I don't buy it, particularly in light of signs that the Bush adminstration is tilting towards a more European approach. The Bush team has yet to develop a coherent policy on the nuclear question, though it seems to be gingerly moving ahead with plans to ask Congress to fund Iranian opposition groups (the House Bill--H.R. 282--still has only 75 cosponsors, however). And we continue to need high-level Iranian support for the nascent Iraqi government, even if there are some Iranian factions who are funding its opposition.
According to retired General Sam Gardiner's Power Point presentation (subscription, pdf) on Iran, which was used for the mock war gaming exercise in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly, this is what a strategic communications plan might look like:
- Methodology: Stay Ahead of the Story
– Strategically, criticism of Iran will come faster than argument can be made against the points.
– Tactically, we’ll continue to dominate the 24-hour cycle but work to reduce perspective by others this time. - Phases
– Building the Base
• Sub-theme: Iran is bad, but diplomacy is the best option for dealing with the problem.
– Expanding Support at Home and Overseas
• Sub-theme: (1) Diplomacy is failing. (2) This is not just a problem for the United States,
– The Time Has Come
• Sub-theme: Diplomacy has failed; we have no choice. - Timing: Communications plan and the military plan have to be synchronized.
Until we see this kind of a drumbeat--and we know how loud and persistent this administration can be when it is pushing something--along with genuine efforts (as opposed to Senatorial mumbles) to improve friendly airbases around the region, I won't believe any rumors like Ritter's.
I think that the administration is truly undecided at the moment, and recognizes that it has a weak hand. There may be an element of "strategic ambiguity" going on that is designed to spook the Iranian government. There are certainly reports of American aircraft violating Iranian airspace and of Pentagon teams training in Karachi, but these are mostly taking place under the radar screens of most Americans. The Pentagon, in any case, denies that "U.S. military aircraft" are "flying reconnaissance missions" in Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean that other things aren't going on -- the CIA could be operating UAVs without official Pentagon knowledge, or "military aircraft" might not technically apply to drones, or Israeli drones could be doing the dirty work. Or we could be bluffing. Who knows?
In any case, until the public drumbeat happens, I'm not going to be impressed by RUMINT. I will be thrilled, however, if the adminstration decides to back the European efforts to negotiate a deal and offer some kind of "grand bargain" that recasts our relations in a more friendly light, while continuing to ask that Iran live up to its commitments on human rights. Even if such a policy fails, it would be much better than the current muddle.
UPDATE: Greg Djerejian reacts to a solid Pollack/Takeyh piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the vaunted "Triple Track" approach is not dead after all!
The first afoe European weblog awards