AmericanPapist Comments
Um...Shi'a Islam, if I recall, has historically been less "assertive" than Sunni Islam, with the current situation in Iran being an aberration.
Really not sure what to think of that last statement, other than, well...was it really necessary?
I think Iran is playing this perfectly. They saw how the Vatican criticized the war in Iraq and hope to benefit from such outspokenness. To my knowledge, Ahmadenijad hasn't gassed his own people as Saddam had, so I don't think brutality is going to factor in here if the Vatican chooses to speak against a brewing war.
Of course, Iran should also realize the voice of the Vatican is quite small as it was unable to stop the war in Iraq and the administration suffered no political repercussions as it was put back in office in 2004 with a large Catholic vote. Iran may try to work with the Vatican, but this administration will go to war regardless of how minimal the threat is and regardless of who opposes it. That's not so much a criticism of the administration as it is the theory of realism. The strong do what they can and the weak endure what they must.
Thomas,
Sudan and Iran are different countries. Not to mention Sudan is almost completely Sunni, not Shi'a.
The prospect of a nuclear Iran should scare the heck out of any sane person, which is not to say that it is necessarily prudent or moral for the US to intervene.
And the fact that the Vatican might serve as a fair and useful intermediary is not inconsistent with the proposition that Iran would attempt to manipulate the Holy See for its own purposes. The fact that Rome is old does not mean it is always wise. We can only hope.
The prospect of a nuclear anyone scares the heck out of me, a theoretically sane person.
Threatening war to a nation because it may become more significantly armed and thus more capable of waging war just seems silly to me. "If you don't stop building bombs that destroy on a large scale, we will drop our bombs that destroy on a large scale, which we build as well, on you!"
I just get tired of all the politicians having the attitude of intervening only with weapons... A blind man can interact beyond beating those around him with his cane, surely we can find methods other than punishing others for following in our path?
Threatening war in such circumstances may be imprudent, but it is decidedly not silly. If France had had the balls to halt the re-arming of Germany in the 1930s -- which by traty it was entitled to do -- millions of people would have been saved.
Scarecrow sounds like one of those 1960s peaceniks who honestly believes that the world would just be peachy keen if the US would lead the way to disarmament. Sure.
Depends on whether or not carrots are being offered as well as sticks. This time around, the United States has wised up and realized that diplomacy, and not just paying lip-service to it, isn't a bad idea. I don't know what we're offering to Iran, but it's time we got off our high horse that we've been riding since 1979 and establish formal diplomatic ties. Because simply shunning them for 30 years has been reeeaally successful in changing their ways.
Oh come on, Nathan. You can't seriously believe that Iran's misbehavior regarding its neighbors, its treaties, and its own people are the consequence of its lack of formal relations with the US. The US and Iran have worked through their Swiss and Pakistan representives, and directly though special envoys, for years. The blame America first crowd does have the virtue of being amusing, however.
No, I'm not saying that their behavior is the result of American negligence. I mean, look at how close we are with Saudi Arabia and how nothing in that country has changed. And 19 of their citizens took part in 9/11. So no, I'm not blaming America for the inability of Iran to become a liberal (in the classical sense) state.
I am saying, however, that thirty years of keeping our backs turned towards the Iranians hasn't done any good, either. Four American presidents haven't had the sense to try a different course of action. I don't know if a fifth or even sixth president will, either. But what's a war going to do? Air strikes wouldn't guarantee taking out 100% of their nuclear facilities, and we're too stretched to send in ground forces. The only thing military action will do is stir up Iranian nationalism and discredit any pro-Western elements inside that nation. So we'd have another mess on our hands there. No one thinks Iran will have nuclear weapons before 2009, and that's with all the chips falling perfectly into place for Iran, and the CIA estimates it to be more like the middle of next decade before they have such capabilities. Why threaten war now?
Some may say we shouldn't appease Iran for fear of another Munich, but we got North Korea to give up their weapons program. We got Libya to renounce its support for terrorism. Why can't we do the same with Iran? We can keep using intermediaries if we want to waste time. Kissinger isn't famous because he used go-betweens, though...
Nathan,
The US does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea or Libya either. Nonetheless, as with Libya and North Korea, the US has tried to work with Iran multi-laterally (which I thought was a good thing), but Iran has generally not been receptive.
I share your skepticism about the practical prudence of war, but the notion that we have not tried earnest diplomacy is simply inaccurate. North Korea wants diplomatic relations with the US, so we can (and do) use that as a carrot. The current regime on Iran does not.
Commenting by HaloScan
