Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Reason We Want Iraq Stable And America-Friendly

The New York Times ran a story today about how the growing international pressure being put on Iran has opened up a new opportunity for the U.S. The U.S.'s economic sanctions have been largely ineffective (other than being politically symbolic) because the U.S. isn't that heavily invested in Iranian companies. But, the increasing international pressure in Europe, led by new French President Nicolas Sarkozy (a staunch conservative), has allowed much greater economic power to be wielded against Iran.

Without going into the sticky details, the scenario is basically this: the U.S. could take out Iran's nuclear capabilities very, very easily, but managing the global response afterward would be very, very difficult. Having Europe get involved changes the equation a lot, since several European countries are far more involved with Iranian economics - it is far more likely that Iran could be stopped without military intervention.

The Bush administration is planning for military action against Iran, although it is very reluctant (with good reason) to actually implement those plans. One idea is to attempt some sort of 'six party talks' similar to what were used with North Korea. The idea there is to have Iran's neighbors -- those most directly affected by any military action in the region -- apply pressre on Iran to get them to behave. The problem there, though, is that none of Iran's neighbors are willing and able to play such a decisive role alongside the U.S.

And there we have it - this is precisely why we need a strong, stable, and America-friendly Iraq!

There's my two cents.

1 comment:

B J C said...

I tried to publish a comment from a reader asking what the mission was...not sure why it didn't show up! But, it's a great question, so I wanted to address it.

There were several reasons, as outlined by President Bush in October of 2002:

As a condition of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was required to destroy all of its WMDs, cease all development of such weapons, and cease all support for terrorist groups. Saddam Hussein violated all of those conditions.

After the events of 9/11, the Bush administration realized that these violations needed to be enforced, or we (or our allies) could suffer another even worse attack.

If you're thinking Saddam Hussein wasn't directly linked to 9/11, you're correct. No one with any credibility has ever said he was. But, he was thoroughly in bed with Al Qaeda, and was a known state sponsor of terrorism. Check out my previous blog on the subject for the details.

So, did we stop Saddam Hussein from using and developing WMDs? You betcha'. Did we stop him from continuing to sponsor terrorism? Yep, hard to do that from prison (or from six feet under). Mission accomplished.

Now we just need to help the Iraqi government put themselves together so we can address the next great state sponsor of terrorism: Iran. With a strong Iraq willing and able to help put diplomatic pressure on Iran, hopefully we can avoid further military action.

Hope that clears things up a bit.