Sunday, April 16, 2006

Long Wait To Solve Iran Issue

Andrew Sullivan has squarely placed the real problem of Iran to America – Americans do no trust in commander in chief to wage a war against Iran even though most Americans back military option against Iran. (‘General Bush's lose-lose Iranian war options’,,2092-2135968_1,00.html) In other words in another times Americans would not even mind nuke against Iran as long as the commander in chief was trust worthy. Andrew is right, Pres. Bush’s political balance is blank to sustain any such military action against Iran.

Andrew did not even bother to waste any ink in discussing the futility of ‘diplomacy option’; it does not matter how many NYT editorials ask for a diplomatic route or how many times Sen. Finestein writes for such a need in LA Times. Diplomatic option will not work – it is like hoping Hitler would have avoided war only if Europe had negotiated. Iranian ruling class does not want any diplomacy to succeed and they are hell bent to get a nuke. The only diplomatic way could be when America starts giving big enough ‘diplomatic bribes’ to China, Russia and major Muslim states. For China allowing ‘mercantile style’ access to Oil; for Russia not to bother about Democracy and to allow her to increase her sphere of influence in old Soviet fiefdom without any restrain and so on. Can America do that? May be it is worthwhile for Sen. Fiensetein and all those who advocate diplomatic route to really start evaluating cost of such ‘diplomatic bribes’ rather than sheepish, rote repetition of the diplomatic route. If direct talks with White House would stop Iranians making the bomb; then these advocates of diplomacy are in some rude shock. And by the way has ever diplomacy without any exercisable, realistic military option on table worked; especially with Iran?

So what can be done? It is going to be a big call for American public to know when the problem of Iran is serious enough so that even distrusted Pres. Bush would also get some minimum backing for a military action. May be a concrete proof of wrong intentions of Iran by CIA would do the trick. But will it be believed when the source is CIA? No, unless some non-American agency with enough credibility backs those claims.

The other option is politically, action against Iran can be beneficial to Democrats. How can it be done while Pres. Bush is still in White House? Some arrangements by which Democratic leadership of Congress is brought in the loop of any military action plan. Kicking off Rumsfeld and putting a Democrat in that seat would be one more option.

That is unrealistic. So as Andrew said, Americans sit tight and watch this drama for next 3 years without any hope of realistic action and leadership by the current class and arrangement of American Politics. He waits for McCain to solve this issue. I am much more open since I sure do have second thoughts about McCain’s credibility when Paul Krugman ripped him rightly in a NYT column about his opportunistic stance towards Jerry Falwell and other religious rights.

Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 16, 2006.

No comments: