President George Bush has again highlighted the dangers posed by Iran to the US military presence in Iraq, which he wants to preserve well into the presidential and congressional election campaigns next year. The two issues were joined by him in a speech to the American Legion this week, complementing a similar one to war veterans recently in which he drew parallels between the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 and the perils of leaving Iraq next year. His warning comes ahead of crucial reports on the US military surge in Iraq and whether it has been matched by political progress.
That a foreign policy question should be brought so much to the centre stages of US political life graphically reflects Mr Bush's domestic political weakness 17 months ahead of his leaving office. That he has become a lame duck at home is readily seen in the haemorrhage of loyal aides from the White House. Mindful perhaps of how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton retrieved their reputations in the final stage of their second terms in office by foreign policy activism, Mr Bush has identified that sphere as a political opportunity. He believes that his record can be vindicated by a successful prosecution of the US operation in Iraq and a determined effort to contain or undermine the Iranian regime.
More immediately, he wants to make it as difficult as possible for the Democrats to support withdrawal from Iraq without appearing unpatriotic and to limit dissident Republican opposition to his policies there, such as was expressed last week by Senator John Warner of Virginia. Concentrating on Iran fulfils both objectives by allowing Mr Bush to reiterate the dangers that country poses to US interests and values. In lurid and over-simplified detail, Iran is portrayed as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, the great threat facing US global power. It is accused of funding and arming the US's enemies in Iraq, Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hamas.
Mr Bush goes on to say that "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust". He would prefer an Iran "whose government is accountable to its people, instead of to leaders who promote terror". This implicit call for regime change is in keeping with the maximalist tone of these two speeches.
Mr Bush is ratcheting up the pressure on his opponents at home and his enemies abroad. There is the possibility that both elements will intertwine in planning for a military strike on Iran during the presidential campaign next year. It is a dangerous turn of events, given the deep divisions between the political parties on Iraq and the widespread international opposition to any US military action against Iran. An attack on Iran would stir up even more animosity in the region and have grave economic consequences. Engaging its leaders politically and diplomatically is much the better way.