How to pump up war fever without starting a war

[liberal N proud]

By Paul Woodward, The War in Context, February 7, 2007

The Bush-Cheney administration is and always has been focused on one thing: the acquisition, consolidation, protection, and projection of power. It's ideological agenda serves as an instrument to that end rather than an articulation of its objectives. For this reason, as long as the administration's actions are analyzed in terms of ideological content (beyond raw Machiavelism), it's intentions remain persistently difficult to decipher.

Right now, there is a broad consensus that President Bush is itching to strike Iran. In support of that aim there is a drive to open up and inflame a sectarian schism spanning the Islamic world. By emphasizing a Shia/Sunni divide, America and Israel hope to cement the allegiance of autocratic Arab regimes who feel threatened by the ascendance of Iranian power. At the same time, drumming up fear of a Shia threat is effective in undercutting the Sunni support that Hassan Nasrallah won across the Arab world last summer after Hezbollah successfully resisted Israel's assault on Lebanon. And now, baseless rumors (from unknown sources) are leading many ordinary Sunnis to fear that there is a Shia campaign to force conversions.

Looming behind everything, we are repeatedly told, sinister Iranians -- the masters of Islamic extremism -- are stoking the fires of a regional conflict.

These are some of the elements in a narrative relentlessly being pushed by right-wing Israelis and American neoconservatives.

Is the purpose of this narrative to prepare Americans and Israelis for another war, or does it simply have a more immediate aim of boosting the expectation of war?

For now -- and conceivably all the way up to November 2008 -- it will serve the Bush administration and the GOP to keep the Iran issue on the boil without actually turning it into a military engagement. After the election, it will be hard for any president to then pull back from the brink of war.

Hardly a day goes by without some new American accusation about Iran "meddling" in Iraq, yet these stories do much more to create a threatening atmosphere than anything else.

Bush and Cheney might be the two loneliest men in the world, seemingly impervious to reason or outside pressure, yet I don't think they have any desire to become martyrs -- they have practical and personal concerns about the future. That means they really can't afford to go for broke in pursuit of a legacy. Once out of office they will need powerful friends for their own protection, so if they risk destroying the GOP, they risk destroying themselves.

A post-Bush Republican White House just as much serves Bush and Cheney's own personal interests as it does those of the party. It's their stay-out-of-jail card. And there's plenty of evidence that ever since 9/11 they've given serious thought to what they need to do to avoid legal culpability; to not simply avoid impeachment (always a minimal risk) but also avoid indictment.

http://warincontext.org/2007_02_04_archive.html#117079899013398766