From the time the administration prepared (so to speak) for the invasion of Iraq, I suspect that they intended to speedily follow that up with an encore liberation of Iran. When the stabilization of Iraq turned out to be vastly more difficult than the administration had conceived—when to their surprise, the U.S. troops were not greeted with candies and flowers—any potential campaign against Iran became too impractical even for this administration to pursue for the time being. But many believe that intervention against Iran is still on the administration’s agenda.
The administration has recently accused Iran of inciting and arming some of the insurgents in Iraq, contributing to the chaos there. While I have little faith in the integrity of this administration, I would hardly be surprised if Iran was indeed meddling in the turmoil of Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that I think the U.S. should begin gearing up to move into Persia. Aside from my belief and faith in non-violent methods of conflict resolution, I believe that such an attack would in many ways play right into the hands of the Tehran and exacerbate the situation, much as the two prior campaigns have multiplied the problems and created playgrounds for terrorists and thugs.
KCPW recently aired an interview with Michael McFaul, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, and expert on Iran. They discussed McFaul’s recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Iran’s weakened hard-liners crave a US attack.” McFaul explains his own suspicions about the administration’s intention to mount a military campaign and why he believes such an action would be counterproductive. Listen at Midday Utah (scroll down to Feb 9, or do a search for Michael McFaul in the search box on that page).