At this point, skepticism for the Bush Administration’s intentions in Iraq has become nearly synonymous with common sense. It’s easy to deduce that the true scope of this war has less to do with weapons of mass destruction, and more to do with putting the Middle East on the economic operating table.
So, as the lame-duck President enters the final chapters of his policy-making days and tensions with Iran begin to build ever so logically in light of recent intelligence disclosures, one has to wonder: Is this where the plan lead all along?
In devising the occupation of Iraq, it would take only basic reason to predict one very probable consequence of toppling the existing regime – the exact type of civil war in which we are sandwiched today. Consideration of the long-standing internal conflicts within a nation, such as Iraq’s Sunni/Shi’a division, is a fundamental aspect of military planning when speculating the fallout of an occupation. The administration must have been well aware that the dismantling of Iraq’s power structure and military capabilities would exacerbate the conflict between its starkly opposed factions, spreading civil war throughout the nation.
With an escalating conflict in full swing at its borders, it seems perfectly fitting that Iran would become involved. After all, in both the proximate and tangible sense, the result of the war in Iraq is of infinitely more immediate concern to the people of Iran than it is to the people of the United States. Imagine a massive civil war in Mexico in which the U.S. did not get involved. It’s not likely we would stand by and passively await the result.
Now, there is credible evidence that Iranian agents are deeply involved in supporting Shi’a militias in the Iraqi conflict, among other departures from the “zero contact” relationship the United States and Iran have so productively shared in the past. But the escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran should come as no surprise. For the architects of the Iraq war, this progression of events could not have been unforeseen. Iran was bound to enter this conflict from the day it was conceived.
The rhetoric between these two stubbornly led nations is heating up – U.S. aircraft carriers are repositioning and the Iranians are test-firing ballistic missiles on their coast. It’s as if the script is being written for the worst possible sequel to the worst possible American foreign policy movie to date. We have to avert this potential war at all costs. Americans cannot afford it and will not be persuaded to support it.
Yet, if Iraq becomes (more overtly) the theater for this conflict, then the international community’s worst fears have been realized. Could we ever really back down from aggressive Iranian military presence in Iraq if it means relinquishing control of the country and further destabilizing the entire region? It seems the problems would only grow from there.
It is absolutely critical for the United States and Iran to subvert our history of shaky foreign relations and put our collective faiths in the merits of diplomacy. The only way to ease the mounting tensions in the Middle East is through the cooperation of our two nations. The events of the past five years have conspired to this dire point. Now the only way to reach anything resembling an outcome in the green lies in our willingness and ability to communicate through diplomatic processes.
Imagine how the reconstruction of Iraq might fare under that type of cooperation. Maybe well enough to put the nervous minds of three nations at ease. We must demand a diplomatic resolution to the recent intensification of U.S./Iranian relations.
[email protected]