ARTICLE: "Iran Launches Nine Test Missiles, Says More Are Ready: U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10 July 2008, p. A1.
How scary is this development?
Iran had to counter Israel's semi-impressive military exercise of last month. Despite some hyping of Iran's threat, its conventional forces impress nobody I know, least of all Israel's military. So they're not going to show a symmetrical response here, but rather go with what got them to the dance in the first place: the implied mating of rockets and the enrichment program. So popping off rockets is their most impressive option, saying in effect, "You may kick our asses with a conventional bombing campaign, but this is how we'll attempt to counter.
Some real bravado? Sure. But again, more signaling than anything else.
Problem right now is how many sides would welcome war. "U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown" is a couple of quotes from Gates and an Undersecretary of State, meaning two counties heard from but hardly the "U.S." that matters right now on this subject (Bush-Cheney). Both, in my mind, have no problem with an Israeli strike on their watch that could easily suck us into combat. Time is short.
McCain's presidential bid, as Charlie Black notes openly, benefits from scenarios of terror or conflict, so cue up the Beach Boys.
Obama would not be helped.
On the Israeli side, better to get it done before Obama takes the oath. Ditto for Ahmadinejad, strangely enough. No point in having your best enemy denied to you when you need him for your own re-election.
Europe and China see nothing good in this, although Beijing is always happy to have the spotlight off it when it comes to international security responsibilities.
For India, pretty much a bad. For Moscow, good stuff all around.
Add it all up, as I do in this week's column, and you're looking at a lot of the system providing weak obstacles and more than a little sub rosa push toward war.
Stupid? Yes.
But that's irrelevant to the analysis.
