Cheney Beats the Drums of War

But Mark Hosenball writes in Newsweek: "The Bush administration is starving for good news out of Iraq, and it may finally have some: new U.S. government statistics showing that violent attacks of all kinds are down to levels not seen since 2005. But until recently, the administration appears to have resisted acknowledging a key element of the new data, because it flies in the face of President George W. Bush's ongoing rhetorical confrontation with Iran's clerical regime. According to three senior U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, the decline in Iraq violence also includes a decrease in the number of attacks attributable to insurgents backed or armed by Iran. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell confirmed to Newsweek that 'there has indeed been a drop' in such attacks, but he added that 'it's not entirely clear what the reason for that is.'"

Mullen Watch

Thom Shanker writes in the New York Times that in an interview, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, "rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

"With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region 'has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.' The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

"But Admiral Mullen warned any nation, including Iran, not to 'mistake restraint for lack of commitment or lack of concern or lack of capability.' He described the Air Force and Navy as America's 'strategic reserve,' ready to carry out a full range of combat operations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .

"The threat to American and allied troops from high-powered explosives from Iran, he said, should be countered by halting their flow into Iraq or Afghanistan across the borders, and with attacks on those bomb-making and bomb-planting cells inside Iraq or Afghanistan."

Bolton Watch

Glenn Kessler writes in The Washington Post: "On the eve of the 2004 presidential elections, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell secretly attempted to shift U.S. policy on Iran by telling key allies he wanted to offer 'carrots' to the Islamic Republic to halt its nuclear ambitions, former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton writes in his soon-to-be-published memoir.

"Bolton, then undersecretary of state, says that he worked hard to thwart Powell's plans -- only to discover, to his dismay, that Powell's replacement, Condoleezza Rice, would pursue the same approach in President Bush's second term."

Opinion Watch

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "The war of words against Iran grew scorching this week when President Bush declared that 'avoiding World War III' requires preventing that country from developing nuclear weapons. . . .

"[T]he escalation of American threats against Iran is unwise. It is grossly premature. It is dangerous, as it greatly increases the likelihood of accidental escalation into a preventable war. It is alarmingly ill-timed, as an isolated United States wages simultaneous ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both conflicts are going badly. And it is diplomatically counterproductive. Congress and U.S. opinion leaders should slam on the brakes -- if they can. . . .

"So why rattle the sabers now, at a moment of U.S. military weakness? In 1969, with the Vietnam War going badly, President Nixon devised a plan to spook the Soviets and the North Vietnamese into making concessions by making them think that he was just crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. Nixon called it the 'madman theory.' There is speculation that the Bush administration could be trying out its version of the madman gambit by advertising Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged desire to bomb Iranian nuclear sites and Revolutionary Guard targets, in hopes of scaring Tehran into submission. The problem with the madman act, however, is that it presumes that the Iranians will react sensibly. But who wants to stake U.S. foreign policy on the wisdom of Iran's mullahs and its titular head, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a paranoid who can beat us at the madman game any day of his choosing?"

Flashback

In 1991, Cheney spoke at the very same institute and offered a rousing defense of the first Gulf war -- and explained why going on to overthrow Saddam Hussein would have been a disaster.

From the transcript: "There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding 'no.'