The New NIE On Iran

It confirms what I've posted here many times and what any credible observer has long known: there can be no justifiable use of military force against Iran during the Bush presidency. That's never changed, breathless five-minutes-to-midnight alarums from the usual suspects aside.

Moreover, the NIE indirectly backs up my statements from the past few years about the real reason for those alarums. Revisiting a few posts, this one from October:

Statists hate pressure, but they fear consequences -- particularly when the culpability is both obvious and unavoidable. This is why keeping Iran as an ever-ready trump card is so important. If those consequences get bad enough and no excuse will do, the use of force must be at least minimally plausible to the public and the rest of the world.

Another:

If a U.S. attack on Iran happens during this administration, it won't be an act of the White House, neocons, or Republican party. And if it doesn't happen before January '09 and something magically comes along after that to make it "necessary" it won't be an act of the Democrats. It'll be the culture, the establishment....This is deeper than either partisan politics or a weapons program that might produce a nuke three or five or ten years from now.

Deeper, indeed. It's never really been about nukes. The bad news is the underlying exigencies of the "great game" are still there. The NIE doesn't change that.

So what's next? Remember, in January 2003, desperately seeking a casus belli, the White House secretly proposed painting a U.S. spy plane in the colors of the United Nations, hoping that Saddam would then shoot at it (why has this never gotten much attention?). Because the new NIE takes any unprovoked strike against Iran off the table (except for the real batshit brigade, I suppose), any contingency plans to induce a Persian provocation will probably get a higher priority now. You don't expect this bunch to give up so easily, do you?