Bush's words were a warning shot across the bow, not a declaration of war.
Heaven forbid, I should defend the NYTimes; I've been known to dissent rather frequently there. But, 20 years out of date is a bit more hyperbole than is warranted. Particularly, when that post hardly represents the Times; it's an essay by a Yale historian doing a book on Iranian politics. He best know his stuff better than either you or I. So I say we accept his statements of fact as better than yours or mine, unless you have another source of comparable credibility.
Having said that, I find I agree with much of what you've said, just, and definitely, not the conclusion. I find the thesis that there is a struggle within Iran right now, that is both cultural and political, very credible. It's said over and over. You say it again. Good.
However, I reach a different conclusion from that. That conclusion is that assuming there is no greater priority, we should position our Iranian policy to help the sides in that struggle we prefer. I do not consider getting a line in a speech before the US Congress a sufficiently high priority to override that. I consider it rather another illustration of the Bushies very bad unilateral foreign policy instincts from which we will all suffer down the road. There is simply no way to turn this off. It has to fail before it stops. I wish it were different.
Well (said with as much ironic sarcasm as I can muster), we could go back and recount the Florida votes or the Dems could get a 10 vote majority in the Senate and a 25 vote majority in the House in the 02 elections. That would do the trick.
John |
