the Greater Nomadic Council

Risky Foreign Policy

First, look at this post comparing our strategy in the Middle East to a game of Risk. Next, read this post from Juan Cole that argues:

The same techniques used to get up the Iraq war are now being applied by the political Right in the United States, including President Bush, to Iran. These include innuendo, guilt by association, vague fears, and hyped capabilities. If Bush gets a second term, it seems very likely that his administration will make war on Iran.

Both are simply speculation—although Cole's is, as usual, very well informed—but if it's true that Bush has plans on Iran it's certainly worth discussing. First off, where are the troops going to come from? Is freeing up our forces another one of the reasons the administration was in such a rush to hand over power in Iraq? It seems unlikely that Iraq will be in a position to defend itself anytime soon, but, as has been publicly stated several times, if the Iraqi government asks our troops to leave, we'll withdraw. That would disentangle us from what should be a long, serious commitment to the security of Iraq under the cover of respecting their wishes, a double win. It certainly seems likely that, wisely or not, the Iraq government will, at some point in the not too distant future, request or demand that we withdraw our troops. If that's the case, then we suddenly have enough troops to commit to another war. They wouldn't be enough to tackle Iran, but that didn't stop Bush from going into Iraq, where things are limping along when they could have been, with proper planning and resources, unqualified successes. However, as Juan Cole writes:

Iran is 3 times more populous than Iraq, however, and its population is highly mobilized and nationalistic. A US invasion force there will be greeted in a way that will make Iraq seem tame. Moreover, the fallout from Shiites in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq itself (who will almost universally side with Iran against the US in any war) will put US troops and citizens in enormous danger.

Given that Iran has been actively cooperating in capturing al-Qaeda terrorists and has a history of fighting against the Taliban, we'd need some truly excellent evidence that there's a reason to attack them before it should even be considered. Unfortunately, reliable evidence is not the Bush administration's strong point. I hope this is all unfounded, but what does it say about his presidency to date that it's actually reasonable to discuss the possibility of another war in the Middle East? Is this just a result of paranoia driven by unfair characterizations of Bush or is it based on clear-eyed observations of his past behaviors and policies?