GEOPOLITICAL DIARY: THE JERUSALEM POST CREATES A MYSTERY

Citing a report broadcast on Israel Army Radio, the Jerusalem Post published a story early Tuesday in which senior Israeli intelligence officials quoted a senior U.S. administration official as saying that the United States would attack Iran in the coming months. Equally interesting in the report was the claim that U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were reportedly being restrained by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In other words, Bush and Cheney were committed, but they hadn't brought Gates and Rice around.The story seemed odd, not because of reports of an impending American attack on Iran -- that's been common currency for over a year -- but because it claimed that Bush and Cheney were unable to implement their decision because of Gates and Rice. The portrayal of power relationships in the administration, with Bush and Cheney struggling to get Gates and Rice on board and unable to move until they did, did not quite jibe with Washington reality as we know it. If Bush and Cheney want to go, Gates and Rice wouldn't have the weight to block it, or even pause it much. The White House quickly moved to deny the story, saying that "An article in today's Jerusalem Post about the president's position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources -- quoting unnamed sources -- is not worth the paper it's written on." That was pretty firm, although it didn't address the value of the electrons that Israel Army Radio used to transmit the news. When Israel Army Radio cites Israeli intelligence sources, the origin of the story becomes a bit more complicated.Worth noting is that this story appears within the context of increasing attacks by Iranian clerics on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has come under fire for overstepping his bounds in addressing religious questions that are the purview of the clergy, as well as his handling of the economy, which has been abysmal. Implicit in some of the criticism is the sense that he is a loose cannon, and that mild worries about him are increasing. An extension of the loose cannon concept is that he is seen as excessively provocative by the senior Ayatollahs who don't mind baiting the United States but really don't want a war.If you consider this emerging situation, and we assume that an Israel Army Radio producer wasn't just having fun, an explanation begins to emerge. Certainly the United States and Israel discussed Iran during Bush's trip there. If there really was an attack planned, the United States would keep it secret. Further, if this plan was shared with an Israeli intelligence source, it wouldn't be broadcast on Israel Army Radio without some authorization. So let's assume that a story was planted and focus our analysis there.One theory is that the story may have been intended to increase the rift in Iran by implying that Ahmadinejad had triggered an American decision to attack. If you create the characterization (which in reality is a joke) that Bush and Cheney are struggling against the awesome powers of Gates and Rice, then you've got a perfect good cop/bad cop script on your hands. When executed, it plays out like this: Bush and Cheney are out of control and Gates and Rice must give them something to calm them down. Fitting this theory, Gates told a congressional committee today that the United States might have missed a chance to work with Iran in 2003 and 2004, but that now, "The question is do you have the kind of government in Iran now with whom there can be productive discussions on substantive issues, and I think that's an open question."So, Gates, who is holding Bush and Cheney back, has made it clear that the Iran in 2003-2004 -- in other words, prior to Ahmadinejad -- was an Iran that Washington could have worked with. While Gates admitted the U.S. might have made a mistake, he also held out the possibility that the United States could engage Iran if it returned to the status quo ante. In other words, get rid of Ahmadinejad. And if he doesn't go, then Gates and Rice won't be able hold back Bush and Cheney. Whether this hurts Ahmadinejad or makes it even more difficult for Iranian clerics to attack him is unclear. After all, Ahmadinejad can start to accuse his critics of knuckling under to American pressure. But the whole thing was done deftly enough to possibly convince Iranian clerics that they face attack and by simply getting rid of Ahmadinejad they can not only avoid an aggression but benefit from a relationship with the United States -- a tempting proposition for some of them, since they don't like him anyway.
Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.