May 20, 2008

Bush to Attack Iran Before Leaving Office

So says the Jerusalem Post, citing Army Radio, citing an anonymous Israeli government official, citing someone he says is "a senior member of the president's entourage."

Why, it's just like hearing it from Bush directly!

Responsible journalists don't run stories this poorly sourced as a rule, but exceptions are almost always made when the stories are sensational enough, and the story is something that journalists, editors, and many readers want to believe. That is why variations of this story of an impending attack on Iran have been recurring for the past couple of years, and no doubt will continue until President Bush leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at which point the same rumors will be passed down to (hopefully) President McCain.

The story repeats because elements of it ring true enough for those convinced that a military strike against against the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism and arms used to kill American soldiers since 1983 is an act of a fascist dictatorship, and also for those that have the good sense to recognize that reducing the capabilities of a rogue nuclear and asymmetrical warfare threat promising genocide as a matter of state policy is a common sense act of survival for the greater good of man.

It is quite possible that certain events before January of 2009 could trigger preemptive strikes upon Iran by the present Administration, Israel, or perhaps even both nations acting in concert. I rather doubt such rumor-mongering helps anyone, however, beyond creating full employment in Palestinian phone banks calling on behalf of the pacifist candidate Obama.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at May 20, 2008 10:28 AM

And then when Bush doesn't attack Iran, the liberals will say "see, we said he wouldn't!" or "we stopped the warmonger!" or, after Iran has nuclear weapons "Bush should have attacked Iran!"

You can never win with the left, since they have have no sanity

Posted by: William Teach at May 20, 2008 10:53 AM

To be precise CY, Iran isn't really a dictatorship. There isn't any one particular 'person' in charge but rather a loose confederation of mullahs. Sure, there are the trappings of an administration so things look on the up and up but the reality on the ground in Iran is much more complex. I'm in no way implying that some groups with 'power' are benevolent in any way. Sometimes the Iranian right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Counterterrorism Blog had an article about it some time ago but I can't seem to locate it in the archives.

But I'm just being pedantic. The rest of your analysis is spot on.

Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 11:03 AM

who said anything about Iran being a dictatorship? I was referring to the American dictatorship that the Think Progress readership is convinced they live under.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 20, 2008 11:09 AM

Ah - my bad - I parsed that wrong.

Go on with your bad self :)

Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 01:08 PM

The military, right now, has plans to invade Iran. And Canada. And South Dakota. And Lichtenstein. There are folks who get paid to draw up these contingencies, just incase. It does not mean that they are going to put them into action. America projects force to protect itself, and its allies, and threats can arise anywhere in the world.

Funny, because a belligerent Iran is already killing US soldiers, as well as Iraqis, with their weapons smuggling and training. And promising to wipe a certain nation off the map. But hey **** Bush, right?

Posted by: Dave Burton at May 20, 2008 07:07 PM

Hi Confederate Yankee,
I did an In T View with an Iranian dissident(s),
who burns Qurans in Iran -- not exactly a good career choice if the Regime finds out who you are -- and asked them if they wanted a US intervention in the country. Even he/she/they who absolutely despises the Regime, didn't want the US to intervene... and how can Bush really attack Iran between now and the elections, which would destroy McCain; and after the elections, which would be unfair to his predecessor?

Mister Ghost
Iraqi Bloggers Central

Posted by: Mister Ghost at May 20, 2008 07:26 PM

Well, you certainly made the case for an invasion.

Vox Day also reported the rumor. He thinks that the price of petroleum reflects that possibility.

Posted by: dad29 at May 21, 2008 08:23 AM