# Will the U.S. take military action against Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286 "2005-01-18T02:05:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/1 "2005-01-18T02:05:44Z")
Back in October we had a GD thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280486](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280486) – on the possibility that the Bush Administration was already planning “regime change” in Iran – if it survived the election. Now it has, and the Pubs control both houses of Congress. So what is Bush going to do with that new level of power? OTOH, is it possible there will be a limited strike to take out Iran’s nuclear projects – and that will be that? When the Israeli Air Force bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, it did not lead to war. From “The Coming Wars,” by Seymour Hersh, in _The New Yorker,_ January 17, 2005, [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa\_fact:](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact:) > [@](#): > > Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing. > > “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.” > > \ > > . . . In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld’s responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. > > The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.) > > In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically. We’re not going to rely on agency pissants.’ No loose ends, and that’s why the C.I.A. is out of there.” > > \ > > The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me. > > \ > > The Pentagon’s contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran are also being updated. Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. Updating the plan makes sense, whether or not the Administration intends to act, because the geopolitics of the region have changed dramatically in the last three years. Previously, an American invasion force would have had to enter Iran by sea, by way of the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman; now troops could move in on the ground, from Afghanistan or Iraq. Commando units and other assets could be introduced through new bases in the Central Asian republics. > > \ > > The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/2 "2005-01-18T02:24:38Z")
The answer is… No. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/3 "2005-01-18T02:28:52Z")
Looks like my reply got eaten by forum gnomes. Basically, no, though it is possible that they may use a series of targetted military strikes against “nuclear and chemical production facilities” to justify a more permanent presence in Iraq and possibly Pakistan, leaving it at a Cold War-style standoff, but generating infinite “OMG WE’RE AT WAR DO WHATEVER BUSH SAYS” from the right. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/4 "2005-01-18T02:34:13Z")
Yes. He has political capital you know. You have to remember. Bush calls himself a born again christian. He needs Israel and blood to flow like rivers to make his dream come true. He has the power to do this. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/5 "2005-01-18T02:50:44Z")
Some years ago, I came across what I thought was a very wise set of questions that should all be answered in the affirmative before the US undertakes any foreign military action\*. I think the questions are especially apropos regarding any plan to take action against Iran. They are: 1. Is it in our best interest? 2. Can it be done? 3. Is it “right”? The answers re: Iran might be: 1. Probably. Undermining a bastion of militant Islamic fundamentalism, especially if it’s replaced by a west-leaning democracy, would go a long way towards stabilizing the region and the World. This would help the US. OTOH, the hard-feelings so engendered by such an action, even among those who currently “support” the US might well further entrench the fundamentalists. 1. I doubt it. Given Iran’s size and given its complex internal politics, it is difficult for me to believe that _any_ plan of military action would have an obvious yes/no or black/white outcome, especially one that would be favorable to the US. 2. No. Pre-emptive military strikes are seldom "right’ and then only if the risk of catastrophe is imminent and other options are unavailable. Neither of these criteria seem to fit regarding Iran at present. As an aside, when these criteria are applied to the Vietnam war, none are satisfied. - It may have been expressed by Strobe Talbott, but I can’t remember for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/6 "2005-01-18T03:03:17Z")
IMHO, I don’t think that Iran nessitates a military action unless there is an immediate and specific threat to US interests stemming from them. Iran is better suited for a little “Strategic Influence”. Help them quietly bump off a few problem people, fund the opposition and get them in power. A coup of the youth would be far more effictive than carpet bombing. Of course this hasn’t been one of our strong points in the past (Noriega anyone?) ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/7 "2005-01-18T03:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > immediate and specific threat to US I’m still looking for where Bushco found that in Iraq. Can you help me? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/8 "2005-01-18T04:06:55Z")
Meanwhile, the European countries are trying to negotiate a peaceful, voluntary freeze of Iran’s nuclear program, but the Bush Admin is trying to block that. See [http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/18/wiran18.xml](http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/18/wiran18.xml). ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/9 "2005-01-18T13:10:32Z")
This seems kind of silly > [@OP article](#): > > The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said. I would imagine that attacks by the US are at least as likely to drive the population further into the arms of the Mullahs as they are to drive people into the arms of the secularists. After all, all that Great Satan talk is probably much more convincing when you can watch the US drop bombs on your house. Sometimes I think that some people in the current administration think that _any_ sort of disruption will drive a formally repressive country to democracy. Also the blurb seems to suggest that if the reformers gain more power our problems with Iran will be solved. From what I’ve heard though, the reformers are just as pro-nuclear and anti-israeli as their more religious counterparts. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/10 "2005-01-18T13:24:36Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > This seems kind of silly… I would imagine that attacks by the US are at least as likely to drive the population further into the arms of the Mullahs as they are to drive people into the arms of the secularists. I think Iraq demonstrated that the population will probably rally behind their religious leadership… unless some sort of coup d’etat is planned to follow up a sucessful strike nuclear capability air campaign. How likely are iranians of becoming “secularists” after the US hits them ? “…the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered” What “aura” ? I would think that getting hammered during the Iraq-Iran war would have left few utopian views of the government… and the proof are teh democracy movements. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/11 "2005-01-18T15:09:37Z")
I have to first say that I do not feel the US has made anything like an adequate case that Iraq is a as much of a danger to western interests as has been claimed, and to invade at this point would just as lawless an act than the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, given the events of the past four years, I have no trouble believing that the administration will indeed attempt some sort of military action against Iran in the near future. At this point I think it will mainly consist of a mix of covert and overt raids on presumed Iranian nuclear facilities, with a contingency plan for invasion should Iran attempt to retaliate, say, against US forces in Iraq. I wish that it were not the case, but just from reading the excerpts from the article, the US plan seems perfectly plausible, except that 1) the administration seems wildly optimistic about the availablility of troops to carry out an invasion; 2) any major military campaign would have to go through Congress for approval (yes, I know Congress rolled over on Iraq, but this one would be a much tougher sell, particularly if a draft were involved); 3) the administration seems to maintain an absurdly naive belief that a either a large proportion of Iranians will welcome their attackers with open arms, or that the many millions of the local population simply don’t matter. The good news is that it (IMO) would take at least a couple of years before the US could gear up for a major military campaign in Iran, although I presume that a run would be made at putting the logistics to do so in place by late this year. While air strikes or small-scale commando operations could be carried out pretty much any time, the lengthy time frame before a serious ground campaign could be lanched gives the best chance that this adventure will not take place. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/12 "2005-01-18T16:00:19Z")
Exceedingly doubtful in my opinion. First of all, the Iranian army would be a lot harder to conquer. With the military spread so thin and the draft being the third rail of politics, don’t look for an invasion. Air strikes, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/13 "2005-01-18T16:19:41Z")
(Allow me to go a bit off-topic.) The US has long had plans to invade Iraq. They almost certainly maintain those plans. During World War II, Iran was a southern route for Allied supplies to the Soviet Union; the northern part of Iran was controlled by Soviet forces (who must of thought it was seriously sweet duty) while the Americans and Brits protected supply lines in the south. When the war ended, the Soviets wanted to stay in the north. We had a crises that could have ended in war, but the UN (in their first important action) told the Soviets to leave, and they did. In any case, it has always been believed that the Soviets wanted a pro-them government in Tehran, part of the whole ‘warm water port’ thing. As a result the Americans always had plans to come from the south to save the government (then), or the oil (now). So the US has always had plans to invade. Still does, I guess. The existence of these plans do not mean they intend to use them. (Of course their existence does not mean they DON’T intend to use them either.) ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/14 "2005-01-18T16:39:42Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > So the US has always had plans to invade. Still does, I guess. The existence of these plans do not mean they intend to use them. (Of course their existence does not mean they DON’T intend to use them either.) Hersh actually says as much in his article. The reason to think that military action in Iran is on the table is not because they have a plan to do it, but because they’ve increased reconnissance into the country and because Hersh’s sources say tell him its a possibility. Personally I think the worst part of this article is the relevation that the Pentegon is launching covert ops into a country we’re technically at peace with without informing the intelligence commitee, which in my mind is a clear violation of the balance of powers. It’s also part of a disturbing trend in the last few years of the Pentagon in general pushing aside both the state dept. and the CIA and assuming their functions. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/15 "2005-01-18T16:45:08Z")
Well, first Bush doesn’t really have the political capital. He may think he does, which is all that matters to him I suppose, but that’s why you get messages from him stating that his Iraq policy was validated by his reelection, when it is clear that nearly 60 percent disagree with his handling of the Iraq war. I’m sure that we have plans to invade Iraq, and maybe even plans to invade Saudi Arabia. Who knows? The Neocons would obviously love to invade. You know Rummy and Wolfowitz really don’t give a damn that it isn’t going well in Iraq. They think they can do a better job next time. But I say it won’t happen because for us to get troops to invade and take over, we need all of the troops that are in Iraq, which won’t happen because it is becoming less stable by the day, and the election in January won’t make things better. There will be no draft. If there is the Republican party will go against it, or they will be destroyed. Sure, Bush doesn’t need to get reelected, but all of the legislators do. If somehow there could be a draft that could provide forces that were actually useful, then I bet we’d have a war as soon as possible. But do look for Bush to screw up any kind of diplomacy by the “Old Europe” He always has to piss in the pot somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/16 "2005-01-18T16:49:08Z")
> [@Merkwurdigliebe](#): > > I’m sure that we have plans to invade Iraq… In retrospect, we should have used them. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/17 "2005-01-18T17:00:22Z")
According to a new ABC News poll, 58% of the public do not approve of the way the President has handled the war in Iraq. A clear majority feel that that terrorism is the single biggest priority the Administration has. Given that the Administration has tied the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism (it had to - there aren’t any WMD by its own admission), that doesn’t speak very highly of what the public thinks of the Bush Administration’s efforts. He doesn’t have the support of the public, and it is unclear what support he would have from other countries. I look for him to move ahead full speed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/18 "2005-01-25T23:31:52Z")
Update from the _Jerusalem Post,_ [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1106623163891:](http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1106623163891:) > [@](#): > > Talks between European powers and Iran are deadlocked on the key issue of uranium enrichment, with Iran refusing to consider scrapping such programs even while acknowledging they make no economic sense, according to a confidential document obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. > > The summary of the last meeting between representatives of France, Britain, Germany and Iran states that Tehran intends to maintain its enrichment program, whereas the European powers continue to insist on its “cessation” or “dismantlement.” > > The United States and several other countries fear Iran is seeking to enrich uranium not to the low level needed to generate power, but to weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads. > > Iran publicly insists it only seeks to make low-grade enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, but the summary of the last meeting on Jan. 17 in Geneva appears to blur that assertion. It says that Iran privately acknowledged what Washington and its allies have argued all along \_ that as an oil rich country it does not need nuclear energy. > > “Iran recognizes explicitly that its fuel cycle program cannot be justified on economic grounds,” the document says. > > Meant for restricted circulation among diplomats and government officials, the summary reflects the second round of discussions since Iran agreed to freeze all enrichment and related activities late last year while it negotiates with the Europeans on technical, economic and political support meant to reduce its international isolation. [bites nails] ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/19 "2005-01-26T08:47:09Z")
I still have my bets on it, as I have for a couple years now. First off, we are using the exact same rhetoric that got us in to Iraq- “axis of evil”, WMDs, etc. Then, we invaded two neighboring countries and presumably will have some handy bases to fight from. I’m pretty sure our plan is just to take over the Middle East, so we won’t have to worry about it any more. The story is just way to familier for me to say it’d never happen. I think first we’ll find some nuclear facilities or something and bomb them. Then there will be terrorist retaliation and we’ll take that as our cue to go in. My only hesitation is that I think Bush truely though Iraq would be easy, and now our troops are tied up there. I don’t know if he can pull it off in just four years. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-u-s-take-military-action-against-iran/285286/20 "2005-01-26T14:34:19Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > First off, we are using the exact same rhetoric that got us in to Iraq- “axis of evil”, WMDs, etc. And we are also beginning to hear about how the dissident majority would welcome us with open arms (if not flowers). I’ve no doubt there are a lot of dissidents in Iran. Whether they make up a majority is in great doubt in my mind. There were dissidents in Iraq, too. Didn’t stop us from getting mired by a resistance movement. At any rate, i don’t think we have the manpower or the capital for this fight. I believe it is saber-rattling. (But of course, I thought that about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, too, so…)