What worries me more than anything is the Bush Administration has nothing to lose. They are term limited (assuming they yield the White House to whomever may win it next year). They have the next best thing to a zero approval rating except with Democrats in Congress who seem to shake in their boots whenever the word "terrorism" is mentioned. They have some kind of weird, almost occult power over the Executive Branch, contorting in to shapes one barely recognizes. With all the rhetoric concerning the alleged threat of Iran, I thought it might be prudent to present an alternative view of things, at least an alternative to the nonsense constantly streaming from mouthpieces in Washington.
Iran and Iraq, despite a long war two decades ago, now have much more in common socially and religiously than previously. They have multiple shared interests, not the least of which is removing the American monkey from around their necks. They have similar security concerns (Kurds seeking autonomy, the ideological and religious struggle with their Sunni neighbors). Had we a rational, prudent Administration in office, peopled with those schooled in real politique, we might be courting Iran, rather than doing everything we could to antagonize them. For a decade, the Iranians have been trying to develop better relations with the US. A reform-minded President, a modernizing population chafing at the strictures of the ayatollahs, and a thriving democracy that does not like its will overruled by ideological hard-liners (the last sounds awfully familiar . . .), Iran is ripe for some serious coddling by the US. With Iraq as an opening line, courting Iran would be relatively easy. Of course, there will always be differences with any country with whom we have relations. The way to deal with that, if we had diplomats who understood diplomacy, is to ignore points of friction, and concentrate on those areas where co-operation is possible. We still hold millions or perhaps even billions in Iranian national assets frozen from the days of the Islamic revolution as a carrot to use, after all.
Iran has done nothing to threaten the United States. Indeed, since the attacks on September 11, they have been attempting to thaw the cold shoulder we keep turning upon them. They gave us operational intelligence against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They offered us condolences and prayers in the wake of the attacks themselves (the same can not be said for the Saudis). The "foreign nationals" who are aiding and abetting the insurgents are from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and Algeria, the same places the hijackers on September 11 cam from. Of course, the Bush Administration has never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good dose of propaganda.
As far as the Iranian nuclear program is concerned, I fail to see where that is any business of ours. There is little evidence the program is concerned with anything other than civilian energy. Even if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, (a) we have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, so silence might be prudent; (b) we have good relations with Israel, India, and Pakistan, nuclear nations that have thwarted international treaties on proliferation, and whose stability (or, at least, the stability of their leaders) is always in question; (c) should we court them diplomatically, it might actually work better in slowing any attempt at building a bomb, rather than the threats we keep shouting at them. The only slightly possible target of any Iranian nuclear threat would be Israel, who has a healthy nuclear arsenal of its own and has always shown a willingness to strike first those who threaten its security.
Just to really tick off Marshall, I would like to state categorically that I do not believe the popular view of Iranian President Ahmedinajad as an unstable autocrat. Those descriptions are the stock in trade of the slander machine. Qadafi, Hussein, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, Jean Bertrand Aristide - all of them have been painted as mentally deficient, sexually perverse, mentally unstable or demented, and posing a direct threat to the United States in some manner fashion or form. All of them have led countries far from the United States, with few resources (except, of course, for oil). In the case of Aristide, he was President of the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. The father/son pair of Kims in the two Koreas lead a nation teetering on the brink of collapse for over a decade now. One wonders how any sane individual, considering the evidence rationally, could possibly consider any of them a threat. Confronted by an Iran that has much to offer the world, and the US specifically, we seem to be working against our interests in dealing with them diplomatically. Of course, that seems to be the modus operandi of the Bush team - do the opposite of what makes sense. Counter intuitive actions only work if they produce results, something we are still waiting on from Bush and the rest of them.
Having said all that, I still believe it is more than likely that, despite the bloody quicksand of Iraq, it is more than likely the United States will drum up some excuse to attack Iran. Should we do that - provided the generals either don't mutiny or resign en masse - it might be the end of American power, not just in the Middle East, but in the world. Of course, that might not be a bad thing . . .
9 comments:
The end of American power not being a bad thing? Now I know you're a goof. If not us, who else?
And if you want to believe that Mahmoud is a sweetheart, that's just fine. More goofiness.
Tick me off? No. You've just made me very sad that you actually think and believe as you do. Very sad indeed.
The "if not us, who else" meme is a classic. It conflates the US (or at least neocon) desire for domination of the world with being some sort of global police force. There are several things wrong with this view, here are two of them:
1. Any police force must be viewed as even-handed and impartial enforcers of an agreed upon rule of law. No one nation, particularly one with myriad "interests" all over the globe and a record of intervention in support of those perceived interests, can be an effective world policeman. (Throw in prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner as in Iraq and it is patently obvious that it won't work.)
2. No nation, particularly one that is trillions of dollars in debt to potential rivals, can afford to dominate the world militarily and still maintain its economy. It certainly cannot maintain any semblance of democracy while diverting so much of its resource to the military.
I also don't see, Geoffrey, where you said anything about Mahmoud in this post at all, particularly about him being a "sweetheart". Perhaps Marshall is confusing Abbas and Ahmedinajad - you did say you didn't believe he was an unstable autocrat - which is hardly the same as saying he is a sweetheart.
On the one hand, he isn't unstable because his holocaust denial and other weird pronouncements serve a political purpose inside Iran. He isn't an autocrat because he is merely a figurehead and doesn't wield any real state power.
O well, perhaps reality and facts are not important.
A 900+ word post followed by a, more or less, 60 word response. This type of disengagement brings up fond memories of Mom2.
900 words to many, or 60 not enough. The words of your last post are totally worthless. But thanks for the input.
DL,
Did Geoff not speak of the Iranian prez? Is his name not Mahmoud? Is it really Bob and I've been callig him the wrong name all this time? How embarrassing on my part!
In any case, I believe our country is a force for good in the world. I believe also, that there has been no other country that has shown any real stones to be a force for good in the world. It's not a matter of being a policeman of the world, yet with our great power comes great responsibility. It's all well and good for people, particularly on the left, to want us to cough up every dime for every impoverished or devastated country around the world. Indeed, we continually show our generous nature, both nationally as well as a collective of individual donations, and it makes me proud. But should our might be needed? Good gosh no, where do we get the right to interfere? Both our wealth and our might can be used for good and as long as there are assholes running other countries, they need to know that there are good guys ready to go toe to toe for the sake of the planet. It also inspires lesser nations to join in (more often than not). This is a good thing. I'd rather it not change. I don't think the world could stand it.
I used to think of these things only in terms of national interest. But just as our financial largesse has positive implications that aren't easily realized, so too can our willingness to assert ourselves when deemed necessary. I also don't believe that we need to always have world consensus when we see wrongs being committed that we feel are better put down. If you were a big, muscle bound fighter with vast self-defense training, you might not know the reason why that smaller guy or woman is gettin' a beatin'. Are you just going to let it happen when you have the might to at least interrupt for an explanation? It might be risky for you. But that little guy is bleeding profusely and could be seriously harmed or killed. It's the same in the world. It's our call when we use our might or money based on OUR notions of need. I see nothing wrong with the principle and I do think the world benefits if our help influences the world. I'd love to see the world become more like us in many ways. Wouldn't you?
I'd love to see you in command of some actual facts, Marshall. The US is one of the least generous major nations in the world per capita and as a percentage of GDP. Even if we had been a major donor, would that give us a right to dictate to another nation about how to run its affairs?
There is also no evidence that the US has used its money and might to do good in the world. Name an example if you can - not an example of our helping our own interests by interfering in other nation's affairs, but an example where we have acted to help the people of nation.
"totally worthless"
are you mentally ill? You then follow with an actual response.. Congratulations.
From Marshall:
"I'd love to see the world become more like us in many ways. Wouldn't you?"
No. I would much prefer it if we became like much of the rest of the world - humble, reticent to use force, less convinced of our own goodness and invincibility. Perhaps a bit more trusting of the people's will. Certainly less beholden to the interests of corporations and banks.
We have a magnificent political system in the US. We just don't use it all that well, and our social, physical, political, civil, and cultural infrastucture is currently in shambled due to the malign neglect and active destruction of all the years of conservative rule. We have a long way to go to become who we could be, Marshall.
Your comment suggests we have nothing to learn from the rest of the world, and much to teach. I do not believe that is so. I believe the arrogance of power has blinded us to the reality that we are more hated and feared around the world than any rogue group or individual. For that reason alone, to ignore world opinion out of some deference to our own limited national interest is counter-productive. With the exceptions of El Salvador and the Marshall Islands, we have few allies left in Iraq, and no support whatsoever for any further military action, unless absolutely warranted. We are alone, and I do believe that is a dangerous position to be in.
Wow. It's late. I'll be back to correct the above misconceptions later. Jeez!
Post a Comment