Given that Iran is to Islamic fundamentalism what Germany was to Nazism, you might think that Bush would have some interest in neutralizing its nuclear program before it can produce a bomb. Apparently not. You might think Bush would have an interest in neutralizing its direct finance and support of terrorism against Israel, America and our Western allies and its support of the insurgency in Iraq. No. You might think that if Bush is not willing to fight Iran then at least it might be willing to aid the Israeli's by giving in to its requests for bunker busting bombs. Sorry. Well, if we are not going to fight Iran, and we are not going to directly assist the Israeli's with weapons, at the very least you would expect Bush to allow the Israeli's to fly through Iraqi airspace to prevent the greatest terrorist nation in the world from obtaining nuclear weapons - airspace that has cost the lives of thousands of U.S. military personnel and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in our so-called war on terrorism? Nope.
Why? According to the article, the reasons were as follows:
The interviews also indicate that Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran's nuclear effort further out of view. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America's 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.First, why would we need "international inspectors" if we wiped out their nuclear program and annihilated the regime which oversees it? Isn't the goal to drive Iran's nuclear effort "out of view" by destroying it? Wouldn't keeping it in "view" imply that they would continue to build nuclear plants? Is our goal to have inspectors watch the Iranians build a nuclear power plant or is it to prevent them from building the bomb? If we thought that the Iranians had the means to hide their nuclear program, then doesn't that imply that we should focus on annihilating the source of the problem and breaking their will to fight us? In other words, wouldn't that be an argument for even more aggressive action than the Israelis are even proposing? Didn't we attack Iraq because we suspected they might some day build a nuclear weapon yet we will not even aid our ally's attempt to eradicate one of the most direct and real threats that is happening in "view"?
Second, doesn't the entire history of appeasement glaringly demonstrate that ignoring an enemy to avoid becoming "inevitably involved" in the short run will inevitably lead to greater losses in the long run?
Well, Bush has a plan. I should say a "covert" plan. You see, as the New York Times reports (shhhhhh), this "covert" plan is designed to "subtly sabotage" the Iranian nuclear program. OK -- deep breath -- first, I don't think the plan is real covert anymore. Second, if you have the greatest military in world history sitting on the doorstep of the enemy, how about OVERTLY sabotaging the nuclear program with some bunker busting bombs?
I guess Bush just wants to focus on the economy.