Great post. The timely use of "irreversibility" effectively shapes and constrains options, both for the electorate and for future politicians. It appears to be the only way to initiate long-term strategy in American culture. Any views on whether the Bush Administration will also take irreversible steps against Iran in the post-election 2006/2007 timeframe for similar reasons?

Chester,

I think he could get the treaty signed in early 2008 and still have it approved by the Senate before Election Day. And a bonny feather that would be.

Subsunk

Chester,

I think he could get the treaty signed in early 2008 and still have it approved by the Senate before Election Day. And a bonny feather that would be.

Subsunk

Good points all around . . . I think an Iraqi Securiy agreement could double in purpose as a move to contain Iran. Iraq in NATO seems like a great idea, but I'm not as familiar with the procedures for new joins to NATO as I should be . . . I wonder if the Euros would go along. They seem to be suspicious of letting Turkey have full membership to the EU . . . And Subsunk, perhaps he could get it done in 08. We shall see . . .

"So assume that Bush wants his strategy to continue beyond his own tenure. How might he ensure that?"

Here is another possible strategy:
Jeb Bush for President in 2008.

Chester, glad to see you've resolved your spam problem. Or at least gotten it under control.

cjr, I don't think the country would go for two Bush's in a row. Too dynastic.

James, I was thinking the same thing about Iran. It's a good possibility, I think.

Chester, excellent post. You're right, Bush does time his military actions with the political cycle. And yes, you can say it's cynical or whatever, but the greats would understand.

Tom TR, Do you see anyone that you would trust to not screw up the waxworks? Frist? sKerry? McCain? Hillary? In the middle of a war it's scary. Right now I don't see any one that lights my fire, and a bunch that are acting like halon extinguishers.

As far as 2008 thoughts go, I'm betting Guiliani shows well and Gingrich runs too. Also think there's a high probability a third-party candidate could muck things up for the GOP.

As for 08...I'm not seeing any alternative to McCain. Wish I was...but I'm not.

It takes 60 votes to do anything with the Senate. Today, I can't imagine circumstances under which the Republicans actually GAIN seats in that chamber. It's a great idea, but I'm thinking that a ratification vote on a Mutual Security Treaty with Iraq might turn out to be Bush's version of Wilson's Versailles Treaty.

Also..if the Democrats capture even one chamber of Congress (particularly the House of Representatives), Bush is likely to be too hamstrung fighting off impeachment to nail down policies for a successor.

I agree with you about Bush paying careful attention to the political winds in timing his military operations. Bottom line: if Bush has any military options up his sleave -- unless he has a way to game our enemies into setting things up for us politically -- he needs to move sooner (i.e. before this November), than later.

Check out Mike Pence, Congressman from Indiana. Rumor has it he's planning on running too.

Anyone know of any high-power independent candidates that might hit the '08 presidential scene?

I see election season realities as part of Bush timing in foreign affairs. The flip side is that Bush is very committed to what he is doing. It is almost Zen like. By ignoring political pandering, especially to the fossil media, he gains a kind of freedom to do the right thing. The resistance to going into Iraq was tremendous, orchestrated, underhanded, devious and sought to tie him down at many levels. There was the Turkish surprise, the Arab street, the French promise to Sadam to stop him, Russian spying and the perfidous Democrats. All failed. Bush simply did what he said he would do.
So what does this imply for the timing of a confrontation with Iran? I think it means sooner rather than later, as soon as diplomacy has had its chance.

I have said before that the mad mullahs of Iran will not be in power past Jan 20, '09. Bush will be sure that they are gone before he leaves office. He and his admin people always say they will not just "kick the can down the road." But the timing of this event is the big question.

Can't be done before this year's elections, barring some major provocation, or it would risk major political losses in Nov. If Bush loses the House or the Senate, he may act after the elections and before the new Congress is seated. Doubtfull though as the political price for such action would be very high.

Doing so in '08 would be very dangerous for the Republican Party, as it could risk a backlash by the voters at the polls.

That leaves sometime next year as the most likely. I would guess summer or fall as the spring will be used for "diplomacy" and playing the UN game.

As a side note, Syria is also in play here. If we or Israel attacks Iran, there will be major terror attacks against Israel in retaliation. Hezbullah, the PLO, and Hammas will not sit by idly as their major benfactor is taken out. Israel will then go "all the way to Damascuss" as they have stated many times should there be any major escalation of terror against them.

All of this would risk uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and more.

The next couple of years will see major changes in the world's geopolitical stance. Could be a major re-shuffling of the entire deck of cards.

I have said before that the mad mullahs of Iran will not be in power past Jan 20, '09. Bush will be sure that they are gone before he leaves office. He and his admin people always say they will not just "kick the can down the road." But the timing of this event is the big question.

Can't be done before this year's elections, barring some major provocation, or it would risk major political losses in Nov. If Bush loses the House or the Senate, he may act after the elections and before the new Congress is seated. Doubtfull though as the political price for such action would be very high.

Doing so in '08 would be very dangerous for the Republican Party, as it could risk a backlash by the voters at the polls.

That leaves sometime next year as the most likely. I would guess summer or fall as the spring will be used for "diplomacy" and playing the UN game.

As a side note, Syria is also in play here. If we or Israel attacks Iran, there will be major terror attacks against Israel in retaliation. Hezbullah, the PLO, and Hammas will not sit by idly as their major benfactor is taken out. Israel will then go "all the way to Damascuss" as they have stated many times should there be any major escalation of terror against them.

All of this would risk uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and more.

The next couple of years will see major changes in the world's geopolitical stance. Could be a major re-shuffling of the entire deck of cards.

Okay, so I am way behind in my blog reading. But, reading this article gave rise to two thoughts:

1. Anybody know anything about Mass. Gov. Romney? He is being mentioned more and more lately as a possible GOP candidate for pres. in 08.

2. The Iranian economy is in a shambles, largely because the mullahs are spending all their dough on developing nukes. We, and most everybody else, don't want them to have nukes. So, why don't we publicly announce that we would buy all their nuclear technolgy from them -- the whole works. For a lot of money. If they agreed, the nuke threat would be over, at least for a while. And, the cost, although high, would undoubtedly be less than a war would be. If they did not agree, and of course they wouldn't, then it would send a very clear message to the huddled masses of ordinary Iranians that if they would get rid of the mullahs, they could revive their economy. Sort of a psy-ops thing. I mean, we are capitalists, right? What better way for a capitalist to get rid of a rival than to do a buy-out! Whaddya think?

Okay, so I am way behind in my blog reading. But, reading this article gave rise to two thoughts:

1. Anybody know anything about Mass. Gov. Romney? He is being mentioned more and more lately as a possible GOP candidate for pres. in 08.

2. The Iranian economy is in a shambles, largely because the mullahs are spending all their dough on developing nukes. We, and most everybody else, don't want them to have nukes. So, why don't we publicly announce that we would buy all their nuclear technolgy from them -- the whole works. For a lot of money. If they agreed, the nuke threat would be over, at least for a while. And, the cost, although high, would undoubtedly be less than a war would be. If they did not agree, and of course they wouldn't, then it would send a very clear message to the huddled masses of ordinary Iranians that if they would get rid of the mullahs, they could revive their economy. Sort of a psy-ops thing. I mean, we are capitalists, right? What better way for a capitalist to get rid of a rival than to do a buy-out! Whaddya think?

doesn't this timetable also work with an Iran confrontation in late 2006 & 2007?