ms. rice, please let lying iranians sleep
by Cherry Vichette
Published: July 16, 2008
Condoleezza Rice made a not-so-veiled attempt to push back against Iran during an address she delivered in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. In an obvious reference to the recent Iranian missile tests, which continued for a second day, Ms. Rice stated, “We take very, very strongly our obligations to defend our allies and no one should be confused of that.” Though there is definite logic in taking an aggressive stance toward aggressors, the logic only holds up when the aggressor isn’t bluffing. And Ahmadinejad, up to this point, has clearly been bluffing. In the international foreign-policy poker game being played between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. can come out on top by ignoring, not calling, Iran’s bluff.
Ahmadinejad has a long history of chasing down headlines through inflammatory remarks. Most recently he promised to “set the United States’ vital interests in the world on fire” if we dare attack Iran. If taken at face value, that’s a very strong threat, to which the knee-jerk response will always lead to a Condoleezza-style comment. However, by paying attention to the details, one can easily decode Ahmadinejad’s message and know that in our dealings with Iran, the only thing we have to fear - is ourselves.
Ahmadinejad does not sit at the head of a unified government being propelled onward by a fanatically engaged populous. He is no Hitler and Iran is no Third Reich. In diplomatic circles, Iran is famous for three things: government-enforced death-to-America chants, overestimating its military capability and underestimating the effect of dissenters. Dissenting, I might add, that over the last three years has begun to creep upward and infiltrate the opinions of even high-ranking clerics.
Though hidden from public view, fissures have been forming for years that have weakened Ahmadinejad’s standing among the country’s power brokers. And as telling as the secret dissent among high-ranking officials is, it’s not half as important as the blatant dissent on the part of students and other malcontents. From the top of Iranian society to the bottom, one need not search hard to find plenty of people disgruntled with their country’s foreign policy.
Ironically, one of the most powerful forces keeping the Iranian government together is the United States. Ahmadinejad successfully exploits every threat made by United States as proof of the pending American invasion. With each verbal attack on the Iranian leadership we enable his government’s efforts to control popular opinion and manipulate political processes. A people under attack, like the Iranian government pretends to be, will always be willing to submit to any authority that can successively protect the borders from invasion. Self-imposed political limitations are always preferable to those imposed by a foreign entity. As long as the United States takes a menacing posture towards Iran, the Iranian government will never have much trouble whipping up its people into a Bush-in-effigy burning fury.
To exploit the obvious weaknesses Ahmadinejad faces at home, America need only ignore a man who we know clings to power by exaggerating the truth at every turn. Instead of talk of defensive stategies in eastern Europe and offensive strategies in the Persian Gulf, the next time the president of Iran promises to the light the wick on one of his really scary bombs, we should dispatch Condoleezza to some prestigous podium in Europe and have her rattle off something like this:
“America takes seriously every threat made against it’s allies. But not when it comes from countries whose leaders have absolutely no popular backing. Mr. Ahmadinejad, if you have to threaten your people with jail time to get them to tow the party line, I can’t possibly begin to pay attention to you. Not with Russia on the loose. Now there’s a president who can really scare a leader of the free world.”
Instead of threatening an attack we should amusedly observe Iranian political activity, commenting on the sexist nature of the country’s laws, not to mention the lack of religious liberty, freedom of speech and the leadership’s funny obsession with overstating its military capacity. With any other approach we’re just empowering an otherwise feeble leader. Instead of asking for trouble, we should patiently wait for the regime to collapse. Because as much as I want to see Iran go out with a bang, I’d much rather it be an implosion rather than an explosion.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Irresponsible! We should not just laugh at the ravings of a maniac with the fire power to reach Israel!
July 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
absolutely dead on. Although I wouldn’t say that Ahmadinejad is bluffing. If American did attack he would do everything in his power to retaliate. The problem is, that Condoleezza Rice and all these idiodic conservatives are taking that as an act of aggression. Thats not an act of aggression it an act of defense.
He’s just seen the US invade is neighbor for no good reason and so he wants to make sure America knows that the price for invading Iran will be even worse. If we’d just ignore him and stop making threats we’d see this problem would go away very quickly.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Yes and no Cherry. I think that bumping our chest with Iran is a bad idea but joking about a guy who’s expressed a hope to be the figure who brings about Armaggedon is a little like Wilson sticking his head in the sand and claiming he found peace in our time.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Wrong Slim. We’ve got better things to do than bully Iran.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’m with Joseph. Take a hard line with totalitarian thugs.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Whatever… those thugs are frontin’…
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I’m torn. We refer to Ahmadinejad in our house as a “yippy little dog” much like Hugo Chavez. He has no potential to harm us in and of himself, he’s just annoying. The problem really comes from larger countries like Russia and China who are willing to come to the defense of those harmless little ankle-biters. Couple that with the fact that Iranian leaders don’t need to have the populace in agreement to stir up support among radicals and foreign terror supporters. I think the best advice is a combination of disdain for Ahmadinejad’s ability to do what he says he can do and setting up our defenses to be extremely efficient in silencing that annoying little yippy dog should any attempts to harm us be made by him or his cohorts.