Any moment now, the Iranian challenge will be added to the list of things too serious to be left to politicians.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union,” Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has said. Factually, he is correct. They are much smaller in area than the Soviet Union was. That did not stop the Republican candidate, John McCain, from accusing him of “reckless judgment.” And Obama says: The minuscule size of these rogue countries makes easier the decision to talk with their leaders directly, because if the U.S. sat down with the USSR even at the height of the Cold War, why not Iran? And McCain says: That is a bogus equation. And he is right as well.
A fateful strategic issue – certainly for the State of Israel – became a plaything this week for the American election circus. The Iranian threat is now the Iranian debate: to threaten or talk, to attack or wait. On the one hand, it’s a fascinating discussion that clarifies the difference between the viewpoints and approaches of the two presidential candidates. On the other hand, it’s a barren discussion that underscores how disconnected the election campaign is from the reality determined in Tehran and Washington.
A lot, too, depends on the actions of these dictators. US response will be based on that rather than any ‘pre-emptive’ action.
What is certainly true is that Iranian hardliners benefit. The Iranian moderates will be cowed. It will give the dictators justification to clean house. It was how the theocrats used the war against Iraq.