Did the Iraq war close off a war with Iran?
Matt Duss reports on the Foreign Policy Initiative's Iran: Prospects for Regime Change panel:
During the second panel of the day, which focused on U.S. policy options toward Iran, panelists Elliott Abrams, currently of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute both lamented the fact that the Obama administration seemed so disinclined to threaten â?? let alone take â?? preventive military action against Iranâ??s nuclear program. Abrams was particularly incensed that top military leaders like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have been downplaying the possibility of military action against Iran. â??Israelis I speak to canâ??t believe how stupid the U.S. is to take a military strike off the table,â? Abrams said.Left unmentioned, however, was the single most important factor acting to constrain U.S. policy options on Iran, specifically in regard to military force: Iraq. In numerous ways â?? stress on our military, regional destabilization and unrest, demonstration of the limits of U.S. power and influence, the need to shore up Iraqâ??s fragile government â?? the U.S. intervention in Iraq has made the idea of U.S. military action against Iran basically a non-starter for U.S. policymakers.
This is true, but I'd also suggest the Obama administration has foreclosed the option with a surge into Afghanistan and the elevation of nation building in that country as a key U.S. priority. If the U.S. took a blase attitude about political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could pull back its troops and strike Iran with much less danger to U.S. forces and without much concern for the impact on Afghanistan or Iraq's political stability (not that I think a military strike would be prudent).
