Is World War III on Hold?

Is a Bush pre-emptive strike on Iran`s nuclear
enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the Al Quds force of
the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today
than

it was several weeks ago?

So it would seem.

The latest indication is a candid interview in the
Financial Times with

Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of

Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of
any naval or air war on Iran.

"The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive
attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose
rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers,"
concluded the FT in the lead of its story. [US
strike on Iran `not being prepared,`  November
12, 2007]

Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike
is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His
comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across
the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."

"(G)enerally, the bellicose comments" out of
Washington "are not particularly helpful," said
our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed
right across the bow of the West Wing.

For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing
loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most
"bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of
Washington have come from George W. Bush.

Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion
Convention:

"Iran … is the world`s
leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds
terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. …
Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran`s active
pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons
threatens to put a region already known for instability
and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." [August
28, 2007 ]

Last month, Bush ventured further, "(I)f you`re
interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you
ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from
having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon." [Press
Conference, October 17, 2007]

If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and
"World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric,"
what is?

Why might the administration be backing away from war
on Iran?

First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with
nuclear weapons in
a political crisis that could lead to civil war,
igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal—especially
with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this
spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its
seventh year next month.

Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could
denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot
destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge
for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has
surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has
constructed, far from

the Natanz plant—ground zero—where 2,000 or 3,000
are said to be operating.

Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran
will lead. While the United States could smash all known
nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs,

sniper rifles and surface-to-air missiles into
Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of
Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that
would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a
worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for
Iranian casualties with

suicide bombings at U.S. malls.

We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit
strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes
of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war
would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing
surprises.

Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and
30 senators have written to inform President Bush that
he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack
on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While

Rudy Giuliani and

John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic
candidates are moving in the other direction.

Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks
on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be
supplying the enhanced IEDs. And

U.S. forces have released several Iranians held
captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the
scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a
war. 

We are not out of the woods yet. If

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those
3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the
nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The
International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on
whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean.
It is not. And the European Union will report on whether
the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter
is the case.

And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S.
strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate
the mullahs` power.

Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for
negotiations with Tehran—Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the
Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired
military and NATO Europe—seem to be gaining the
ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush
presidency.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs


no introduction to VDARE.COM
readers; his book

State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America,

can be ordered from
Amazon.com.