The other day, Gerhard Schröder resorted to a favorite campaign tactic that helped him immensely in the 2002 elections: attack President Bush as a war-monger. This time the topic was not Iraq, but rather Iran, as the New York Times reports this morning:
Still, Mr. Schröder's strategy seemed clear. In elections three years ago, faced with an uphill struggle to retain the chancellorship, he categorically rejected the use of force against Iraq, which infuriated the United States but helped, probably decisively, in his come-from-behind victory.
Now, with new elections less than five weeks away and polls showing Mr. Schröder well behind his opponent, Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union, he seems again to be trying to exploit the German public's visceral opposition to the use of force in international affairs.
"Let's take the military options off the table," he said Saturday in an election rally in Hanover, an allusion to a comment President Bush made last week to the Israeli radio that "all options are on the table" in connection with Iran.
The New York Times seems to share the view of the mainstream German press that this was nothing more than a cynical election ploy, a sign of desperation, that would backfire on Schröder:
"Schröder knows that a strike against Iran is not on the agenda and that the U.S.A. is politically and militarily incapable of carrying one out," the German business daily Handelsblatt said in an editorial on Monday. "And yet he misuses Bush's remarks in order to score points in the election campaign. In doing so, he endangers the crucial solidarity of the West."
The daily Die Welt said, "The chancellor should be ashamed."
But no matter how cynical the move may be, was Schröder totally off base when he warned against Bush's threat of military action against Tehran? Here what the Guardian has to say about it:
America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
And, writing in an op/ed piece in today's Washington Post, Fareed Zajaria is alarmed enough to plead that the Bush administration pursue diplomacy in concert with Europe:
Air strikes against Iran would be extremely unwise. They would have minimal military effect: The facilities are scattered, reasonably well hidden and could be repaired within months. With oil at $66 a barrel, the mullahs are swimming in money. (The high price of oil and Iran's boldness are directly related.) More important, a foreign military attack would strengthen local support for the nuclear program and bolster an unpopular regime. Iran is a country with a strong tradition of nationalism -- it is one of the oldest nations in the world.
Schröder succeeded in forcing Angela Merkel to play her hand and distance herself from her leader George W. Bush (see Der Spiegel: "Merkel schwenkt auf Schröders Kurs ein". Once again, despite the outrage expressed by Die Welt and the New York TImes, Schröder proves himself as the better campaigner and he has his opponent on the defensive.
Comments