Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

see "Bush says Iran bombs used in Iraq" (Washington Times, 3/14/06)
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060314-010558-5660r.htm

and "Tehran elite turning on extremist presidency" (Washington Times, 3/14/06)
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060314-125702-7713r.htm

President Bush continues his subtle (for him) but persistent war of words against Iran, today saying that they are providing knowledge, materiel, or both, to shi'a militias in Iraq, adding to the deadliness of the situation. Adding such talk to the Iranians' open and aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapon capability is probably working toward building a foundation for strong action against Iran. My guess is that something happens before the end of this year, possibly including a joint strike by the US and Israel. [The US should not let or encourage Israel to take on that task alone, but that's another story.]

At the same time, the Washington Times reports increasing dissatisfaction with Iran's truly dangerous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist-of-the-worst-sort virulent anti-Semite.

The analysis in the Times story is interesting, and I agree with it:

The real anger with Ahmadinejad is based on economics. He is spending like a drunk sailor. Between the obvious lack of fiscal discipline and the increasing risk of international isolation or maybe even war, Ahmadinejad's policies are causing capital flight out of Iran's financial markets and out of the country itself. The economic impact of the President are far more damaging to him than any perceived risk of attack by the West, but the two are inextricably related.

It is understandable that a sovereign nation does not like to be told what to do, to be pushed around, etc. So it makes sense that Iranians would not be happy with the UN and the US "interfering" with their desire to obtain nuclear technology of any sort. (To be clear, I am not suggesting we should allow them to obtain that technology.) The increased nationalism caused by this challenge is the only real source of political support for Ahmadinejad at this time.

From the end of the Times story:
Mr. Ghaninejad said that by confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the West was in fact throwing a lifeline to Mr. Ahmadinejad. "If they keep piling on the pressure, Ahmadinejad will become a national hero," the newspaper editor said. "Let the Iranians deal with him. If you leave him alone, he will become a bankrupt politician within a year. With greater pressure, only the extremists will benefit."

I believe that the foreign policy experts in our government are MUCH smarter than the media or the public give them credit for. So when something happens in that area which I don't understand or agree with, I often give them the benefit of the doubt in the sense of asking myself "What am I likely to be missing here?" (I don't give this same benefit of the doubt to our government's domestic economic bureaucrats.)

I asked myself that question frequently as the US allowed Europe and the UN to deal in typical ineffective fashion with Iran's nuclear ambitions...wondering why we weren't acting more aggressively. Maybe this is the answer: Condi Rice and Co. understand that overt US pressure on Ahmadinejad is one of his only sources of political suppport. More subtle and back-channel actions, leaving the public face of opposition to Iran as the UN or the EU, could be the key to allowing the Iranians to eliminate a true menace themselves.