« Home

The Iranian Distraction

If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to pose a question to readers: was the strong language against Iran and Syria in the President's address and the subsequent raid on the Iranian consulate designed to distract us from the topic of escalation?

I know this may just be another case of my tinfoil hat showing, but I have a feeling that this may be what this whole brouhaha over the President's intentions toward Iran may ultimately be about. Consider that prior to any talk of a surge, the debate about Iraq focused mainly on whether or not we should withdrawal. The Democrats, for the most part, advocated it in some form or another. And as more and more Americans came around, the Bushies found themselves in the ever shrinking minority opposing a pull out. But all that changed when talk of a "surge" came up. Now the debate has evolved into whether or not we should escalate the conflict. Bush was able to gain control of the debate by changing the dynamic of it. I suspect that's partly what we are seeing here with regard to Iran.

I have no doubts there are those who would welcome a war with Iran but I would like to think Bush is not completely insane (I know, that's asking a lot from this particular President). But now that everyone is discussing this, the issue of an escalation of the conflict in Iraq seems to have taken a backseat. Sure the Republicans are threatening to filibuster legislation that attempts to block the surge but the bigger issue has now become whether the President intends to expand the war into Iran (and whether he has the authority to do so). In one sense, he's offered a surge in Iraq as the lesser of two evils.

Your thoughts?

(Filed at State of the Day)