![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
One of the most worrying parts of President Bush’s Iraq strategy doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq. It’s the way he’s ramping up a confrontation with Iran.
Across a broad spectrum of policy levers, Mr. Bush is raising the pressure on Iran, increasing the risk that he will drag the U.S. into a third war in an Islamic country in six years. Instead of disengaging from war, he could end up starting another.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The New York Times
Ever since President Bush has pushed for the surge in Iraq, there has been this talk of the greater likelihood of war against Iran. I wonder whether this likelihood may be the key reason why the Administration has been willing to tolerate Maliki's Iranian leanings. If the intention is to take out the Iranian regime, then it arguably does not matter if Maliki is relying on that regime, since that regime will be no more.
Since we first started to prepare to invade Iraq, Monk was thinking positively of the grand strategy of taking down Iran as well as Syria to boot, having a very optimistic idea of what American might can do in that blighted and threatening region.
However, who cannot be humbled by how hapless we seem to be in Iraq, as we depend desperately on Iraqis to take the load. How can war against Iran even seem plausible, seeing that we do not have the troops to maintain control in Iraq?
How is this Administration going to pull the bunny out of the hat? I know this is a faith-based Administration, but one worries if this is simply crazy. It is to beg an awful lot from God.
xXx
One of the most worrying parts of President Bush’s Iraq strategy doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq. It’s the way he’s ramping up a confrontation with Iran.
Across a broad spectrum of policy levers, Mr. Bush is raising the pressure on Iran, increasing the risk that he will drag the U.S. into a third war in an Islamic country in six years. Instead of disengaging from war, he could end up starting another.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof for The New York Times
Ever since President Bush has pushed for the surge in Iraq, there has been this talk of the greater likelihood of war against Iran. I wonder whether this likelihood may be the key reason why the Administration has been willing to tolerate Maliki's Iranian leanings. If the intention is to take out the Iranian regime, then it arguably does not matter if Maliki is relying on that regime, since that regime will be no more.
Since we first started to prepare to invade Iraq, Monk was thinking positively of the grand strategy of taking down Iran as well as Syria to boot, having a very optimistic idea of what American might can do in that blighted and threatening region.
However, who cannot be humbled by how hapless we seem to be in Iraq, as we depend desperately on Iraqis to take the load. How can war against Iran even seem plausible, seeing that we do not have the troops to maintain control in Iraq?
How is this Administration going to pull the bunny out of the hat? I know this is a faith-based Administration, but one worries if this is simply crazy. It is to beg an awful lot from God.
