that won't happen.
= could be an attack is coming.
But if the US launches this won't be a quick surgical strike against a limited target, but a big hit against many targets, destroying other associated targets- radar instillations, SAM sites, airfields, anything remotely valuable between the airflield or aircraft carrier and targets.
And lets not forget, he's just sent another carrier battle group to that part of the world.
Of course this could all be bluff. One compels an enemy the same way you deter- by promising massive pain as a consequence of their failure to act.
In the game of chicken two cars race at each other at high speed just to see which of the two swerves. The ideal result is that the other guy swerves first- you become the hero and the other guys is the chicken.
The worst result is that no one swerves and both crash and burn.
But the goal is prestige- to force the other guy to swerve by showing either resolve or madness. How do you win? By throwing the steering wheel out the window so the other guy knows you're going all the way.
Bush may be playing on the madness-" I am going unilateral and all the way. This isn't rational, but I will do it anyway."
In fact the high political costs of this might actually convince the Iranians that he's sincere in his commitment to attack. This is called "costly moves"- costly moves signals one's seriousness of intention and reduces the probability of backing off.
So W might be playing a very dangerous game here.
The closer you edge to war, the more likely the war will happen because the costs of edging up are often irretreavible. Each move forces the edger to manifest greater sincerity of conviction. Like in a game of Chicken, if the other side doesn't swerve and you turn first- you're the pussy. I don't think W want's to go out with people thinking he's a pussy. Furthermore, if you turn pussy in one game, what's to say you won't in the next- with North Korea.
That's bad.
But what's really bad though is that Iran might be committed to this for its own reasons.
We often think the idea of Iran going nuclear for energy reasons as utter bullshit. Why go nuclear when you have so much fucking oil under your ground?
Well- two things-
(1) Opportunity cost- considering the high price of oil, Iran might be thinking this is a good chance to diversify- to get a better piece of the global oil revenue move itself from the poor house.
or
(2) it might be suffering from its oil addiction in other ways. By getting oil for cheap, it might have over-exploited its oil supplies, creating an internal dependence on oil it can't escape from.
Iran may need nuclear power: study By Jim Wolf
Tue Dec 26, 10:48 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Iran's claim to need nuclear power may be genuine, given that it could run out of oil to export as soon as eight years from now, according to an analysis published on Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study's author, Roger Stern, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, said investment in Iranian oil production had been inadequate to offset oil field declines and the explosive growth in domestic demand.
"I'm not saying that Iran will have no oil in eight years," Stern said in a telephone interview. "I'm saying that they will be using all of it for themselves."
The analysis, published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said the Iranian government could become "politically vulnerable" from declining exports.
Oil exports account for about 70 percent of Iranian government revenue, said Stern, of the university's department of geography and environmental engineering.
He projected that in five years, Iranian oil exports may be less than half their present level, and could drop to zero by 2015.
"It therefore seems possible that Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls," he wrote. "If so, the Iranian regime may be more vulnerable than is presently understood."
Iran has vowed to boost its uranium enrichment drive despite new U.N. sanctions approved on Saturday aimed at rolling back a nuclear program that the West fears is a prelude to atomic weapons.
Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns called on Japan, Europe, Russia and China to stop "business as usual" with Iran "to drive up the cost to the Iranians of essentially doing what they're doing" with uranium enrichment.
So given this, Iran might be looking at economic ruin in a few years if it doesn't develop nuclear power.
Returning to the game of chicken- the Iranians don't have a steering wheel at all. For them it could be either we go nuclear or we get overthrown.
