Option one: Cheney calls the shots, and Bush decided to acknowledge that fact in this moment. Unlikely--even if it's true that Cheney calls the shots, Bush probably doesn't fully admit that to himself.
Option two: Bush has totally changed his mind on this issue and does not want to escalate into Iran. Unlikely for obvious reasons ("totally changed his mind").
Option three: The administration never had any plans to invade Iran and has talked it up because ????? I have no idea. Unlikely.
Option four: The administration wants to invade Iran knowing full well it will keep the current regime in power and radicalize its population because ????? I have no idea, he's insane. I want to say, unlikely.
So, dunno, I'm no help.
Option five: Bush misunderstood, and thought "the regime" meant either Iraq, or the Bush administration, and that "radicalized" meant "partisans for a U.S.-imposed democracy."
I'm going with the "regime" = "Bush regime" option here.
To expand, it's impossible to know what the hell is going on with Bush, because he's a 60 year old insane frat boy. He has precisely two responses to everything. He either immediately gets pissed, or breaks out into inappropriate mirth for no discernible reason.
Don't forget the possibility that he was drunk.
I have no doubt that years of sustained substance abuse are a significant factor. The difference between his present self and clips from a couple decades ago are striking.
Read that way earlier and said wtf.
Weird times when you have absolutely not a clue whether a world war's gonna start tomorrow.
Putin whining and bitcching may tell us that the US really is that powerful, we will just fuck with Iran, humiliate them for years.
I go with gswift #5.
I think that somewhere along the line a Straussian or a Schmittian explained the concept of "sovereignty" to him -- how the sovereign is the ultimate unquestioned power and how the American sovereign is only answerable to anyone at election time.
He learned that at the end of a 20-year adult career as a party-animal, fuckep, and failure, with his little "Arbusto" company and his access-capitalism silent partnership in a mediocre baseball team. His ambition up to that point had been use his connections to back into the baseball commissioner position, which is hardly a demanding one.
Then (because he could be taught the "common touch" and was absolutely loyal to the crime family) he was selected to be Governor of Texas, and that was easy because the Governor of Texas doesn't do anything.
On the one hand, being The Decider went to his head in a big way. He had become the only person in the world who didn't have to lsiten to anyone. On the other hand, he knew quite well that he was a fuckep and that nothing he had ever done had prepared him for the job he had. (People compare Churchill, but that's silly. Churchill was a somewhat sketchy guy and had had a checkered career before WWII, but he had a lot of talents and had been very active in several different fields, and most important, Churchill never quit drinking. Gswift is all wet on that point).
His advisers have told him that everything's OK and that they're taking care of things, but he's starting to doubt that. Once he loses his confidence in his advisers he'll be thrown back on his own resources, but he knows better than anyone that he doesn't have any resources. So all he can really do is continue to try to project confidence (even though he no longer has any) because that has always been his main job. But I think that the facade is starting to crack, as in this example. His act is starting to lose plausibility.
Everyone in the Bush administration and the Republican Party and a large proportion of the media and the opinion-leaders are so deeply implicated in this war that they will never be able to extract themselves from it. They can only go on and on proposing new tweaks and excalations as the situation gets successively worse. That was the failure of the Baker commission -- no face-saving deal is now possible, if one ever was.
These people have to be put out of their misery. Ten years from now Kristol and Krauthammer and Cheney and Feith will still be telling us how well things are going, no matter how bad things have gotten. We can't wait for them to change their minds. We have to get them out of there.
The constitutional provisions for getting the Bush out of office are real, but they're weak and have been systematically weakened for the last 65 years or so. And no one trusts the Democrats to do what has to be done.
There are no provisions of any kind for getting Graham and Sulzberger and Jack Welch and the Rev. Moon and the Rev. Robertson and Scaife and Murdoch and Disney and Olin and Limbaugh out of there (and they're the big players, not Limbaugh and Mike Savage and Malkin).
And delete the second Bush.
Eh? This electoral-college-thingie doesn't have an undo? What kind of product design is that?
Option six: The entire neocon foreign policy depends upon a radicalized Muslim world. Without it, they have absolutely nothing to offer the American electorate. That's why diplomacy is no answer to their current dilemma (that being the overwhelming unpopularity of neocon foreign policy). The answer for them is to create new enemies and then to attack them. Initial military successes will give way to occupation and subsequent Iraq-style insurgency, public support for the current adventure will wane, neocons will come out and say that opponents of the adventure are emboldening the enemy and undermining the troops, and that a NEW enemy (probably Syria or some such) is secretly supporting the insurgents.
Repeat as necessary to remain in power and ruin our nation's future.
From this perspective, a radicalized Iran isn't a bug. It's a feature.
12: Josh Micah Marshall wrote about this 3 or 4 years ago:
This is really a Rorschach test, isn't it. I'll play, too:
Option 7: This adminstration originally planned to remake the Middle East, planning first a quick takeover of Iraq, followed shortly by regime change in Iran and Syria. Events ensued. Iraq is now such a clusterfuck that if we, continuing with the old fantasy plan, were to move on Iran, it's reasonably certain we'd be acting against the interests of our avowed allies in the region.
Some factions in the adminstration, nonetheless, wish to continue with the old plan; the rest are finally seeing daylight. Bush's chuckle indicates his familiarity with these arguments, and that Cheney is still on the side of invading Iran.
13: TPM is one of the best things about the Interwebs. Except, of course, Unfogged.
I definitely think that the hawks in the administration think that they might be able to pull out a victory with one last escalation, possibly by making the situation so desperate and evoking so much open opposition that they are able to impose martial law or use other extraordinary powers.
The Yoo-Gonzales doctrine says that war powers are absolute and unlimited. This is a development of the anti-liberal, ani-democratic ideas of Strauss and Schmitt, and is supported by Scalia, Alito, and Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, we're launching artillery barrages on Pakistan.
16: I definitely think that the hawks in this administration know for a certainty that they cannot pull out a victory with this one last escalation. They kept the numbers small and stretched out the deployment schedule so that failure was inevitable. In about one Friedman they'll declare that, despite the best efforts of our heroic military and the political bravery of our great President, the situation in Iraq is not salvageable. They'll blame three factors: the ingratitude of the Iraqis themselves (and the unwillingness to be responsible for their own security); the war debate back home which emboldened our enemies; and Iran's support for insurgents inside Iraq.
Then it's on to Iran -- probably precipitated by some inevitable dust-up as a result of our having three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.
Oy. Vey.
By "escalation" I meant "on to Iran". Expand the war and make the situation more frightening.
Third carrier group likely headed to the Persian Gulf, sez Newsweek. A third carrier group was one of (IIRC) Steve Clemons' signs that an attack on Iran was in the offing.
18: Any tiny wet dream of a ground war in Iran is insane. They would eat anything we have left instantly. Not. Gonna. Happen. So the troops stay in Iraq, and defend themselves and the green zones/fob.
1) Does Iran fold, and cancel the nuke program, stop supplying SCIRI, etc?
2) Does Iran ignore the provocations, even taking a couple little airstrikes, but neither responding or changing policies?
3) Does Bush/Israel cut the airforce loose on Iran?
I fucking guarantee, along with Gilliard, that if we start a real shooting war with Iran, we will fucking lose. It will be at best like the recent Israel in Lebanon thing, except for the pretty important point that Israel could retreat outa Lebanon.
We would lose the whole goddamn army. But how could Petraeus/Casey allow that? Just so fucking weird. Of course, Baghdad and Teheran would be bouncing rubble, but they would control the rubble.
After losing 50 thousand troops in a month, with an aircraft carrier, gas at 10 dollars, I have not a clue what America looks like. If I were the scum, Bush Cheney resign on the same day, and let Pelosi try to clean it up. Would Pelosi turn it down?
Some argue that Bush's claim to be "the Decider" was a direct reference to the first line of Schmitt's Politische Theologie. A review of the log of visitors to the Oval Office reveals that Giorgio Agamben held a series of intense conversations with Bush over the course of several months in late 2003. The discussion reached an impasse when their respective interpretations of messianism could not be reconciled; witnesses report that Agamben stormed out of the room, saying, "It's-a-me, Giorgio!"
Even under complete craziness, if Bush drops the BIGUN on Teheran, and Iran surrenders, what army do we send to Iran to occupy with? We don't even have enough forces to occupy the Southern Iranian oilfields without losing Baghdad.
The only insane idea that makes sense is just fucking with other for months/years.
Bob, I think they back into it real slow. Yesterday's Post story (front page, above the fold) on how Iran is harboring important AQ members is just another predicate: Bush already has all the legislative authority he needs to go after any country harboring AQ -- based on the 01 AUMF, rather than the 02 AUMF.
Today's story about Iranian explosives going to the JAM is another.
I think it's pretty clear that they need to revoke all the authorizations to use military force.
23: If the craziness escalates that much, the OVP might find some bright young thing say, "Hey, what if we abandoned all our security commitments in East Asia? That'd get us some bootpower!"
24:Sic Semper Tyrannis ...this is a blog I follow on this stuff. Col Pat Lang has a cv that makes me shudder.
And his two posts today point against a war with Iran. There are scenarios: say a quick small strike, followed by regional negotiations, that might work.
But Bush just loses everything in a war. I don't think the Pentagon would play.
Fuck, man.
1)We have no friends in Iraq.
2) They all hate us more than they hate each other
3) They are using us against each other, but they know we are gonna leave.
4) We are there because they want us there
5) They don't have to unite; each political faction will gain power by killing American, they just don't want to waste assets on us if not necessary/
6) When the endgame comes, and Sadr is looking at SCIRI for final control, supremacy will be bought with American scalps, not Iraqi.
7) The hankie drops, and every young stud, I mean everyone, waiters and truckdrivers in the green zone, will start shooting at Americans. 10 million vs 75 thousand combat troops. Take a month, at most.
8) The Pentagon has to understand this shit. The ISG sure did. The question isn't whether we lose in Iraq, it is just how badly.
9)The Republican Party wouldn't survive it. Something meaner and to right of the Republicans, might emerge, but domestically every Gooper could just go fishing.
10) The War is over. I think this is just a final bluff before we hit the negotiated withdrawal. Troops out maybe on Obama's schedule.
All of the above could be wrong.
1. Where did the idea come from that, just because something is impossible, Bush won't try to do it? Isn't that just another pony? Dubya has the roll-up-your-sleeves can-do reach-for-the-stars spirit which is the essence of Americanism.
2. I too am hoping for resistance from within the military. There are signs of that in some of the rleaces information releases (statements from the military undercutting the administration point of view.)
3. Without trying to occupy Iran, Bush might just wreak as much airpower havoc as he can.
4. Many things that are hard to understand in themselves make more sense in terms of a polarizing domestic policy. Guantanamo, for example, was primarily theatre for the Bush core constitutency and the more hysterical / sadist moderates. The excesses of Guantanamo (etc.) are features, not bugs.
5. If the whole Iran war thing is a feint, it's probably aimed in some way at American public opinion, more than at Iran or Iraq. Maybe they think that if they finally decide not to attack Iran there's some other thing that grateful Americans will let them get aways with.
29: 7) Only if Allah commands the Bernoulli Effect to suddenly stop operating.
Otherwise, pretty much yes.
I'm wondering when Jack Bauer shows up here and either tortures the counter-revolutionaries or bites an F-15, preventing it from making an aerial assault.
28, 29: Bob, you're being far too optimistic here.
Did you guys catch far-left lunatic Brzezinski warning the Senate that the administration is searching for a pretext?
33: Sorta kinda
No attack on Iran, we lose some in Iraq, withdraw most assets, muddle thru more centrism for a decade.
Attack on Iran, the right is toast after a very bad meltdown in America. Apres le deluge, le revolucion.
After 2006, i am no longer afeared of fascism. They blew it. So I am also relaxed enough to say:Stop HRC!
Because she's the most rightward of the major candidates?
McManus' optimism seems to indicate that an intervention is necessary.
36: Yeah, the most rightward of the three Democrats. She is not needed as a hawkish alternative, because hawkishness is not needed.
I mean not to say that a bombing of Iran, the subsequent complete destruction of the Army and leveling of the Mideast, subsequent worldwide depression, domestic civil war, and authoritarian lunge would be fun or a good thing...
...but I am now convinced that we come out on the left side, way lefter than before. I wasn't before.
It is a flaccid fascism, a febrile feckless fantasy, this conservatism stuff.
I am currently contemplating Sauseglysianism, which involves becoming Sweden without the "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" preparatory step.
Churchill never quit drinking. Gswift is all wet on that point).
Wait, do you think Bush has stopped drinking? It's not apparent to me that he has.
War with Iran means $10 gasoline, if you can even get it. $10 gasoline means the utter destruction of the Republican party. It's devolution into a regional religious party will accelerate greatly. Which doesn't mean Bush won't do it. Trying to look for the silver lining.
Did it happen ... ?
Consider the source.
I will concede that Borchgrave's involvement makes it plausible that this is some kind of feint or decoy. On the other hand, Setmour Hersh has been saying stuff like this for almost a year. Perhaps the rats are deserting Bush's sinking ship in hopes of maintaining credibility and didging blame. Or maybe Bush really is nuts and is scaring the other hawks.
It's not just that de Borchgrave is unreliable, it's that he's known to be a disinformation agent. The value to Bush/Cheney of circulating this story is its ambiguity: We are told Bush knows what the consequences of attacking Iran are, but can't tell (a) whether Bush agrees or disagrees with the implied conclusion that those consequences are so bad they outweigh any benefit of such an attack, or even that they're bad, or (b) whether Cheney agrees or disagrees with Bush's opinion, whatever that is. It's ripe for people to read in whatever they want to read into it, which is a convenient way of not tipping your hand while making the audience think they now know something they didn't know before.
As I said, Hersh is my main source, and there's more solid stuff every day.
My main conclusion from the Borchgrave story is that Bush is pushing his insulting cockiness beyond the limit. I can't see how that would be the intended disinformation impression.