Probability of War: Declining

"MY . . . had a couple months where 'imminent war with Iran' in every other post, and now that there's an actual crisis with Iran that may involve a war starting in less than a week, there's nothing," thus Sprach Mr. Noah. There's not much to say. I think I've made it clear where I stand on the merits of unilateral military strikes as an approach to Iran's nuclear program (short version: don't do it) and I haven't seen any big new arguments out there worth talking about. The British hostage crisis is actually making me less worried that strikes will actually be forthcoming.

Precisely the sort of thing I was worried about was that having ratched-up the confrontation level, Bush would seize on the inevitable Iranian countermeasures as a casus belli. Even with his stepped-up rhetoric that really doesn't seem to me to be what's happening. News that "Blair's government appeared to be settling in for a long-term crisis but was still seeking a way to defuse it diplomatically, according to reports out of London," seems reassuring. The fly in the ointment is things like how Bush "rejected any 'quid pro quo' trade of Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq and ducked a question about whether military force would be justified to free the captured sailors" where we see once again that the president isn't interested in a serious diplomatic effort to resolve the outstanding bilateral issues in the US-Iranian relationship.

The White House seems to me to have decided to opt for paralysis, raising the confrontation level without intending to launch a war, attempting the "diplomatic option" but not attempting serious diplomacy. One is sometimes tempted to call this "the worst of both worlds" but it's actually quite a bit better than launching a war. One major problem with the Bush strategy is that it all-but-ensures that if the next president decides to strike a deal, he or she will have to do so from a weaker position. The other, of course, is that a policy of confrontation is going to breed these periodic crises and you never know when things might go too far.

Comments

It's scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. :P

http://debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=3980

Posted by Gary | April 1, 2007 2:32 PM

What happens when a US soldier dies in an incident like this?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

Posted by DJ | April 1, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm with Matt. The number one reason I think is Gates in the Pentagon , to go along with the well telegraphed opposition of a good part of the senior military who Gates allied with.

It's probable that perhaps even some information about the possible bad conseqenses; like thousands of dead US troops in Iraq, fleeing helter skelter from thousands of Shia militia men, the fall of the green zone and untold dead or hostages there, $100 oil or more and a severe recession with the financial markets already under pressure because of liquidity problems in the mortgage arena might have filtered thru to our Leader.

On those economic issues it is little appreciated that Paulson, our uber Wall Street Treasury Secretary, is his own man. He is not a Party man. You don't see him out on the hustings blathering todays talking points like a puppet. It is an absolute certainty that the worlds financial sphere, which Paulson and his team doesn't just represent but is a part of, wants no part of this miliatarism any more. They like everyone stook aside while the Iraq disaster unfolded. Paulson is probably screeming at them don't do it.

Posted by rapier | April 1, 2007 3:03 PM

"too far"? You liberal wuss, there's no such thing.

Posted by aleks | April 1, 2007 3:05 PM

My thoughts exactly. Blair's calculated statesmanship is a reassuring counterweight to Bush's gutter machismo politics.

Posted by Christopher | April 1, 2007 3:07 PM

Sidenote: There should be a term for when you're overly dependent on a particular blogger when it comes to one issue, as I suspect I may be with MY & Iran. It's a tough thing to avoid sometimes (ex. Josh Marshall with the US Attorney flap) especially when they offer what seems to be the sharpest analysis on the subject.

Posted by sangfroid826 | April 1, 2007 4:01 PM

and in spite of all that has happened of late you are still convinced that it is bush who is responsible for the strained irainian-US relations. You truely are a fat vile bastard.

Posted by the invisible pimp hand | April 1, 2007 4:05 PM

The UK sailors are definitely a wild card. If there were going to be air strikes against Iran in the near future, they would have been carried out with UK support. Now, that support doesn't seem as likely, at least not overtly, because it's not hard to imagine the fate of those very publicly held prisoners if there are massive air strikes on Iran that kill untold numbers of Iranians, and there will be no military action related to the taking of those prisoners, or in "rescuing" them (which would seem impossible).

Of course, that is Iran's possible perspective, but since air strikes against Iran at this juncture would be exceedingly stupid, and fundamentally destructive strategy, perhaps something good can be made out of this bad situation, but I feel bad for the sailors being held by Iran, because their freedom may not be guaranteed for some time.

On its own, the U.S. Congress should pass explicit legislation forbidding air strikes against Iran without explicit authorization, since if the president gins up another war in the region, all hell will break loose, and any hope of changing course and taking a wiser course, led by Congress, will go out the window, as Bush regains the strategic advantage, even if he is failing in every regard.

It's downright stupid not to take this option away from Bush for the time being, with some important caveats ("imminent" threat or firm evidence of WMD construction), because the minute air strikes should begin against Iran not only all hopes of taking a wiser foreign policy course go out the window, and marginalizing President Bush on foreign policy, but also the gaining momentum to expose all the Bush Administration scandals go out the window. Poof! It disappears off the agenda.

Posted by Jimm | April 1, 2007 4:09 PM

The cancer here at home is far more dangerous to our way of life, at this juncture, than Iran. The crumbling of our institutions and governance, the infection by corruption and special interest influence, needs to be handled directly right now, not later, and not papered over again by military aggression and enemy creation abroad diverting attention.

Expose Bush, his failures, his corruption, his possible criminality, and clean house. Change course. Then deal with Iran from a stronger and wiser standing.

Posted by Jimm | April 1, 2007 4:14 PM

The UK sailors are definitely a wild card. If there were going to be air strikes against Iran in the near future, they would have been carried out with UK support. Now, that support doesn't seem as likely, at least not overtly, because it's not hard to imagine the fate of those very publicly held prisoners if there are massive air strikes on Iran that kill untold numbers of Iranians, and there will be no military action related to the taking of those prisoners, or in "rescuing" them (which would seem impossible).

This is my reading as well. While the stories of the rumored Good Friday attack may be based on no more than wild speculation of psychological warfare, I wonder if it is not the case that the Iranians have taken them seriously enough to grab some human shields just in case, perhaps at least for the remainder of Blair's term.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 1, 2007 4:20 PM

I wouldn't call them "human shields" in the normal sense, since they won't likely be held at a potential bombing site, but just the fact that their legal status remains ambiguous makes a very real problem for Blair if he supports illegal air strikes and wanton aggression against Iran.

For all we know, if such air strikes from war ships in the Gulf do occur, Iran may consider the UK prisoners "enemy combatants" who were scouting out the operation in advance, and hold them indefinitely in their own version of Guantanamo, or even worse try and execute them.

I'm not sure what moral or operational standing we or the UK would be able to stand on to condemn such an eventuality, if we were to take the lid off the genie bottle with the blatant and illegal aggression against Iran, and given that we've already taken the lid off the genie bottle in terms of taking and holding prisoners indefinitely by executive decree.

Posted by Jimm | April 1, 2007 4:29 PM

What if they decide a mini-strike on Iran is required to delay Iran nukes into the next Amin.?

Posted by TP | April 1, 2007 4:37 PM

Even more foolish.

Posted by Jimm | April 1, 2007 5:35 PM

You truely are a fat vile bastard.

I've lost almost 10 pounds in 2007.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 1, 2007 10:30 PM

OK, but close to 2 pounds of that was when the knife girl jacked your sneaks.

Approximately.

Posted by ferd | April 1, 2007 10:56 PM

What I like about the whole hostage thing is that it has effectively given the UK partial veto power over US airstrikes. They've changed the situation from being a conflict with the world, which would give the US an 'in', to being a conflict with the UK, which means that the US would be butting in.

Slick.

Posted by daveNYC | April 2, 2007 1:13 AM

They're issuing more callups. They're going to be sending more people to Iraq.

Something has slowed them down; they were on a pace for war, and then they... backed off. Everything is in place.

What happens come September?

m, nothing has changed, except perhaps the timetable

Posted by max | April 2, 2007 3:41 AM

You truely are a fat vile bastard.

Oooh. I would tread verrry carefully here. When creating demeaning monikers, you want to make sure that, if reclaimed and worn as a badge of pride, that they don't sound too cool. "Vile Fat Bastard" has a great ring to it. Especially if he sheds the unwanted weight and ends up as one of those husky dudes. And if "Vile Fat Bastard" starts supplant "Big Media Matt", jeez, NOW look what you've done.

Posted by sangfroid826 | April 2, 2007 4:43 PM