Wednesday, February 16, 2005


My good friend Jeff sent me this link:

Let me say, first, that I hope Bush is not so foolish as to rush into Iran. Things are going slightly better than previously in Iraq, and the election was a big step in the right direction. That being said, it is best that we clean up that mess before looking elsewhere. Bush knows--or should--that support for his foreign policy is by no means shared by all, or even a large majority of, his fellow Americans. Another war will risk alienating his base--which has been, thus far, extremely loyal--and further hurting his status with those who are against his foreign policy.

This is all well and good, but Bush is a man of principle, and he sticks to his guns fairly well. As noted time and time again in his State of the Union address, democracy is very important to the current American President. So, despite the fact that we need another war like a hole in the head, I would not be surprised if U.S. forces occupied Iran at the end of Bush's second term.

There is another reason we may become involved in Iran. Accroding to the above article, Bush has issued a series of executive orders that minimize, if not remove, Congressional oversight with regards to counter-terrorism measures. Essentially, there are members of our military that answer only to Rumsfeld. While some may argue that covert operations need to be stepped up to win the "war on terrorism" that is not the issue. The reason that isolating Rumsfeld and company from Congress is a problem is that destroys the seperation of powers so clearly laid out in the Constitution. To quote a maxim used all too frequently, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". (Lord Acton)

Giving Rumsfeld, or anyone else for that matter, absolute power is a bad idea. Even if one agrees with the current Bush foreign policy, this should still be cause for alarm. It is especially disconcerting that there seems to be little alarm from the political right. Conservatives, as they once were, had little trust in government. This shouldn't change because Rumsfeld happens to wave the same flag.

When it comes down to it, no one wants a nuclear Iran. There comes a time though, when we simply have to be reasonable. It would be great if we could keep nuclear power regulated to the countries of people we like. Welcome to the real world. Kim Jung Il says he has weapons, and, at least according to Israel, Iran is six months away from being a nuclear power. Unless we wish to occupy--permanently--every single rogue nation in the world, we need to learn to live in a world that includes a nuclear Iran.

The E.U., led by France and Great Britain has been dealing diplomatically with Iran, which is a good start. This doesn't change the fact that Iran will go nuclear. The Iranians may not be brilliant, but they're smart enough to know that they will be less likely to be pushed around on the global playground if they join the nuclear club.

Having nukes doesn't mean nuclear war. The U.S. needs to come to terms with that. A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world. It is time to deal with Tehran diplomatically. Meanwhile, we should clean up Iraq and then return to a foreign policy that puts U.S. interests first and foremost.

I'm not holding my breath.

1 comment:

inamoment said...

Colin Powell did try to resolve matters diplomatically. Of course, that was deemed unacceptable conduct, and his cabinet voted him off the "I have power so don't f@#$ with me" island.

And don't think that Condoleeza Rice will being anything but brutal.

Friends that lie together, war together.