Newsweek in today with yet another piece on the gradually escalating conflict between the United States and Iran. It's long, detailed, and for the most part, well balanced. Presuming that you will in fact take the time to do your homework on your own, I'm going to skip straight to their conclusion:
The real thrust of Washington's multipronged attack is political. Banking restrictions levied by the U.S. Treasury have begun to pinch the Iranian economy. Voters angry about rising prices dealt Ahmadinejad an embarrassing blow in municipal elections in December, when his supporters were trounced. That wouldn't much matter if he still retained Khameini's support. But that may no longer be the case. The Khameini aide says the Supreme Leader blames Ahmadinejad's overheated rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust for the unanimous Security Council resolution that passed in late December, demanding that Tehran suspend its nuclear program.
Every time America or Iran has gained an advantage over the other in the last five years, however, they've overplayed their hand. More pressure on Ahmadinejad could well make him popular again--the chief martyr in a martyr culture. Sunni insurgents in Iraq need only kill some Americans and plant Iranian IDs nearby to start a full-scale war. Like so many times in this complicated relationship, this is a moment of opportunity. And one of equally great danger.
That bit I've highlighted makes for a nice rhetorical flourish, but from a factual standpoint it is both misleading and unnecessary. External pressure almost always makes leaders more popular, with or without a "martyr culture."
Remember Bush's approval rating before 9/11? It was just a bit above 50%. Remember after? Near 90%. Take a look for yourself. That's without a "martyr culture," mind you.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand. Attacking Iran will simultaneously radicalize and unify the Iranian people. What possible strategic interest will that serve for the United States?
UPDATE: Want more? Kevin's got you covered.


