Taking Aim at Iran

Chief Warrant Officer Ernest Jackson looks out from the bridge of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz during a patrol this summer in the Persian Gulf, where the United States maintains a large Navy and Marine presence.

Like most analysts, Heritage's Phillips calls strikes on Iran a last resortthat, if necessary, should take place before Iran attains a nuclear capability. And if strikes are ordered because of Iran's Iraq activities, he adds, they ought to go after the nuclear sites as well. "In for a penny, out for a pound," he says.
Over at aei, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton urges a policy of promoting regime change, clandestinely. Still, he says, strikes on nuclear sites might have to come first, because regime change "may take longer than we have."

The conservative ferment over Iran policy is sowing worry among those opposed to another war. When McClatchy newspapers reported last month that Cheney had proposed airstrikes on extremist training camps in Iran, those jitters grew. Cheney's office had no comment on the report other than to say that he supports the president's policies.

Speculation that Bush may be doing more than trying to rattle Iran's government was fueled by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Shortly after meeting with Bush at Kennebunkport, Maine, last month, Sarkozy hinted at military action when he said that the current approach is the only way to avoid a "catastrophic" choice: "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Critics argue, though, that the administration has never been serious about diplomacy with Iran. Now, they see a predictable failure being used to set the stage for bolder action. "There's a singular determination to see Iran's hand everywhere," charges Vali Nasr, a Tufts University Mideast expert. "The administration has given direction to this chatter."

Whether or not that is correct, the chatter in the waning days of summer has given Iranians—and Americans—a lot to think about.