The people who gave us the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now raising their voices urging the president to take preemptive action again – this time to preempt the options of his successor in the White House – by striking the Bushehr reactor and other Iranian nuclear sites.
Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the president had expanded the authority for covert action by U.S. special forces inside Iran. The article said that $400 million had been approved for the activities that included support of dissident groups in Iran. The covert activities are also said to include gathering intelligence on nuclear sites in preparation for a possible strike.
Meanwhile, the Israeli air force last week conducted an exercise that had its planes undertake a 900-mile sortie out over the Mediterranean. Nine hundred miles happens to be the distance from Israel to Bushehr in Iran. U.S. officials told journalists that the exercise was a dress rehearsal for a strike against Iran.
Let's be clear. An attack on Iran's nuclear program by the United States by Bush would be an act of disastrous irresponsibility. It would be rather like dealing with a troublesome hornets' nest by poking it with a stick. It would risk the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq, just as some degree of stability is being achieved, threaten the free flow of Gulf oil through the Straits of Hormuz, and lead to more terrorism.
And it wouldn't even solve the Iranian nuclear threat. Iran's program is not like the Osirak reactor in Saddam's Iraq, or Syria's mysterious purported nuclear site, both destroyed by Israeli airstrikes. It is widely dispersed and much of it is buried in hardened bunkers. An attack would set it back but not destroy it and probably give the unpopular regime a boost with the Iranian people.
Bush has spoken a lot about the spread of democracy. He needs to trust democracy enough at home to allow his successor to make the key decisions with "all options still on the table." To bequeath Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama the job of cleaning up the consequences of an attack would be like a foreclosed homeowner trashing the property before leaving.
Leaving the task to Israel is no solution either. Israel sees Iran as an existential threat, with good reason. But an Israeli attack would be seen by Iran and the region as an attack by America as well. America would suffer the consequences and likely be pulled into conflict in defense of Israel.
The United States needs to make clear to Iran that an attack on Israel will be considered as an attack on the United States and to Israel that an attack on Iran would forfeit U.S. support. It then needs to work with the countries of the region to effectively contain Iran. That in itself will help the U.S. standing in the region.
So, what of the question, "Who should bomb Iran?" The correct answer is: none of the above. It's a great chance to raise your C average, Mr. President.