EDITORIAL – Bush says invading Iran ridiculous, possible

President Bush, we can hear you now. It may have taken two elections, a war and a prolonged… President Bush, we can hear you now. It may have taken two elections, a war and a prolonged occupation, but we can finally comprehend your brand of doublespeak.

Monday, while in Brussels, Bush said that a plan to attack Iran was “simply ridiculous,” but that “all options are still on the table.” Bush said two directly contradictory things in the same sentence, as if we wouldn’t notice that this is supposed to allay our fears and leave open the possibility of invasion.

Iran, that lovable, theocratic middle child in the Axis of Evil, looks like it might go forth with its nuclear program. It already has admitted that it’s enriching uranium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, one of those WMDs we seem so intent on finding someday. And now it has both Europe and Bush wagging their fingers at it.

Europe’s approach is to offer Iran technological, financial and political incentives not to enrich uranium. As much as we don’t like bribing nations to remain good, that approach might work.

Yet, Bush won’t sign onto it. Nor will he go into negotiations with Tehran. Instead, he urges Iran to drop its nuclear program entirely, without an incentive or a specific threat. Bush took a similar hard-line approach against Iraq way back in February 2001: “If we catch [Hussein] developing weapons of mass destruction, we will take the appropriate action.”

But we’re smarter now. We know Iran wants to develop those WMDs, and Bush isn’t going to compromise about it. The problem is, if we’re not going to invade (though that’s “ridiculous,” and yet, not off the table), what leverage can Bush use?

Where’s the option that lies between placating Tehran and taking over? Unfortunately, given our bomb-first, locate-reasons-later approach — aka the pre-emptive-strike doctrine — we’re not left with much.

With our military already overstretched and our economy only lurching back to life, we can’t support another full-on ground invasion — unless, of course, there’s a draft, a possibility that we 18-to-25-year-olds don’t want to think about.

All we have left is the notion of “appropriate action,” whatever that is. Invading Iran, which is slightly larger than Alaska, would be a formidable task indeed. With unmanned U.S. aircraft reportedly droning over Iran and scoping out nuclear development sites, such an invasion doesn’t seem out of the question. Without the invasion, if Iran does develop a weapon, can we return to the ulcer-inducing tension of the Cold War, with the ayatollah replacing the premier?

But there must be a less extreme way, some path to a peaceful coexistence between the United States and the rest of the world. We’ve tried a lot of other doctrines: the Monroe Doctrine, the Good Neighbor Policy, mutually assured destruction and now the Bush doctrine. Surely there must be some policy that doesn’t support isolationism, intervention, nuclear winter or unjustified war.

So, Mr. President, you have your mandate, and you’re saying nothing’s off the table. We may be a nation of overeaters, but it looks like our plates are full. It’s time to find a better way than just demanding results. Either military force is a possibility or it’s not. And we hope, for the sake of the people of Iran, and the sake of our own, that it’s not.