The Bush administration has been telling everyone who'll listen that Iran is fomenting attacks against US forces in Iraq. White House officials have twice promised to lay out the evidence that proves their claims only to balk at the last minute. From the LA Times:
"Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
"Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
"'The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts,' national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday."
6 comments:
MOS,
This American admin has serious credibility and public image issues. Trying to mount enough evidence will extremely difficult. The US has lost the benefit of the doubt with many in the intl community.
The experts seem to share a gut instinct about Iran's involvement. There won't be any smoking gun, and with the American credibility problems, it will be an improbable sell. No?
All of this really puts the pressure on the EU in hopes that their carrots will work. China doesn't seem to admit there's a problem, and Russia has been making the problem worse. At this point in time, it seems that only a handful of countries are serious about non-proliferation.
Your posts asks some good questions.
can anyone say gulf of tonkin??? as for russia and china, i wouldn't say they aren't serious about non-proliferation. i would say that they have a strong interest in seeing iran become a regional hegemon. whereas the US and israel have a strong interest in, at the very least, maintaining the current balance of power in the region...although they would rather tilt that balance further in their favour. the EU is caught in the middle, and as chirac's recent statement made clear, they wouldn't mind too much if iran became a major regional player, even if that requires nuclear arms.
the idea that a nuclear-armed iran will lead to a nuclear holocaust is ridiculous. as chirac said, iran could very easily be contained. however, it would also be difficult for the US and israel to ossify their dominance in the region with a nuclear stalemate.
Hi canuckistan,
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you comparing evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq and Lebanon to the Gulf of Tonkin? That's a bit of stretch. With respect to Lebanon, there's more than enough evidence of Iranian weapons and training of Hezb'Alah. And regarding Iraq, the attacks are increasing in sophistication and weapons. Experts (as the link provided above) contend that the facts seem rather convenient.
Some other points of contention:
Iran is ALREADY a regional power. And both Russia and China have rather strong interests in the country. This partly explains why Russia assisted the regime in developing nuclear capabilities. For other reasons, China will not participate in nuclear non-proliferation.
Contrary to your contention that the EU is caught in the middle, Russia, China and India are positioned in the middle as this interactive map demonstrates. Rather, the EU and the US are actually positioned on common ground with respect to nuclear non-proliferation. It's just that the EU employs very different tactics.
Finally, with the increase in Sunni-Shia tensions, the divide between Iran and its neighbors in the region is increasing. Saudia Arabia, for example, has a vested interest in containing Iranian influence and intervention. To discuss this as merely an issue of the US and Israel vis-a-vis Muslim countries just does not work.
I've noticed a trend starting that seems to call for a Cold War containment approach to the Shia expansion and Iran's nuclear ambitions. I can't imagine how that would work unless we organized the Sunni Arab states into something akin to a 70's style NATO. And, of course, the wild card is always Israel. Shia or not, I don't get the impression that the "Arab street" is in any mood to tolerate any further aggression against another Muslim state. Do you ever get the feeling that you're having to guess just how many genies were in that damned bottle when George Bush pulled the cork?
MOS,
Do you ever get the feeling that you're having to guess just how many genies were in that damned bottle when George Bush pulled the cork?
Money quote !!
Containment of Iran is already being pursued by the Western powers now. However, the results have been unproductive. The Euro-3 talks to encourage Iran to drop its nuclear enrichment program is not working. Iran is now working closer with the Russians and Chinese. One can argue that the three are on the verge of forming a Shanghai Pact which is the equivalent of the old Warsaw Pact.
What Baker-Hamilton is proposing is the need for a detente policy with Iran, leading to full diplomatic recognition of the Persian Islamic state (an oxymoron, due to the cultural differences of the two). The Bush Administration has already pooh-poohed this.
Post a Comment