"We are talking to the other parties about whether to do a second resolution and what it might entail," Rice said, saying the first resolution -- which was weaker than the United States had wanted -- had a "very profound effect" within Iran.
"We have to look at whether we think a further resolution is going to have further effect in ... making the Iranians question the road that they are on," she added.
Since that resolution is apparently having a "profound effect", what exactly would a second one consist of? In the current atmosphere, it would certainly be seen as moving one step closer to war with Iran since very few people actually believe Bush's declarations that he has no plans to attack the country.
One of the "profound effects" already being felt is Iran is the reality of the sanctions and the war of words between the US and Iran on the economy of the country as reported by The Independent's Angus McDowall - a situation that can only get worse if the Bush administration imposes even more sanctions in a second resolution.
"The economy is very bad now - prices are high, sanctions are coming," says Yadollah Bakhtiari, a grey haired mercantile veteran whose business has survived revolution, war, international isolation and a fast-changing economy. "Enmity is bad for business."
It's the US version of a tough love foreign policy that the Iraqis under Saddam's rule know all too well and are still suffering the effects of. The idea of imposing hardships on the people of these countries hangs on the hope that they will rise up against their government and demand change. Apparently, Bushco didn't learn how hard that ultimately is in countries with such repressive regimes. The next move in that chess game is then to "free" the people through military might - as was done in Iraq - and we all know how that turned out.
Sanctions and threats just don't seem to work in the Middle East. For all of the resolutions imposed on the Israeli government over the years, the non-compliance rate is staggeringly high. Why should any other government in the region take the US government seriously when it refuses to put pressure on the Israelis to comply in a way that would actually foster some peace there?
Bush and Rice's idea of handing over the responsibility to regional players as some sort of "We Are The World" approach to diplomacy while they sing backup somewhere in the shadows has failed miserably. Everybody's singing a different tune.
Meanwhile, Iranian militarists are gearing up for a fight, causing even more tension in Iran.
Putting this all into perspective considering the recent laser focus on Iran's activities in Iraq as well and the denials from the administration's top brass about the war drums, Stephen Zunes (bio) offers this reminder:
Segments of the Iranian government and religious hierarchy certainly have been providing training, arms, financial, and logistical support to Iraqi Shi'ite political groups and their militias. Some of these militias have engaged in death squad activity against the Sunni Arab community in Iraq.
However, most these groups are allied with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. Indeed, the largest party in the ruling coalition is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose leadership spent most of their exile years in Iran and was recognized as the government-in-exile by the Iranian clerics while Iraq was still under Saddam Hussein's rule. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained and organized the SCIRI's militia, known as the Badr Corps, which even fought alongside Iranian forces during the 1980s in the war with Iraq. Similarly, the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of President Jalal Talabani also have had close and longstanding ties with the Iranian government. By contrast, with the possible exception of some radical elements outside the official government hierarchy, Iranian authorities have generally been reluctant to ally themselves with the more extremist anti-government Shi'ite factions.
In other words, the Iranian government and the U.S. government are essentially on the same side in Iraq's ongoing conflict.
And that's exactly why the Bush administration's simplistic rhetoric doesn't fly with the international community anymore.
Professor Juan Cole of Informed Comment also explained the complexities in an interview with Keith Olbermann on Monday:
The bottom line is that the neocons are sticking with the "Axis of Evil" designation they gave to Iran years ago and they want to find some way to overthrow the regime. Turning that into a reality however, following the Iraq disaster and the never-ending war in Afghanistan, is proving to be almost impossible at this time and that's as it should be for a US regime that thrives on facile ideas of imperialistic power and nation-building. They will not be able to craft the Middle East in the mold they desire - not with the bull in a china shop methods they continue to employ and especially not without considering the effect their policies are really having on the people who actually live in the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment