The Iranian Question

Very simple question for any aspiring election candidate: would you support an air strike on Iran?

Given the steady beat of the neo-con war drum that has been coming out of Washington in recent weeks, it is rather amazing that this hasn't been picked up in the midst of a faux election campaign where any poll is seized upon with unrestrained gusto. It is Iraq re-dux: Iran is supporting terrorists (remember Sadaam's Al-Qaeda connection, one so secret even he himself didn't know about it?); containment will not work, nor will sanctions. We have the unfortunate weapons inspection official who has reported that he hasn't seen anything to indicate a weapons programme (Mohammed El-Baradei reprising Hans Blix's role of hapless messenger). Oh yes, and the country's led by a lunatic who wants to wipe everyone into the Mediterranean.

It could be argued that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, in the same way one might have thought that the Romans wandering into the Teutonberg Forest was a good idea. It needed the invasion to have global approval and a full committment to rebuilding the country's infrastructure and securing stability before major political reform was attempted. Bush and his cohorts demonstrate a total disinterest in nation building in the bricks and mortar sense, only committed to nebulous concepts of freedom and outsourcing everything from security to government to the private sector. If Rome is to be their guide, Bush's policy instincts are closer to Caligula, whose invasion forces were reputedly instructed to 'bring back seashells' to prove they had conquered Britain (when they hadn't...mission accomplished 40 AD style). He is no general of the first or even second league, nor even the pale imitation of a modern wartime president.

A newsflash for Dick Cheney - he is not Cato the Elder and the US is not Rome. It exports democracy, free enterprise, deregulation and American popular culture, not civilisation in the form of baths, literature and involvement in a world superpower's polity. More to the point, neither Bagdhad or Tehran are Carthage. On a world scale, both are at best on a regional par with France. A more emblematic challenge would be against China, and today's real strategic plays are in the economic sphere not playing toy soliders with Stealth bombers. All this bullying behaviour demonstrates is growing economic frustration that the US is on loan to China.

The proposed Iranian campaign now has such a level of hyperventilation attached that it would further sour relations between the Muslim and Western communities and run America's capital in the region into deficit. It would ruin the stability of Iraq, as Iran would simply send its forces in to fight a proxy war. Remember Iraq couldn't beat Iran in their absolutely mindless sectarian conflict despite superior military power and the assistance of several western powers.

The nuclear issue is one almost entirely of Bush's own making. By his belligerent policy against Iraq, the Iranian politico-clerical establishment has seen the need defend their regime by relying on the MAD protection offered by nuclear weapons. In Bush's world, only the US can dictate terms, any opposing outpost is a rogue state as exemplified by the statement 'either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists'.

The US relies on allies to provide it with credibility for these adventures. True allies do not capitulate to the whim of larger states. Those countries are traditionally called client kingdoms, run by a compliant puppet for the benefit of the puppet and its master. Australia is not a client state.