Monday, July 24, 2006

And what about Iran?

Justin Logan at Cato @ Liberty has a post regarding Iran. Highlights:

As for a brief commentary on the prudence of various policy options, I would refer to a useful analogy offered by Mr. Gerecht’s other colleague, Michael Rubin, in referring to our options in dealing with the Islamic republic:

When faced with a hornet’s nest, the choice to destroy it or leave it alone is better than the compromise of lightly tapping it with a stick.

Agreed. For his part, Mr. Rubin did us the courtesy of openly advocating a full-blown regime-change type assault against Iran, but it is not clear whether Mr. Gerecht is advocating destroying the Islamic republic, or just tapping it with a stick. We would do quite well to learn whether Mr. Gerecht is only in favor of striking the nuclear facilities in Iran, or also attacking the locations of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the missile sites, the presumed chemical and biological weapons sites, and the Iranian leadership. Of course, this would lead to a discussion of targeting, which would put hundreds, if not thousands of aim points on the table, and we would ultimately be talking (once again) of a preventive war to remove a foreign bogeyman who supposedly poses an intolerable threat to this, the most powerful country in the history of the planet.

Finally, one is hard pressed to imagine how Mr. Gerecht will explain away the reckless and shameful incompetence of the hawk faction in the Bush administration as described by the Washington Post. The Iranians approached the Bush administration directly in 2002 (after the ridiculous “axis of evil” speech!) and proposed cooperating against al Qaeda, informing the US of the identities of 290 members of al Qaeda that Iran had captured and sent back to their countries. The Iranians proposed further cooperation against al Qaeda. The Bush administration’s response?

Representatives of Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fought back. Any engagement, they argued, would legitimate Iran and other historic state sponsors of terrorism such as Syria… Participants said Bush’s divided national security team was unable to agree on an answer. Some believe important opportunities were lost.


The hubris offered by the administration towards Iran in 2002 can point directly to why we are in the situation we are now. Iraq is a bloody mess, the US is supplying/funding both sides in the Israel/Lebanon war, and there's still no word on the North Korean problem.

This administration is radical in its foreign policy and it's a foreign policy with lofty goals. Goals that ignore the complications of the real world. We are faced with an increasingly disastrous foreign policy and sweeping increases in government power domestically, yet this government has done nothing to earn the powers it is claiming (I would argue that no government deserves the power this one is claiming, natch).

Interesting times indeed.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

8/06/2006 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say briefly: Best! Useful information. Good job guys.
»

8/11/2006 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent.
»

8/16/2006 5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home