Iran - The October Surprise? - Update

In a previous post I speculated that Bush may be planning a blockade of Iran timed for just before the elections. I don't think voters would buy into a outright attack so close to November, but Bush needs something to pull his butt out of the fire, and Rove has been hinting they're planning something big.

But there's another possibility, a terrible apocalyptic possibility, yet one that would give Bush exactly what he wants...

From today's Washington Times:

A former Navy intelligence officer weighs in on how the world will stop Iran from building nuclear bombs: "I really believe the Israelis are going to strike [Iran's] several uranium processing factories soon. They cannot survive a first strike. This time, unlike when they sent eight F-16s to destroy the Iraqi reactor Osirak, I think they will use the Jericho missiles and the submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped Tomahawks to do nuclear strikes. Most of the factories are 150 meters underground and too deep for bunker busters." (Emphasis mine)

And The Nation has confirmed that we're moving significant military assets into the Persian Gulf:

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

[...]

Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

The result of a massive Israeli nuclear attack on Iran could be millions of civilian casualties, and one of the worst political and humanitarian crisis in world history. But it certainly would eliminate the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. Bush wouldn't be blamed for the mess, and it would just about guarantee Republican control of the House and Senate in November.

A true win-win situation for the Bush administration.

Picking on Foley - The Downside

While I like to pile on as much as anybody when The Party of Moral Values^TM gets caught with their collective pants down, there's a potential downside for Democrats and progressives in this sordid affair.

It's all too easy for an opposition party to simply wait for the party in power to self-destruct rather than develop the message, agenda, and electoral infrastructure to win on their own merits. And while power corrupts, and Republicans, due to their free market and anti-regulatory agenda, are particularly susceptible to corruption, counting on them to screw up in order to beat them is not a viable long-term political strategy.

Winning is what counts in politics, and success, whether earned or not, is the criteria by which tactics, strategy, and politicians are judged. Should we win big nationally in this election, as it now appears, much of that success will not be due to our own efforts, but to the incompetence of Republicans. Yet within the Democratic Party that fact will be quickly forgotten in a rush to claim the credit and spoils that accrue to the victors.

The danger, of course, is that we won't use our gains to do the hard work of self-examination necessary to ensure that our success continues in the future. "Vote for me because I'm not as bad as the guy you elected last time" is a knife that cuts both ways.

Picking on Foley

It's just too easy...