Laying The Groundwork....

As I've been thinking about what will justify the eventual use of military force against Iran -- something this White House both wants and desperately needs -- the "public preparation" factor looms large. This sort of thing can't just happen, of course. There needs to be some sort of provocation. Aside from the WMD sham, we know that in the weeks before the Iraq invasion President Bush, doubting the inspectors would find WMD's anytime soon, proposed repainting U.S. spy planes with the colors of the U.N., hoping Saddam would fire on them and thus provide a casus belli. It's undeniable that the last two major wars the U.S. has fought -- Vietnam (Tonkin) and Iraq (WMD's) -- have been based on cherry-picked, massaged, or fabricated intelligence (I'm not including Operation Desert Storm as a "major war"). We've now got quite a distinguished history of lying our way into war when other nations won't give us a reason. This should outrage anyone who is really interested in stopping nuclear proliferation in places like Iran, as we've made it crystal-clear that unless a nation possesses the ultimate deterrent, it risks being attacked by a superpower manifestly willing to concoct a frame-up or provocation.

But for the provocation to be plausible, the public needs to be prepared. The groundwork can be direct -- and most of the breathless commentary on Iran qualifies -- or subtle. The latter can be just as effective. An insidious effect of the call for engaging Iran in dialogue about Iraq is the perception it creates that Iran, at the very least, must be responsible for something. Otherwise what would we have to talk about? It reminds me of Planet of the Apes, when Zira calls out the judges at Taylor's sham trial: "Then why is he called the accused? Your Honors must think him guilty -- of something." (And Zaius's response, incidentally, is: "This man is not being tried. He is being disposed of.") Joe Six Pack and Sally Soccer Mom aren't going to remember that the Bush administration refused the direct dialogue route or even what we might have talked to Iran about. When the eventual "provocation" occurs, they'll remember only something vague about "talks" or "negotiations" (negotiations, yes, it must have been about those nuclear missiles they were about to launch!) and how that never went anywhere, and well we sure gave them a chance but those damn Iranians just wouldn't cut the crap.

I'm not suggesting that anyone (the ISG, for example) is calling for dialogue with Iran as part of some dark plot to make the eventual use of force more palatable for the public. I am suggesting that the constant call for dialogue in some quarters (and yes, that includes this space) might backfire in a way its advocates will regret most. The White House realizes this, of course -- and is counting on it.