Saber Rattling On Iran Being Done For Bush's Political Gain?

That would appear to be partially the case.

From a Time magazine article on the White House Chief of Staff's new strategy-

RECLAIM SECURITY CREDIBILITY. This is the riskiest, and potentially most consequential, element of the plan, keyed to the vow by Iran to continue its nuclear program despite the opposition of several major world powers. Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. “In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose,” said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House. However, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this April 8-11, found that 54% of respondents did not trust Bush to “make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran.”

This all goes back to this one point- Bush's PR takes precendent over actual national security.

And that is why I believe the President will not recover credibility on the issue.

As Think Progress notes-

Aggressive Bush administration posturing risks impairing efforts to form a united international front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions while rallying the Iranian people to the defense of their radical government. But aren’t those costs worth it, if President Bush’s approval rating can come soaring back to 40 percent?

This overly agressive rhetoric only seeks to undermine the potentially successful efforts we can undertake to keep Iran from becoming a threat. We've already seen where diplomatic solutions with Iran were abandoned because it offended the egos of the neocons controlling our foreign policy. The pushing of the 'our way or the highway' and 'shock and awe' foreign policy has proven a complete failure with Iraq, why does any sane person support revisiting it now?

Digby hits on this as well-

Suppose your local police department suddenly threw out all the rules and started acting "crazy" on the theory that the criminals would get scared and stay home. Would that actually make your town safer or more dangerous?

This is such a deeply immature view that I honestly don't know these influential middle aged men are even allowed to drive much less be taken seriously on foreign policy. The United States is a superpower. We do not need to "act crazy." Indeed, acting crazy is the last thing a superpower should ever do. It makes others miscalculate because they think we are unpredictable and dumb.

What he said.

I guess my question is this- What does the White House have against cooperation and compromise (not with Iran, per se, but with others who would work with us on a solution) as a way of avoiding war? Today, we see that Condoleeza Rice is going to the UN to push for diplomatic action. In theory, that's good. But is it all for show again? I resent the fact that we even have to ask that question.

After all, we're assuming here for the sake of argument that this is all rhetoric. That may prove wrong when our nukes/bombs drop. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a deluded ideologue who bases his foreign policy decisions on his faith. The President said yesterday that "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free." Imagine if a Middle Eastern leader made such a proclamation on the impact of his religion on the policies of his government... would that leader be someone we trusted to make the rational decisions on the most volatile issues of war and peace?

Meanwhile, Iran plays tough as well and our intelligence on them is- surprise- inadequate.

Stay tuned. As the elections draw closer, this nightmare is sure to heat up...