Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Another reason Bush may have a go at Iran
The signs are plentiful that this administration is keen on starting a conflict with Iran. The most widely accepted justification for this is that Bush does not want to leave office with the growing threat of a nuclear armed Iran undealt with. The neocons fear that any future President will be unwilling to strike Iran, so it has to be Bush.
That reasoning is certainly compelling. But I was considering the state of the region today and suddenly had an epiphany. What if Bush feels compelled to take Iran down, because it is his policies that have led to Irans preeminent position in the middle east?
When President Bush was sworn into power Iran was effectively isolated. They were surrounded by enemies with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. George Bush (correctly) responded to 9/11 by taking the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Replacing the Taliban with a pro western style democracy would have worked well in continuing to contain Iran on their eastern frontier, and the need to replace the Taliban after 9/11 was self evident.
But the real assist to Iranian regional domination came with the inexplicable decision by President Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. If we are to believe the policies and rhetoric of American Presidents since Jimmy Carter, we know that Iran has been a chief supporter of international terrorism. Saddam Hussein? Not so much. Yet following the ouster of the Taliban, and in the name of the "War on Terror", Bush chose to attack Iraq, effectively catapulting Iran to regional domination.
Bush very well may consider that Iraq was a mistake, not just because of the quagmire and regional destabilization it has caused. It is a mistake because is basically fulfilling the dreams of the Iranian Ayatollahs. Bush may consider that the only way to recover from promoting Iranian interests as he has to this point, it is necessary for his administration to take them apart to the best of their ability.
That reasoning is certainly compelling. But I was considering the state of the region today and suddenly had an epiphany. What if Bush feels compelled to take Iran down, because it is his policies that have led to Irans preeminent position in the middle east?
When President Bush was sworn into power Iran was effectively isolated. They were surrounded by enemies with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. George Bush (correctly) responded to 9/11 by taking the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Replacing the Taliban with a pro western style democracy would have worked well in continuing to contain Iran on their eastern frontier, and the need to replace the Taliban after 9/11 was self evident.
But the real assist to Iranian regional domination came with the inexplicable decision by President Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. If we are to believe the policies and rhetoric of American Presidents since Jimmy Carter, we know that Iran has been a chief supporter of international terrorism. Saddam Hussein? Not so much. Yet following the ouster of the Taliban, and in the name of the "War on Terror", Bush chose to attack Iraq, effectively catapulting Iran to regional domination.
Bush very well may consider that Iraq was a mistake, not just because of the quagmire and regional destabilization it has caused. It is a mistake because is basically fulfilling the dreams of the Iranian Ayatollahs. Bush may consider that the only way to recover from promoting Iranian interests as he has to this point, it is necessary for his administration to take them apart to the best of their ability.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
