The United States and Iran are on a collision course in a contest for hegemony in Iraq and the Middle East. Both sides know the stakes could hardly be higher. American success in Iraq would thwart Iranian political, military, and nuclear ambitions and threaten the continuance of Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic regime. American failure, especially if accompanied by an ignominious Vietnam-style withdrawal, would open Iraq and the region to Iranian machinations. With the United States out of the way, Iran could forge an unbreakable link to Shiites across the Middle East, becoming dominant in political, military, and economic affairs. Unfortunately for America, Iran currently enjoys an advantageous set of circumstances that give Iran the upper-hand, though both sides have recently upped the ante.
Provoking the United States has become an Iranian pastime. For years American leaders have known that Iran trains and equips foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents, deadly forces credited with killing hundreds of American troops and wounding many more. Just this past Tuesday CBS quoted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accusing Iran of “killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq.” On April 9th, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly boasted that “his country had begun installing 6,000 new uranium-enrichment centrifuges,” reported the Los Angeles Times, adding to the 3,000 centrifuges already in operation. Iranian speedboats regularly harass American warships operating in the Persian Gulf, creating increasingly tense confrontations. American commanders, mindful of the USS Cole’s near-total destruction by another small vessel, have come “within seconds” of firing on the Iranian intruders. Whatever Iran is up to, America has decided to respond.
Unwilling to appear weak and unresponsive to Iranian gamesmanship, just this past week the Bush Administration ordered the nuclear-powered USS Abraham Lincoln into the Persian Gulf, joining another carrier task-force already there. Pentagon statements about the deployment were designed to send a message to Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen didn’t mince words, warning Iran that America has plenty of reserve capability to launch a military strike. “Targets would include everything from the plants where [Iranian] weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq,” reported CBS. “The State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off — or else.” If Ahmadinejad refuses to back down, he may be asking for an American attack.
Is he?
The shortest route to Iranian victory in Iraq involves a sudden, rapid redeployment of American forces out Iraq. The Iraqi government and military are too fragile to maintain order without massive American military support. Only two foreseeable circumstances could cause an abrupt change in American policy in Iraq: one, the election of either Democratic candidate, or two, the complete collapse of American domestic support for the war. Iran’s bluster, supplying weapons to our enemies, making rash claims about nuclear advances, and pestering American Navy vessels may be Iran’s way of bringing about either or both of these circumstances.
An American military strike against Iranian assets, before the November presidential election, would almost certainly doom the Republican candidate to defeat. Senator John McCain stands foursquare for continuing our war effort pretty much as is, while both Democratic contenders promise to quickly and dramatically pull our troops out of Iraq. Whether Senators Clinton and Obama would actually fulfill their campaign promises is beside the point; the operative factor is that the Iranians believe they will, making a Democratic victory in the fall an Iranian goal. It’s hard to imagine anything more politically unpopular than a dramatic escalation in the sixth year of an already unpopular war.
The same scenario holds true if Iran’s goal is to bring about a collapse of nearly all remaining support for the war in Iraq. Ahmadinejad and his henchmen may be planning an Iranian Tet offensive. For once, a parallel drawn with the Vietnam War may hold water. By 1968 the American public was growing increasingly dissatisfied with the sordid mess in Vietnam. Everyone, including President Johnson, wanted to know if the U.S. strategy of attrition was working and whether the war would soon be over. Though the Tet offensive was a military failure from the point of view of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, it convinced the American public the war could not be won, at least not at anything resembling an acceptable cost or in a tolerable amount of time. Public opinion turned stridently against the war. More than any other single event, Tet sealed America’s defeat.
Support for the war in Iraq is lower now than support for the Vietnam War was in early 1968. Widening the war to include Iran — even with mere air-strikes — could galvanize American war opponents, dissolve existing support, and accomplish Iran’s goals. American policy makers are left with few good options.
President George W. Bush is in a particularly weak position. An unpopular, lame-duck leader, the President may very well be out of the political capitol necessary to expand the war. He is left with the choice of allowing Iran’s continued interference in Iraq, standing by as Iran pushes ahead with its nuclear program and carries out other provocations against the United States. Or, Mr. Bush can strike Iran, risking political and subsequent military defeat. Meanwhile, Iranian leaders must simply stay the course, keep doing their thing, and one way or another wear down the American public.
There is a steep price to pay for not winning a war in short order. Advantage Iran.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Campaign 2008, War in Iraq