Déjà Vu

At a news conference on Wednesday, President Bush said “I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided sophisticated IEDs [to Shiite militants] that have harmed our troops [in Iraq].” The Quds Force, an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has historically reported to the top Iranian religious leaders.

The president has previously gone before the American people and expressed certainty about threats from his self-designated “axis of evil”, only to have his certain claims about WMDs in Iraq go up in a misguided mushroom-shaped cloud of hot air and dust. Needless to say, there are credibility issues around White House pronouncements of this nature.

Mr. Bush said that if the U.S. found networks or individuals “who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them.” It’s not farfetched to conclude that Mr. Bush will decide to “deal with” the Iranians just like he dealt with the Iraqis. It’s not farfetched to ask whether we’re witnessing the initial steps in laying the foundation for another war. 2007 could be 2002 all over again.

Asked about our response to Iranian interference, he said, “We will continue to protect our troops.” Indeed we should; but that broad principle, with which no one disagrees, begs more questions than it answers in this situation. Will we attack Iran but label it a “troop-protection mission”? How far do we go in taking military action under the guise of “protecting our troops”? Who else in the world has supplied Sunni insurgents or Shiite militants with weapons, equipment or other forms of support – will we attack them all? What about other militants in the world who fall under the “war on terror” umbrella – will we attack anyone and everyone who supports one militant faction or another?

What is the logical extension of taking action to protect our troops? It’s as if this president thinks he can parachute a division of troops into Tehran and then declare he has to blow up the country in order to protect the troops he sent there.

Mr. Bush said. “I do not know whether the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the [Iranian] government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?” Answering his own question, Mr. Bush suggested that it didn’t matter whether senior Iranian leaders were involved. “What matters is, is that we’re responding,” Mr. Bush said.

Excuse me – but it matters a great deal. If you don’t know who’s involved, then to whom are we responding? It’s obviously worse if this weapons channeling is being ordered from the top echelons in Iran as opposed to some rogue group in the government or in radical Islamic echelons. The implications and consequences are very different in terms of who is held accountable and, more importantly, how they’re held accountable.

U.S. military officials have indicated that we have suspected Iranian involvement of this nature since late 2003, so why are we only reacting to it in early 2007? It may be that the House and Senate debates on resolutions disapproving Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq is emboldening the White House. The administration says the answer to that question is the recent increase in attacks and casualties, as if the lower levels of earlier attacks and casualties weren’t of equal or sufficient concern. Color me skeptical, but this feels like the White House looking for a scapegoat for its failures in Iraq.

As Mr. Bush held his news conference in Washington, the chief American military spokesman in Baghdad briefed the press on how the administration believes the weapons, particularly lethal devices known as explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs), got to Iraq. Through these coordinated messages the White House is trying to squelch the appearance of divisions in the U.S. government about who in Iran is responsible for shipping these EFPs. A senior DOD analyst said at a briefing last weekend that the shipments were being directed “from the highest levels of the Iranian government.” But General Peter Pace, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contradicted that account saying, that while some bomb materials were made in Iran, “that does not translate that the Iranian government, per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.”

Inexplicably to many people, Mr. Bush has refused to meet with Iranian leaders, notwithstanding the example of several presidents having negotiated directly with the “enemy” to end the Cold War; and notwithstanding the recent success in direct negotiations with the North Koreans, the third member of the evil axis. The president continues to say that he doesn’t believe such negotiations would be effective. “This is a world in which people say, ‘Meet! Sit down and meet!’” he said. “And my answer is, if it yields results, that’s what I’m interested in.”

How in the world do you know whether it will yield results if you don’t attempt it?! Sometimes it’s maddening to listen to the White House “reasoning” that gets offered up day after day like a soup de jour. And heaven forbid that Mr. Bush would do something that the rest of world thinks is reasonable and appropriate.

January 20, 2009, can’t come soon enough.