A recent email (9.15.06) included the following analysis by radical right wing pundit, Charles Krauthammer deconstructing Bush’s remarks on an “inevitable” war with Iran.
Like John Podhoretz before him, Charles Krauthammer in his column today announces that he now understands the President's words to mean that war with Iran is inevitable:
The next day, [President Bush] responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: "It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force."
"Before" implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.
When it comes to war, war, war, it’s hard to fault Krauthammer’s and Podhoretz's analyses. If they are right, and if it’s Bush’s intention to attack Iran, or as Phyllis Bennis has been suggesting (WBAI “Wake Up Call,” 9.22.2006) to provoke a war with Iran by blockading its ports, it’s not unlikely that such U.S. attacks or provocations will be postponed until after the November elections and the New Year. Thus the most likely time for hostilities to break out seems to be early 2007, perhaps February or March, as in the March 2003 war against Iraq.