 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| The Atlantic Affairs Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |
| I N S I G H T -------- Choosing Death ASH Smyth Fatal Britain Civitas Report Russians at Edge Liliana N. P. Chavez's Mutiny Chloe Saimpert Clout of Islam Sadanand Dhume Host Country Sabina Ahmed Google Vs. US Amy Peikoff Rise of West Andrew Bernstein Count not on UN Glenn Woiceshyn |
Media warfare on Iran is demonstrably false
By Jonathan Andrew Taylor
Posted: April 11, 2006
This past weekend the world saw a proliferation of news stories
regarding the USA’s imminent attack on Iran. This wave of articles was
sparked by a piece written by the highly regarded journalist Seymour
Hersh. Though the furore has indeed reached new heights, the
allegations are not new. In the past month, several seminars and
numerous articles have all struggled with the same question: what is
the likelihood of a US military attack on Iran?
The most recent reason analysts think the US will attack Iran is the
‘messianic mission’ of George W Bush. The US President, so they say,
is trying to consolidate his legacy and will therefore try to do something
important to secure his reputation as the archdeacon of democracy
promotion. There are a number of flaws in this line of thinking and
certainly too many to address in this short article. So, I will focus on
only one: the argument presumes that Bush has enough support at
home and abroad to enable him to carry out another military campaign.
This assumption is demonstrably false.
Given the current state of Iraq, neither the people at home, nor the
countries abroad would support a military operation in Iran. Another
headline this weekend was on the current ‘undeclared’ civil war in Iraq.
Without commenting on the validity of this claim, it is clear that
sectarian violence is spreading across the troubled nation. This
escalation of violence has been accompanied by (caused?) a sharp
decline in the public support in the US for both Bush’s policies in
general and his Iraq policy in particular. In short, Americans are tired of
the current war and will not support another. But, the protagonists
assert, decisions are often made by political elites despite public
opinion. True. But both domestic and foreign politicians are squarely
against near-term military action in Iran.
It has been noted elsewhere that the two major US politicians
crusading for a solution to the Iran ‘problem’ are 2008 presidential
hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Why? Current
intelligence states that Iran will not be able to manufacture a nuclear
weapon for at least another five years. This places the potential crisis
squarely in the next presidential administration. Then these politicians
must support military action, right? Though they may support a near-
term resolution to the problem, current public opinion means that
support for military action in the near term would be political suicide.
Unlike the 2004 presidential election, the US public will not unite
around a candidate in 2008 who argues for another military conflict. In
fact, the reverse will be the case.
If the US public and political elite are unwilling to take military action,
then the international community is even less so. Over the weekend,
the foreign minister of America’s closest ally, Great Britain,
unequivocally denied that military action was imminent. Indeed, the
countries of Europe are for once united on a Middle East foreign
policy. Not only are they firmly committed to a diplomatic solution, but
also they are leading the US in the diplomatic coalition. In other words,
Europe is unlikely to provide any of the essential military support
required for an operation in Iran. It should also be noted that, relative to
the politicians, the average European is far less willing to support the
military option.
In sum, a decision to take military action against Iran would be in direct
opposition to a largely unified US public and international community.
On his part, the US President has dismissed media reports of
imminent attack on Iran as ‘wild speculation’. Mr Hersh thinks that the
American President is so deluded by his ‘messianic mission’ that Bush
might attack Iran anyway. Perhaps. But the fact is that the intelligence is
clear that the West has time to negotiate a solution and in a refreshing
change the West is acting accordingly. Given the utter lack of support,
US military action against Iran in the near term is highly unlikely.
### ### ###
Jonathan Andrew Taylor is at the Department of Government, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
By Jonathan Andrew Taylor
Posted: April 11, 2006
This past weekend the world saw a proliferation of news stories
regarding the USA’s imminent attack on Iran. This wave of articles was
sparked by a piece written by the highly regarded journalist Seymour
Hersh. Though the furore has indeed reached new heights, the
allegations are not new. In the past month, several seminars and
numerous articles have all struggled with the same question: what is
the likelihood of a US military attack on Iran?
The most recent reason analysts think the US will attack Iran is the
‘messianic mission’ of George W Bush. The US President, so they say,
is trying to consolidate his legacy and will therefore try to do something
important to secure his reputation as the archdeacon of democracy
promotion. There are a number of flaws in this line of thinking and
certainly too many to address in this short article. So, I will focus on
only one: the argument presumes that Bush has enough support at
home and abroad to enable him to carry out another military campaign.
This assumption is demonstrably false.
Given the current state of Iraq, neither the people at home, nor the
countries abroad would support a military operation in Iran. Another
headline this weekend was on the current ‘undeclared’ civil war in Iraq.
Without commenting on the validity of this claim, it is clear that
sectarian violence is spreading across the troubled nation. This
escalation of violence has been accompanied by (caused?) a sharp
decline in the public support in the US for both Bush’s policies in
general and his Iraq policy in particular. In short, Americans are tired of
the current war and will not support another. But, the protagonists
assert, decisions are often made by political elites despite public
opinion. True. But both domestic and foreign politicians are squarely
against near-term military action in Iran.
It has been noted elsewhere that the two major US politicians
crusading for a solution to the Iran ‘problem’ are 2008 presidential
hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Why? Current
intelligence states that Iran will not be able to manufacture a nuclear
weapon for at least another five years. This places the potential crisis
squarely in the next presidential administration. Then these politicians
must support military action, right? Though they may support a near-
term resolution to the problem, current public opinion means that
support for military action in the near term would be political suicide.
Unlike the 2004 presidential election, the US public will not unite
around a candidate in 2008 who argues for another military conflict. In
fact, the reverse will be the case.
If the US public and political elite are unwilling to take military action,
then the international community is even less so. Over the weekend,
the foreign minister of America’s closest ally, Great Britain,
unequivocally denied that military action was imminent. Indeed, the
countries of Europe are for once united on a Middle East foreign
policy. Not only are they firmly committed to a diplomatic solution, but
also they are leading the US in the diplomatic coalition. In other words,
Europe is unlikely to provide any of the essential military support
required for an operation in Iran. It should also be noted that, relative to
the politicians, the average European is far less willing to support the
military option.
In sum, a decision to take military action against Iran would be in direct
opposition to a largely unified US public and international community.
On his part, the US President has dismissed media reports of
imminent attack on Iran as ‘wild speculation’. Mr Hersh thinks that the
American President is so deluded by his ‘messianic mission’ that Bush
might attack Iran anyway. Perhaps. But the fact is that the intelligence is
clear that the West has time to negotiate a solution and in a refreshing
change the West is acting accordingly. Given the utter lack of support,
US military action against Iran in the near term is highly unlikely.
### ### ###
Jonathan Andrew Taylor is at the Department of Government, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
It is not JUST the journal online |
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |