Iran, and how I learned to love WH bluster

James Fallows' latest piece in the Atlantic has rightly received a bunch of attention. Fallows details why a military strike against Iran would be bad bad bad. And I'm with him. But he also argues that the Bush administration is making a mistake to even publicly talk tough and imply strikes might be in the cards. Says Fallows:

The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices.

What Fallows is saying is that by talking tough, Bush might paint himself into a corner and be forced to deliver on his rhetoric. Maybe. But isn't there another possible effect of the tough talk--namely that it scares the shit out of the public and thus forces a debate about whether the strikes would be a good idea.

Isn't that the most likely explanation for all these leaks recently about Pentagon plans against Iran, purportedly including--per Hersh--the possibility of tactical nuke strikes?  It's military guys trying to preempt, if you will, another stupid move. As Chris Nelson (via War and Piece) puts it:

The rising drum beat of revelations, our sources argue, can have only one serious meaning: US military leaders want to force a public debate which makes it difficult for the President to talk himself into ordering a military solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. [...]

What terrifies serious US military, intelligence, and diplomatic players is how this Administration can turn a tactical military victory into strategic catastrophe.

In other words, Mr. Fallows, we're not in 2003 anymore. As for Mr. Bush: Talk tough all you want--it might or might not be good for negotiations, but it's certainly good for the country.

Comments

[Zathras]

This is pretty much what I think is behind recent stories on the Iran problem as well.

People active in the blogosphere can suspect the President and his team of having untrustworthy judgment, but none of us has had to pay the price for that as the unformed military has over the last three years. As for the administration's public statements.... I suppose I could see them as an effort to maintain a united front of Western nations for sanctions against Iran, the idea being that this would the only way to hold them together. But that is a little subtle for this, or any recent, White House.

[Carl]

The problem is we had these same kinds of leaks before the Iraq war. Despite all that's happened, I don't see anyone willing to pressure the President to negotiate.

BTW Eric, you might be interested in Flynt Leverett's take on Bush and Iran:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10326/

"...it’s not just the neo-cons who wanted regime change and nothing else. Ultimately the president is, on this issue, very, very resistant to the idea of doing a deal, even a deal that would solve the nuclear problem. You don’t do a deal that would effectively legitimate this regime that he considers fundamentally illegitimate. I think that’s the real issue."

[Zathras]

This assumes that a "deal" with Iran is doable, an assumption that in turn rests on the premise that Tehran is not determined to develop its own nuclear arsensal.

There is no evidence that either assumption is well-founded, nor is there any reason to doubt the Iranian regime's dedication to the legacy of the homicidal Khomeini government. The question is what we do about it. The case for military action now must fall unless we know such action is likely to be successful (we don't) and unless we know time is short (as best I can tell, it isn't). There are other ways to deal with the Iranian questions, ways that require time, patience, and a focus on our major immediate problem, the lack of reliable information as to the state of Iran's internal politics. It does not require that we cherish fatuous illusions about a regime like Iran's.

[Eric Umansky]

Carl,

I actually blogged a bit about Leverett's comments a few days ago:

http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/iran.html

As for your not being comforted by all the recent leaks, I'll just reiterate that we're not in 2003 anymore. The press is much feister, as is the public. -eric

[!]

Whatever happened to the talk of just a few weeks ago that said the US and Iran were going to start discussing some aspect of Iraq's problems? Talk of *those* diplomatic relations was there for about a day or two and the last word on it was yes, there is a mutual want to talk but it has yet to begin. Wha' happened?

How can the US go carrot with Iran on Iraq present and stick with Iran on Iran future?

Isn't that version of active engagement counterproductive for both short and long term? Wasn't even the talk that there was to be some cooperation vis-a-vis Iraq an acknowlegment of Iran's gov't being legitimate, being potentially helpful to quell further mideast dissarray and/or that diplomacy works?

[Ben]

Dr. Jeffery Lewis has an excellent blog entry looking at the technical issues behind the whole thing. Makes excellent reading.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1030/we-are-not-going-to-nuke-iran