Iran war could spark Cheney candidacy for 2008

[Michael Z]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1594976,00.html

"For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years."

Interesting. Far-fetched, but interesting nevertheless. Many people (including Cheney himself) regard a Cheney candidacy for 2008 as unrealistic, but here is at least one scenario which could change that - even if the possibility of a war in Iran is, at this moment, rather unlikely.

[Michael Z]

War with Iran should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.

It's interesting that they're looking to build a missile that can hit Europe.  That is obviously intended to have the predictable effect of making the Europeans more weak-kneed than they already are, and provoke the US into a response.

Since we're the furthest away from these people, maybe we should just let the Europeans deal with them.  The problem with that is, the Europeans will appease them fruitlessly and fritter away any chances to rein them in, and then turn the problem over to the US when it becomes a crisis.  Oh, and then they'll criticize whatever course of action we take, in line with their usual behavior.

Politically speaking, I don't think another war is a good way to divert attention from the first one.  It would be better to end the first one in a positive way if it's necessary to have another one, and it may be if Iran does not change course.  The controlled presidential election, which put a hardliner in office, was a sign that the mullah's intend to pursue a path of confrontation with the west.

I think European leaders (for now ignoring that "Europeans" is a vast generalisation of 40+ countries) seem to realise as much, hence Britain taking on a more hardline stance after Ahmadinezhad's election, while Germany under Merkel and France under (eventually) Sarkozy are bound to follow suit. Prior to that stage, ie. under President Khatami, a German-educated moderate, many European countries felt they could deal with Iran on a more level basis. Now, with that headcase in power, it's no longer the case and thus the tone from Europe will change. Unlike Iraq, Iran is something both the US and the EU will agree is an imminent threat.

It's easy to dismiss the EU as "weak-kneed appeasers" simply because they don't feel that all possible diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, but this does not necessarily correspond to reality. On that note, simply going by comments made in this and other forums, I sometimes wonder who hates us more, the Iranian mullahs or the American right.

[Michael Z]

Anti-Americanism in Europe long predates Bush.  Many Europeans hated Reagan for the same reason they hate Bush -- because he was not an appeaser and took a confrontational approach to an adversary.

"Europeans", as you call them, "hated" Reagan not through his confrontational approach per se but because they thought he was going to get them all killed with his confrontational approach. There's a huge difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, wait - appreciating a more conciliatory approach = hatred of America? That's effectively what you're saying in those two paragraphs.

Besides, you're also contradicting yourself further by stating that Europe's hatred towards America is proven by their dislike of Reagan, yet state that they didn't seem to mind, well, every other President but Bush. If anything, it suggests the typical neocon tactic to claim America entirely for themselves and everybody who disagrees with their political ideology is immediately against their country as a whole.

And I won't even start with the vast sweeping nature of statements like "Europeans are appeasers". But of course, that's just what the world needs - a more aggressive and bellicose Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ahem, Afghanistan? German and French soldiers have died in Kabul. What I find funny, personally, is how some anti-Europeans tend to ignore instances where Europe and the US do work together effectively whenever it suits their agenda.

[Michael Z]

Some interesting points on Europe which I'm not going to argue with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't say the Clinton administration was reluctant to go into Kosovo, in fact Clinton and Albright were extremely supportive of the campaign. Though the war definitely did put into light the sheer gap in military capabilities that exists between the US and most European countries (bar Britain and, possibly, France).