Sunday, September 2, 2007

President Bush Cites Iran’s Nuclear Program as a Reason for Not Leaving Iraq

I normally leave Iraq to Travis Sharp’s Iraq Insider and Iran to Carah Ong’s Iran Nuclear Watch, and instead focus on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues, but wanted to make note of an important development involving the explicit connection of all three.

In case you missed it, President Bush commented earlier this week that, according to the New York Times, an American withdrawal from Iraq would embolden a belligerent Iran, whose nuclear program threatens to put “a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” (That Bush chose to use the evocative phrase “nuclear holocaust” provides interesting insight into his thinking.)

Bush’s comments suggest that Iran’s nuclear program is next in the ever growing and evolving list of reasons given to justify the invasion and continued military presence in Iraq, which includes (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction, toppling a repressive dictator, spreading democracy and human rights, combating al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, preventing regional instability, etc.

A likely reason for adding Iran’s nuclear program to the list is that it evokes a great deal of concern among the American people, with a recent poll showing that 63% of Americans view Iran’s influence as mostly negative and other polls indicating deep skepticism over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and intentions. Similar apprehension also exists across both parties in Congress, although there is significant disagreement as to how to contain Iran’s nuclear program.

By piggybacking on this concern, it seems that the Bush administration hopes to increase support for its efforts in Iraq among a public and Congress weary of war but also frightened of a nuclear armed Iran. Whether this approach will actually work is another story.

4 comments:

Plutonium Page said...

Nice analysis.

With regard to this part...

"A likely reason for adding Iran’s nuclear program to the list is that it evokes a great deal of concern among the American people, with a recent poll showing that 63% of Americans view Iran’s influence as mostly negative and other polls indicating deep skepticism over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and intentions."

... what is difficult to distinguish is how many Americans are concerned with Iran's intentions due to FOX News (et al.) hype, and actual facts. More reliable sources than FOX News (understatement!) refer to legitimate cause for uncertainty about Iran's intentions, but I don't think many Americans are thinking that way. I'd like to be less cynical about it, but given the similarities with the media buildup for the Iraq debacle, I can't help it.

Jeff Lindemyer said...

Absolutely. While the media could do more in putting the Bush administration's claims for the potential necessity of military action against Iran under a microscope, thankfully there does seem to be a widespread acknowledgment that the fourth estate failed spectacularly in the run-up to the Iraq war. What makes me hopeful is that, Fox News aside, the media, the public, and Congress do seem to be asking the tough questions. So while some Americans potentially support military action (around 20%), many more support diplomatic pressure and double that support economic sanctions (around 40%).

Anonymous said...

60% of Americans can't find Iran on a map if their life depended on it, and repeating the suggestion that the only choices are to either "confront Iran" or settle for a nuclear-armed Iran is one reason why people who don't know anything about Iran nevertheless have opinions about it - so cut it out & stop mindlessly repeating this Bush admin mantra.

Jeff Lindemyer said...

The post does not suggest that there are only two options in dealing with Iran whatsoever. It simply reported that President Bush was attempting to link Iran's nuclear program to the (non)withdrawal of troops in Iraq and looks at the potential reasons why.