Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Michael Ledeen: Still Opposed to Military Confrontation with Iran, After He Was For It!
It would be nice if someone in a position of power noted that the Iranians have committed an act of war on a NATO country, and that the other members of the alliance can be obliged to join in common action against the aggressor if the relevant terms of the treaty are invoked, as they should be. That should be the first move, showing the Iranians that the West is united and determined to act. It should be accompanied by the appearance of some vessels from what is left of Her Majesty's Navy, buttressing our own warships and--shhhh!--the French carrier now in the area. If we have actionable intelligence from the recent wave of defectors/prisoners, we should step up the campaign against Iranian officials and agents in Iraq. And we should undertake the legitimate self-defense to which we are entitled, by moving against the terrorist training camps, and the improvised explosive device assembly lines and manufacturing sites inside the Islamic Republic.
Not surprisingly, no word from Mr. Ledeen on what our response should be if Iran decided to hit us back for such an attack. Because they would, and then the conflict would escalate until it reached something resembling all out war.
But then, Michael Ledeen knows that. Yet he also knows that outright war advocacy has its risks and is not exactly an easy sell - especially in today's political environment. So when he's not busy arguing that he does not now, nor has he ever, advocated in favor of military confrontation with Iran, he hides behind the clever ruse of "only" advocating a bombing campaign and some cross-border raids with small combat teams. All the while knowing full well that such a "discrete" engagement will quickly ramp up to the full Monty in short order.
And later when it backfires as it did with respect to Iraq, Ledeen can claim that he never supported war with Iran (as, remarkably, he did with Iraq!).