Between Iraq and a Hard Place

If you take a globe or an atlas, and look at central Asia, you'll see several countries. Those to the north ending in "stan" are offspring of the departed Soviet Union. Those in the south are part of the Arabian penisula. In between is a country called Iraq, which I'm sure you're no doubt familiar with; our current involvement there is three years and counting. On the other side is a little place called Afghanistan, which for thousands of years has been both a meeting place and a bloody ground, from the Aryans to Alexander the Great to the Russians and British playing "The Great Game" to the Soviet Union's disastrous invasion to our current engagement, also at 3+ years (although you don't hear a lot about that-- perhaps the potential resurgence of the Taliban and the increase in opium production isn't exactly cheery news our gummint wants to spread?). [if you're interested in skimming through what Afghanistan has been like in recent years, an excellent graphic novel by Ted Rall, To Afghanistan and Back, is worth checking out]

In between these two present-day war zones is an old pal of ours: Iran. In the last fifteen-odd years or so, Iran has been making its way back from the Iran-Iraq War (a conflict that raged with no small help from us; anyone remember Iran-Contra...?). Now Iran has joined the Nuclear Age by achieving the ability to enrich uranium. Neo-cons and alarmists in this fair nation of ours have spun this information into panic over the potential for a nuclear holocaust sparked by Iran's possession of nuclear knowledge. Given our present Secretary of State's previous pronouncements on nuclear hubris ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."), I'm highly skeptical of our administration's trustworthiness in its statements and the veracity of any materials or "evidence" it might produce. Also, given our long history of meddling in Middle East affairs, and specifically, Iran, I'm also doubtful that the current saber-rattling over Iran and nuclear technology is going to go away overnight. The official chorus is coming from people like Smirk and Scowl (who has echoed earlier statements the gummint made on Iraq-- anyone remember Smirk stating that we should avoid war in Iraq by all possible means? Well, now Scowl says "We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." Oops, too late, Buckshot. We're already in a war in the Middle East. Let's not try to spread it, shall we?), but now such "luminaries" *cough* as Newt Gingrich are piling on the bandwagon. Makes you wonder what this paragon of values knows that we don't...

The current alarmist meme is that Iran could produce the Bomb in sixteen days. Just makes you want to go out there and beat them back with more than just a stick, eh? But this latest pronouncement from the State Department conflicts with something called facts. The New York Times published yesterday an article stating that several analysts and experts see Iran as joining the Bomb Club in oh, say, ten years and sixteen days. One of the more responsible Republicans out there (though he's not totally in the clear, not by a long shot), Chuck Hagel, announced he didn't see military action as a viable option in dealing with Iran. For an excellent breakdown of the REAL issues involved on both sides (Smirk's saber-rattling and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's equally shrill responses), go read Juan Cole's Informed Comment(s) on the political realities of what's going on.

Personally, I think a war or any military attack on Iran would be nothing short of disastrous; for one thing, the global community would *not* be supportive-- I doubt any "coalition" would be rushing to our side anytime soon. Second, oil supplies would be derailed, and the price of oil per barrel would skyrocket, as Middle Eastern reserves are disrupted, and other oil-producing nations retaliate by withholding petroleum. We're already approaching the end of the Oil Age, and the consequences of Peak Oil-- why exacerbate and hasten that time? Additionally, why destroy nations, cultures, and people all for the sake of political expediency?

Not only that, but I think it's rather hypocritical of us to pretend that harboring nuclear technology and weaponry is something reserved for an exclusive inner circle of nations. We opened this particular Pandora's Box in 1945, and since then several nations have joined us, either in accumulating weapons or harnessing nuclear knowledge. Why, practically the other day, Smirk agreed to exchange mangoes for nuclear technology. What makes this deal even more fun is that India has accelerated its nuclear development in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it hasn't signed. We're okay with India possessing nuclear technology/weaponry, but not Iran? As you probably know, India's bitter enemy, Pakistan, is always looking to level the playing field (if not gain advantage) over India. Who's to say Pakistan won't try to make a similar deal? Is it really beneficial for *any* nation to utilize nuclear weaponry (including our own)?

What makes it even more puzzling is that, to me at least, North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq was before we invaded. North Korea is far more unstable than Iran. Yet we treat that nation and its leader, Kim Jong-Il, with kid gloves. Could it be due to the fact that Dear Leader has nukes, and Iran and Iraq don't? Gee, maybe you think Iran's paying close enough attention that it figures that if nuclear capabilities are achieved, the rest of the world will leave it alone? Perhaps India has similar thoughts?

Whatever happens next with Iran, it's definitely between Iraq and a hard place when it comes to the U.S. and its foreign policy. If we really want to influence Iran and effect positive change, perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, and leave the swords at home.