Russia and China, both Security Council members, seem firmly opposed to military action in Iran. So far only France and Israel have expressed strong support, with Germany being more reserved. Britain has said it will participate if its forces are attacked, which considering that British troops are currently involved in cross-border raids to intercept arms smugglers, is a pretext waiting to be applied at will. There the question is more if Britain wants a piece of a third simultaneous military action than if it is willing to follow Bush.
Since this is to be primarily an air war, there is less of a need to cajole and bully smaller nations into sending troops, though they will probably be browbeaten into pledging cash.
There is little doubt that the U.S. (and whatever allies it can muster) can bomb Iran successfully. The bigger issue is what happens after the bombs fall. Without regime change in Iran, the endeavour would be pointless. But pointless is what Bush does best. The "point", such as it is, is that Bush is strong. Do what we say or else. While a lot of what the Iranian regime does is unpopular with its people, the nuclear programme is one thing that has strong suppport. Like 9/11 did here in the U.S, the action is likely to rally the public around the Iranian government. I have little doubt that Bush Administration lackeys are pitching a rosy scenario in which the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors and welcome us with flowers and chocolates, but this is their stock-in-trade, after all.
The reality is that such action is likely to stir up sympathy for Iran afterward. While Gulf Arab governments (undemocratic and in the pocket of the U.S.) would welcome Iran's chastening, the Islamic world is already seething with resentment over America's arrogant efforts to impose Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East. Other governments would see this as an easy opportunity to distance themselves from Bush's foreign policy by condemning the assault. India has made their opposition to a military strike public, and it is only the incredible pressure exerted by the U.S. on (the increasingly isolated) Musharraf that is responsible for his reluctant and limited words of support. Russia has already been busy lining up the Caspian states to forbid the use of their territories for such an attack. Turkey's antipathy to U.S. foreign policy is fast becoming open and public loathing. Other EU states, such as Spain and the Netherlands, are already embroiled in Bush-inspired fiascoes in Afghanistan, with increasing public opposition. Austria has clearly said the entire thing is a bad idea. Bush's bully approach to the rest of the world is building up resentment in quarters that would normally cheer us on. Rice's tactic seems to be, at best, to insult and shame nations into going along with Bush, on this and every other issue.
The big dogs in the kennel are, of course, China and Russia. China does not take kindly to foreign criticism of its policies, so Burns' "advice" is likely to do more harm than good. Russia is simply looking for an opportunity show that it is a world player, and one that is not in Bush's pocket. The more that Bush criticises them, the better they feel about their position. And every nation realises that Bush will be gone in a little over a year, so the desire for a pat on the head from the Decider is greatly diminished.
Sadly, the only parties that Bush is interested in pleasing are his 24% base and the Israelis. As such, it would seem that the die is cast and America will have to endure the fallout from world opinion as best it can.
story from the Daily Telegraph
Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks
By Matthew Moore
Last Updated: 5:46pm BST 26/10/2007
Iran has threatened to hit back with an "even more decisive strike" if the US bombs its nuclear installations, as international tensions rise following Washington's imposition of sanctions against Teheran.
The head of the Revolutionary Guards - the elite Iranian force designated a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" yesterday - dismissed talk of US air strikes but said Iran was ready to defend itself if attacked.
...
Beijing and Moscow have already come out against the sanctions, with President Vladimir Putin of Russia comparing the Bush administration to "mad people wielding razor blades"
The Chinese foreign ministry today said the penalties would "only complicate the issue".
"Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," it said in a statement.
Announcing the decision yesterday, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice insisted that a "diplomatic solution" to the differences between Iran and the West was still possible but described the actions as part of a decision "to confront the threatening behaviour of the Iranians".
Growing frustration within the Bush administration at the blocking strategy of Moscow and Beijing against any United Nations measures on Iran is becoming increasingly evident.
Nicholas Burns, US assistant secretary of state, suggested that Russia and China are propping up President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime.
"The Russian government should stop selling arms to Iran and the Chinese government should stop investing in Iran," he told the BBC.
No comments:
Post a Comment