Friday, July 01, 2005

 

Why Bush Wanted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Win

The recent Iranian elections resulted in victory for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - a man who's alternately described as a "conservative", "hardliner", "fundamentalist", or any combination of the preceding three words. Most sane people consider this to be Not A Good Thing. Ideally, sane people would like to see the Middle East moving away - not towards - fundamentalism.

A few weeks ago, blogger (and sometime Miblog Weighs a Ton commenter) Billmon raised an interesting point: "Given the level of hatred for America in the Islamic world now, the best way for Bush to promote reform would probably be to oppose it." I certainly had Billmon's words in my mind when I read about Bush weighing in on the Iranian elections. Why did he go out of his way to make a statement on the Iranian elections? Didn't he realize the easily foreseeable effect his comments would have?:

As big of a moron as I think Bush is, he and his handlers (well, mostly his handlers) had to realize the effect his comments would have. So that raises a new question: Why did Bush want Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to win?

The only reason I can come up with is this: the crazy fucker (Bush, not Ahmadinejad) wants to "do" Iran. As Iraq increasingly becomes a disaster, I've kept telling myself, "there's no way Bush is that crazy/stupid that he'd try and invade Iran." The writing is certainly on the wall.

  1. Neocons have been clamoring for the invasion of Iran for years. As they're fond to say, "real men want to go to Tehran."
  2. Throw them in the "Axis of Evil" for shits and giggles.
  3. Insist that Iran has an illegal nuclear weapons program. Provide no hard evidence, but repeat ad nauseum until it becomes the conventional wisdom.
  4. Refuse to take part in any diplomatic efforts to resolve said nuclear weapon "problem".
  5. Ensure the election of a hardline fundamentalist by denouncing the elections.
  6. Demonize the leader you just helped elect by brining out allegations (that were certainly known well-before Bush helped him get elected) that he was involved in the 1979 hostage crisis.

The skids are being greased. And according to some reporting, the invasion has already begun. Back in January, Seymour Hersh reported that the US has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to target suspected weapons' sites. US aircraft have been violating Iranian airspace in a search for targets as well. Scott Ritter (you'll remember him as the weapons inspector who was 100% right about Iraq's weapons capabilities, yet still slimed as a whacko by the mainstream media) reports that, "To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran." Why use Azerbaijan when US forces already surrounds Iran to both the east and the west? "American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran." And if you don't trust Hersh, the limeys, or Scott Ritter, how about former Pentagon official, journalist, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb? Gelb just returned from Iraq, where he was evaluating US efforts to train the new Iraqi army. Here's what he had to say:

Readers (reader? anyone out there?), I ask: am I being crazy for noticing that we're following nearly the exact same steps we took to invade Iraq? Or is it the Bush administration that's crazy for pushing for another senseless war?

Comments:
Nordy, I think you make some interesting points (namely, the admission that the Bush Administration doesn't do anything without a political strategy)...but I think your conclusion is wrong for exactly that reason.

With popularity at glaringly low levels, mistrust amongst the electorate high, party unity fizzling before his eyes, and military capacity already reached...why on earth would Bush pursue a war in Iran? There was political justification for the war in Iraq; you could see how backroom strategy might have viewed it not only as good policy, but also as good politics. But good policy or no (I'll leave that alone), a war in Iran would unquestionably be bad politics. Bush...or at least, his team...is at least smart enough to recognize that.
 
Stealing from Billmon again:
------------
And barring some crisis that creates another rally-round-the-president effect, analysts said, Mr. Bush's best opportunity to drive the agenda may be past.
New York Times
"Bush's Road Gets Rougher"
June 20, 2005
-------------
I can't make up my mind if I think they actually will do it or not. Part of me says "they can't be that stupid." But when you look at their actions, the set-up is definitely there. Perhaps, in a backwards way, our troubles in Iraq have been a blessing in that they've kept us from needlessly invading yet another country over there.
 
Your word choice there caught my eye: "needlessly"...makes me wonder about needs and wants.

Let's assume, for the moment, that you agree that regime change in Iraq was a positive goal. Base question: Did the US need to invade Iraq to accomplish the goal, or did the President simply want to do so? While I know Nordy's answer to the question, I'm curious to hear from others.

The quesion can also be raised with regard to Iran...will the US need to invade to ensure democratic reform, or can it be achieved through other mechanisms? How can you tell? Thoughts encouraged.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?