Even Bush now says that the diplomatic option is in the forefront when dealing with Iran and Syria. I feel that the diplomatic tools were put away too soon
Diplomacy is ever so much more effective when it has a credible economic and military threat backing it up.
If not, all diplomacy can do is facilitate something that the parties already want to do. If one side is unwilling, the only leverage is bribes or threats - and the threats have to be credible. What did Clinton accomplish in the Mideast with diplomacy alone? He discovered that he had zero leverage over Yasser Arafat, and no amount of US bribes convinced Egypt or Saudi Arabia to help Mideast peace - indeed, they were instrumental in preventing it. But now, Egypt is allowing a multi-party election, and trying to broker the cease-fire. What changed?
If the US had blustered against Saddam, brought an army over, then backed down and left Saddam triumphant, the credibility of its military threat would have been gone. Paper tiger time. US loses, Saddam wins. The leverage of its diplomacy would have gone with it.
But instead, Bush showed that he was an American President willing to act, with both houses of Congress and a majority of the American people behind him. You don't see this combination often, and you should take notice when you do. Hosni Mubarak certainly has. Bashar Assad is a slow learner, but he is starting to notice now. |
