Beyond the Bravado (between the U.S. and Iran)

[bigtree]

It would be foolish to discount the dangers of a clash between the US and Iran, but they are more remote than the words of their leaders would suggest.

by Martin Woollacott
Guardian
August 29, 2007 3:45 PM

Bluster and bravado know no frontiers. They are the common recourse of beleaguered politicians everywhere, and between President Bush and President Ahmadinejad this week there was not much to choose. If we are to believe the Iranian leader, Iran stands ready, with not much more than a nod to its neighbours, to fill the vacuum the Americans will soon leave in Iraq, and indeed in the Middle East as a whole. In addition, according to Ahmadinejad, the country's command of nuclear technology is progressing in leaps and bounds. If we are to believe the American leader, the United States is ready to confront every Iranian move, and the president has issued new orders to his commanders in Iraq to counter Iranian infiltration and arms smuggling. The arrest in Baghdad of a group of Iranians, shortly after the American president had stopped speaking in Reno, Nevada where he had been addressing American veterans in his second big speech on Iraq and the Middle East in a week, seemed to add substance to that assertion.

Yet things are seldom quite what they seem in relations between Iran and America. The arrested Iranians, experts from the Iranian electricity industry invited by the Iraqi government, were soon released, with an American military spokesman terming their detention "a regrettable incident". In Tehran, the Iranian foreign ministry observed, rather mildly, that Bush's charges were "not true", which was about the least he could say in the circumstances.

Nor should it be forgotten that Iran and America have held talks in Baghdad in recent weeks and even established a standing committee to broker their differences and attend to the interests they have in common in Iraq. It would be foolish to discount the real dangers that exist of a clash and even a war between the United States and Iran. But they are more remote than the words of either man would suggest.

First, Bush has said nearly all these things before. The new bit, his concept of Iraq as a country threatened, as it were in parallel, by Sunni extremism from the west and Shia extremism from the east, is a speechwriter's conceit. This address was all about persuading Americans to support a further effort in Iraq and not about preparing them for war against Iran. And most experts believe that the listing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, which the administration is believed to be preparing, is a move intended to placate hawks within the administration and frighten Europeans and others into joining in sanctions designed to make Tehran think again about its nuclear programme. Again not, in spite of appearances, a move intended to be in a warlike direction.

If the American president's words should not be taken at face value, what of those of Ahmadinejad? He is quite right to say that Iran's influence is growing as America's influence wanes. But to step into America's shoes? Hardly. Iran is an economic mess, coping less than well with unemployment and popular discontent over fuel and food prices. It is politically riven, as the regime alienates even its own supporters through incompetent policies, turns the screws on what was once a relatively free press and cracks down on the behaviour of young people. And, even if it has both a capacity and a talent for covert action, it is not strong in a conventional military sense. Nor is its nuclear progress, according to the latest expert estimates, at all steady and smooth. It can be hazarded that most Iranians would prefer Ahmadinejad to start getting things right at home rather than looking for trouble abroad.

Can we therefore relax? Not exactly. The real differences of interest between America and Iran are compounded by the fact that there are hardly any structures - meeting places, forums, hotlines - in place to prevent things getting out of hand. War by accident is in a sense a greater danger than war by design. This week's speeches underline how important it is that the two countries should stop talking at one another and start talking with one another.


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_woollacott/2007/08/beyond_the_bravado.html


my take:
Radical U.S. Extremists in Iraq Threaten Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1683538&mesg_id=1683538
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070829_radical_u_s__extremi.htm