Log In | Register
This week, there was front-page news that Iran had again tested missiles, this time with increased range sufficient to reach all its neighbors. There was some informed speculation that the story from Iran was not entirely the truth, and that the photographic evidence of the launch was digitally doctored, but Secretary Condoleezza Rice responded anyway with an assertion that the United States was prepared to defend its allies, implying that we would respond to any attack on Israel. This is something that has not been in doubt for sixty years and is not likely to change either. So the utility of reiterating it is not particularly clear, although stating the obvious is one of the things politicians do best. It gives the electorate an opportunity to do something it does rarely: agree with public officials.
Israel's recent air exercises have something to do with Iran's missile tests, and Iran's previous missile tests have something to do with Israel's recent air exercises. But rather than increasing hostility---it's difficult to imagine hostility any greater in peacetime---Iran and Israel are no closer to attacking each other than they have been for a long time. Even with leadership that can charitably be termed benighted, Iran is not likely to attack Israel. And assertions that the United States is preparing for war with Iran don't make much sense either, particularly in view of our international weakness, inadequate force structure, lack of political resolve, and a credibility that has been eroded by the adventure in Iraq.
It's true, of course, that if we had a high degree of confidence that we could eliminate Iran's nuclear development with a surgical air strike, it would be tempting to launch it, but for the moment, that is not likely to occur. And in any case, we have more pressing international concerns that have been pushed from the front page by Iran's posturing.
Among the developments that are much more troubling is the deterioration of the situation in Pakistan and its effect on our prosecution of the war on terror in Afghanistan. President Musharraf's grip on power has been slipping steadily and is now tenuous at best. Even though there are occasional offensive operations launched against militants in the northwestern tribal areas, where the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain major bases, they have been episodic and not part of a long-term strategy to eliminate the threat. It's not entirely clear how much of the military Musharraf controls, and he is roundly disliked by the most important part of his or any country: the middle class. It's anybody's guess how long Pakistan will remain in its current state.
There are two dysfunctions generated by an unstable Pakistan. First, the erosion of the security situation in Afghanistan is a direct result of Pakistan's inability to eliminate militant bases just inside its border. Just as important is that, while Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Pakistan already has had them for quite some time. Indeed, Pakistan is the source of much of the proliferation of nuclear technology among nations whose possession of them is frightening to contemplate.
Of course, a focus on Iran's bellicosity and the danger of an unstable Pakistan are not mutually exclusive. But it is interesting that a noisy boast supported by a doctored photograph of dubious provenance grabs more attention than a genuine threat to world stability
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
Thanks. As much as an extremist as I am---and as we all tend to be on some subjects, especially as we get older---I find it useful to cut to basics, something we all learned as brand new soldiers.
