Tweet
Americans stung by Iraq, wary of attacking Iran
A new Bloomberg/LA Times poll released Wednesday shows that Americans' "pessimism about Iraq has deepened," and may be creating doubts about how the White House plans to stop Iran's nuclear program from developing. Bloomberg News reports that 56 percent of Americans now believe Iraq is engaged in a civil war, and only 37 percent believe President Bush when he says things are improving in the country. More important, only 48 percent now support military action against Iran if it doesn't stop its nuclear enrichment program, down from 57 percent in January, and 40 percent now oppose military action - up from 33 percent.
Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington who has studied US strategy in Iraq, said Americans' disillusionment with Bush's handling of the war has influenced their thinking on Iran.
"Three or four years ago, the American public might have had such overwhelming confidence in the US military and the Bush administration that it would have essentially taken their word that they could execute a strike effectively, and that it would be worth the overall cost," O'Hanlon said. "While the military remains well-regarded, we are also more painfully aware of the limits of its capabilities in certain situations," he said.
The poll, which surveyed 1,357 American adults by telephone April 8-11 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, also found that a majority of Americans, 54 percent, no longer trust President Bush to make the right decision when it comes to choosing whether or not to go to war with Iran.
An editorial in the Houston Chronicle picks up on the theme of Iraq influencing decisions about Iran. The paper argues that mistakes repeatedly made by the Bush administration about Iraq mean most of the sticks that the US has to use against Iran won't work (sanctions, military attacks). So perhaps it's time to tone down the rhetoric and try a different, but still tough, approach
Unlike Saddam Hussein before he was overthrown, Iran is not boxed in and defenseless. Its oil reserves provide a rising stream of petrodollars with which to finance its economy and its rogue regime's support for terrorism, animosity toward Israel and naked desire for nuclear weapons. Its military reach threatens US interests throughout the region and beyond.
Iranian officials claim they wish to use nuclear energy only for civilian purposes, although there was no need for Iran to end UN monitoring or enrich its own fuel. At this juncture, perhaps the best US tactic is to take them at their word, while making clear that development of nuclear weapons would bring consequences so dire that only a few zealots on either side could wish for them.
On Monday, Iran claimed it had joined the international nuclear club, successfully mastering nuclear technology. Richard Gwyn, foreign affairs columnist for the Toronto Star says the good thing about Iran's claim is that "it is, almost certainly, a lie."
This week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that "uranium with the desired enrichment for nuclear power" had been achieved. A day later, a senior Iranian atomic energy official declared that mass production of enriched uranium (by 54,000 centrifuges rather than the mere 164 supposedly already operating) would start soon.
No expert believes a word of this. Iran does have able scientists. But its technology and engineering capabilities are crude. Its oil industry is exceptionally inefficient. Its civil airplanes constantly break down. Nuclear analysts believe it will take Iran at least five years, and quite possibly 15, to develop a single, crude bomb.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that other experts also believe that the Iranian statement was little more than political posturing.
The UN nuclear watchdog agency already knew that Iran was capable of, and had done, some enrichment on a smaller scale than that announced Tuesday, said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. In addition, there is no evidence the country has brought the 164-centrifuge chain at its Natanz facility on line in any kind of sustained way, he said. A "one-shot" test may have little meaning, he said.
The Post also quotes a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who says that Iran has a recent history of exaggerating its military prowess. Recently it said that it has developed new weapons - "including missiles invisible to radar and super-fast torpedoes." But weapons experts say almost all of the technology appears to be Russian in origin.
The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that US hints of military action may actually be designed as a negotiating tactic to put pressure on Iran, and to show China and Russia that the Bush administration remains resolved to get Iran to "abandon its nuclear program." If sanctions are used against Iran, one might be to stop oil imports to the country. Although Iran produces much of the world's oil, it has insufficient refining capacity, and needs to import oil for its own use.
Rep. Mark ***k (R-Ill.) has spoken out in favor of that option, which could be enforced by a naval quarantine, as President John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis four decades ago.
"The critical thing is we should not start any shooting," ***k said. "This is a political struggle as much as a military one, and I think the side that shoots first weakens its political case."
The Times of London reports that the US will renew its push for sanctions when world leaders meet next week to discuss Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington who has studied US strategy in Iraq, said Americans' disillusionment with Bush's handling of the war has influenced their thinking on Iran.
"Three or four years ago, the American public might have had such overwhelming confidence in the US military and the Bush administration that it would have essentially taken their word that they could execute a strike effectively, and that it would be worth the overall cost," O'Hanlon said. "While the military remains well-regarded, we are also more painfully aware of the limits of its capabilities in certain situations," he said.
The poll, which surveyed 1,357 American adults by telephone April 8-11 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, also found that a majority of Americans, 54 percent, no longer trust President Bush to make the right decision when it comes to choosing whether or not to go to war with Iran.
An editorial in the Houston Chronicle picks up on the theme of Iraq influencing decisions about Iran. The paper argues that mistakes repeatedly made by the Bush administration about Iraq mean most of the sticks that the US has to use against Iran won't work (sanctions, military attacks). So perhaps it's time to tone down the rhetoric and try a different, but still tough, approach
Unlike Saddam Hussein before he was overthrown, Iran is not boxed in and defenseless. Its oil reserves provide a rising stream of petrodollars with which to finance its economy and its rogue regime's support for terrorism, animosity toward Israel and naked desire for nuclear weapons. Its military reach threatens US interests throughout the region and beyond.
Iranian officials claim they wish to use nuclear energy only for civilian purposes, although there was no need for Iran to end UN monitoring or enrich its own fuel. At this juncture, perhaps the best US tactic is to take them at their word, while making clear that development of nuclear weapons would bring consequences so dire that only a few zealots on either side could wish for them.
On Monday, Iran claimed it had joined the international nuclear club, successfully mastering nuclear technology. Richard Gwyn, foreign affairs columnist for the Toronto Star says the good thing about Iran's claim is that "it is, almost certainly, a lie."
This week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that "uranium with the desired enrichment for nuclear power" had been achieved. A day later, a senior Iranian atomic energy official declared that mass production of enriched uranium (by 54,000 centrifuges rather than the mere 164 supposedly already operating) would start soon.
No expert believes a word of this. Iran does have able scientists. But its technology and engineering capabilities are crude. Its oil industry is exceptionally inefficient. Its civil airplanes constantly break down. Nuclear analysts believe it will take Iran at least five years, and quite possibly 15, to develop a single, crude bomb.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that other experts also believe that the Iranian statement was little more than political posturing.
The UN nuclear watchdog agency already knew that Iran was capable of, and had done, some enrichment on a smaller scale than that announced Tuesday, said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. In addition, there is no evidence the country has brought the 164-centrifuge chain at its Natanz facility on line in any kind of sustained way, he said. A "one-shot" test may have little meaning, he said.
The Post also quotes a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who says that Iran has a recent history of exaggerating its military prowess. Recently it said that it has developed new weapons - "including missiles invisible to radar and super-fast torpedoes." But weapons experts say almost all of the technology appears to be Russian in origin.
The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that US hints of military action may actually be designed as a negotiating tactic to put pressure on Iran, and to show China and Russia that the Bush administration remains resolved to get Iran to "abandon its nuclear program." If sanctions are used against Iran, one might be to stop oil imports to the country. Although Iran produces much of the world's oil, it has insufficient refining capacity, and needs to import oil for its own use.
Rep. Mark ***k (R-Ill.) has spoken out in favor of that option, which could be enforced by a naval quarantine, as President John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis four decades ago.
"The critical thing is we should not start any shooting," ***k said. "This is a political struggle as much as a military one, and I think the side that shoots first weakens its political case."
The Times of London reports that the US will renew its push for sanctions when world leaders meet next week to discuss Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Comment