Why Iran and Not Pakistan?
The Bushcovites, otherwise known as the sons of Cheney, or at times simply an anal division of the neoconservatives, have been terribly confused about Iran. On one hand they want Iran to stop supporting the insurgents in Iraq and on the other hand they want them to stop their nuclear development program. So to make their point the Administration has leaked story after story about bombing or even invading Iran. Why has the Administrations chosen this obviously counterproductive approach?
The reasons are pretty much the same as for invading Iraq.
- The US is much stronger militarily and could win easily
- There is plenty of oil waiting for Western development
- Plenty of oil means big pay days for Bush and Cheney’s friends
- Israel strongly wants a pre-emptive strike
- Israel’s friends will give good press and plenty of money to Bush and Cheney
- Pakistan has no oil
Peace in the Middle East, including Iraq, is only possible with an entirely different foreign policy. The Middle East is largely about a lot of poor people and a few really, really rich people. Well Pakistan is like the Middle East but with a lot more people. They have a recent history of corrupt governments and a strong military. It is in the military where the peace is kept and the sectarian elements are controlled. President Musharaf has combined the two rolls and has been relatively free from corruption charges. His situation is hardly a joy. He has India on one side and the Taliban on the other. His country is poor by any standard and the Islamic militants are as crazy as any in the Islamic world.
But there is a much bigger issue before us. Pakistan has the bomb and a lot of nuclear material. They have also a history of willingness to share their know-how and could do so again. If the Middle East is to get the bomb, most likely it will come via Pakistan.
Yet the Bushcovites continue to shout about Iran and let the Pakistan dog sleep. Some times events catch up to you and when they do, everyone can tell if you have done your homework. Bush, Cheney, and Leather Boots clearly have got it wrong again.
November 5, 2007 at 6:15 pm
You ought to read my postings on Pakistan and US Middle Eastern Foreign Policy. You may like it. Here is the link:
1. http://iranianajax.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/pakistan-a-us-foreign-policy-time-bomb/
2. http://iranianajax.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/muslims-middle-east-democracy/
November 5, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I share your sentiments about Pakistan. But what kinds of changes in Foreign Policy do you recommend? You say in your blog posting that “Peace in the Middle East, including Iraq, is only possible with an entirely different foreign policy.”
Do you have any alternatives while maintaining the status quo in favor of the West? Will your suggestions inhibit balancing by Middle Eastern rogues?
November 5, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Ajax, I can think of one antiquated idea Bush has never tried. I believe it’s spelled: D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y
June 12, 2008 at 10:04 am
Iranian Ajax, it has been a while since you left your comments… apologies for not having replied. There are two questions before the house… what to do about Iran and what to do about Pakistan.
1. Iran… I would suggest the next President to open two lines of diplomacy. (1) build a consensus amongst G-8 members and Iran’s direct and regional neighbors. If what we see is so bad, it should look the same to the others. On a more pragmatic view, if we are at odds with other nuclear and military powers, the opportunity to get back at the US via a third party is too tempting. Iran will have no difficulty surviving. (2) we need to open lines of communications that deal with other interests of Iranians. Forget about Islam, leave that to the Mullahs. Open sports and cultural exchange programs. Let more and more Iranians see and feel what an open society is like. Economically the military and the religious leaders are (surprise, surprise) holding the ownership cards for a wide range of Iranian industries. Nothing warms the heart more than increasing profits.
2. Pakistan… this is a real problem since they already have the bomb. Pakistan, like the middle east is about a few who have and many who have not. The gereral formula for containment of the radicals along the Afghanistan boarder, while not ideal, is the best options today. Keeping the Pakistan Government sane and relaxed with India is critical. I would recommend the next President to quietly build military ties (read money and a low visability) in exchange for verification on the safety of the existing nuclear weapons. Then stay out of the everyday politics. We certainly have a lot of people who can offer advice on how democracies should work, but we have no experience with how to raise the mass of people from peasant conditions. Only Pakistanis and time can deal with this problem. Indirectly we can work to keep China and India fully involved so that outside tentions are kept to a minimum.
With both Iran and Iraq, engagement with the west and a ban on heavy handed US coersion is central to any new approach. It may not delight the neoconservatives, but we can not see where their approach has gotten us.