The left pulls out another strawman on the Bush administration’s Iran intentions

Remember back in February when I blogged about the mediots (more here) and the left’s (but I repeat myself) building up of strawman arguments about the President’s comments and intentions towards Iran and then tearing them down?

They’re doing it again.

It all started with recents comments made by the well-respected (on both sides of the aisle) Robert Baer, in a piece published for Time Magazine this past weekend titled “Prelude to an Attack on Iran.” In it, he wrote:

Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: it’s either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Keep in mind that the CIA has gone through some major credibility issues the last several years in light of 9-11, including charges that they’ve been trying to undermine the Bush administration, and some of those same CIA officials could be some of Baer’s sources – Baer used to work for the CIA, so of course he would have an “in” with the department. I’m not saying the sources necessarily aren’t credible – I don’t even know who they are – but that’s just some food for thought to remember when discussing Baer’s remarks.

Baer later clarified his remarks in an interview he did on Fox News (emphasis added):

Baer explained that what his sources anticipate is “not exactly a war.” He said the administration is convinced “that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf” but that “if there is an attack on Iran it would be very quick, it would be a warning.”

“We won’t see American troops cross the border. … If this is going to happen, it’s going to happen very quickly and it’s going to surprise a lot of people,” said Baer. “I hope I’m wrong frankly, but we’re going to see.”

I’m sure the discerning reader will note that Baer’s doing little more than relaying speculation on the part of his sources. There’s nothing definite. His clarification was especially striking to me, because he’s clearly talking about an air strike, considering that, according to his speculating sources, “no troops will cross the border.” This could be considered an ‘act of war’ but hardly a full scale war, as the left has, of course, misinterpreted the comments to mean.

Let’s take a look at how the left has started to ratchet up the “Bush admnistration is going to attack Iran!” rhetoric this week. In a post at the liberal blog Think Progress, “Amanda” starts off with this headline:

[Former U.N. ambassador John] Bolton: I ‘Absolutely’ Hope The U.S. Will Attack Iran In The Next ‘Six Months’

Oddly enough, she posted a video, along with a transcript, that says no such thing (emphasis added by me):

HEMMER: Bob Baer says within six months his sources inform him that there will be a strike on Iran. Do you agree with that?

BOLTON: Well, I don’t think one can tell one way or the other. I don’t think there’s any doubt, based on the information we have, that Iran is interfering in Iraq and is posing a direct threat to our troops.

So I think if President Bush as commander in chief believes that information is accurate, he is fully entitled to take defensive measures, which could include going after the Revolutionary Guards inside Iran. [Ò€¦]

HEMMER: One final step here, too, that I want to take with you. You told one of our producers earlier today that you don’t know if it’s true β€” and you’ve made that clear in our interview here, that you don’t know what the odds are or are not against that β€” but you hope it’s true. Why do you hope it’s true?

BOLTON: Absolutely. I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.

Wow. What a difference actually reading what Bolton said makes. Clearly what he’s saying here is that he believes the administration should not take war off the table as an option, and that Iran needs to know (presumably through tough talk, sanctions, and aggressive maneuvering in the Gulf) that the administration will act in its best interests if they don’t stop interfering in the Iraq war, developing nukes, and supplying our other enemies in the Middle East (like Hamas and Hezbollah) with weaponry. Even Baer himself used the word “if” in his clarified remarks. To the clueless wonders on the left who don’t know what the word “if” (but think the word “is” should be defined, but I digress …) means, it’s a conditional word. Since I know they won’t believe me, I’ll point to dictionary.com’s main definition:

1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I’ll go if you do.

This concludes tonight’s English 101 class, Think Progress.

Now, to be sure, there are some prominent figures out there who have outright advocated that as a sign of solidarity with Israel, as well as to protect our own interests, that we do need to strike Israel. Bill Kristol has been arguing that for at least the last year and a half. But that’s a far cry from “the Bush administration is going to strike Iran!!!!” messages we’ve been hearing from the mediots and the left alike, statements that have no basis in reality whatsoever, as I’ve noted on three different occassions.

But for purposes of discussion, let’s take a look at some of Iran’s statements and acts of aggression, both against the US and some of her allies abroad:

Mark Steyn wrote a comprehensive piece on understanding Iran back in 2006.

If (there’s that word again) what Baer is saying his sources are speculating about is true, wouldn’t the above actions and statements go a long way towards justifying cruise missile action against Iran? The left seems to think that because the administration is not saying that they will absolutely positively not strike Iran that it definitely means they’re going to. What the Bush administration is (rightly, I think) doing is not taking any option off the table just in case, but at the same time trying very hard to make sanctions, solidarity with our allies, and diplomacy through UN channels work, because, contrary to the beliefs of the True Believers, the last thing the administration wants to do is to start another war, especially considering they’ve already got their hands full in Iraq, and next year is an election year which means the strong possiblity there will be a Democrat CIC who won’t know what the hell he or she’s doing, so unless something drastic (like a strike on Israel) happened, it’s unlikely that Bush is going to start another war (small or large) with Iraq’s next door neighbor.

As usual, though, the left wants the Bush administration to tie its own hands in an open declaration that they are taking the option of striking Iran off the table. This is a stupid and naive desire on their part, because – as smart people understand – dealing with rogue regimes requires a CIC to have numerous options on the table, including war as a last resort. A president’s role as Commander in Chief is to protect the US from rogue states, and if the option of attacking that country is taken off the table, then his ability to effectively deal with more hostile enemies of the state is severely hampered.

For all their blunders, thank goodness the grown ups are currently in charge in the Bush administration. God help if we had a Democrat adminstration currently dealing the the threat from Iran. It might look a little something like this:

Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, do nothing about evil
Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, laugh about evil.

Written by

Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on mainstream media bias and the culture wars.

Comments are closed.