|
Jewish World Review May 6, 2003 / 4 Iyar, 5763
Michael Ledeen
Tough Guy: Powell's curious priority list
If only he were as tough with our nation's enemies as he
is with his domestic critics! Tim Russert asked him what
he intended to do about Iran, which, as Russert
observed, had once again topped the State
Department's terrorist list, and fully met all the
president's conditions for the sort of nation we would
"confront." Powell replied:
"We have made it clear to Iran that they cannot expect a
better relationship with the United States or to be
included more fully in the international community as
long as they continue to support terrorism and as long as
they continue to move in a direction with their nuclear
development programs that suggests they are still
interested in developing a nuclear bomb."
But Iran isn't looking for "a better relationship" with us
on such terms. They think we're a terrible evil force, a
great Satan, and they have just sent thousands of
terrorists into Iraq to kill us, they have organized Iraqi
Shiites to demonstrate against us, and they are speeding
ahead on their program to develop a nuclear weapon.
Then Powell alluded to the hatred of the regime by the
young people of the country. "We believe," he said,
there are ways to communicate with the people of Iran
to convince them that the policies their leaders have
been following have been inappropriate."
But it's quite unnecessary to do that. The people of Iran
are already fully convinced that the regime stinks, and
they are already desperate to be rid of it. Just last week,
a Le Monde reporter went around Tehran asking
people what they thought of the American occupation of
Iraq. The most common answer was "Why have they
stopped there? Why don't they send some marines over
here to liberate us?"
Then comes the grand finale: "But there are
opportunities for cooperation with respect to al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is a threat to Iran, to everyone else. They
should not allow any al Qaeda activity to take place in
Iran; and if there are al Qaeda individuals in Iran, they
should be turned over to people who know how to deal
with al Qaeda individuals."
It's hard to parse, I know. Just why Powell thinks al Qaeda is a threat to Iran
is beyond me, given that the two have been cooperating for many years, and
Iran served as a haven for al Qaeda terrorists (probably including bin Laden
himself - almost certainly for members of his family) after we attacked
Afghanistan. Powell knows all about this, and the most charitable decryption
of his remark to Russert is that he took the opportunity to "send a message" to
the mullahs back in Tehran, warning them that they'd better stop their work
with the terrorists.
It's all of a piece with his trip to Syria, where he says he explained to Bashar
Assad that things have changed in the Middle East, and Syria would do well
to get with the program. Assad apparently gave Powell some reason to hope
that Syria would take some steps to calm our nerves, and let's pray something
good comes of it. But these diplomatic demarches - as Gingrich said,
perhaps with excessive exuberance - are really not what the Middle East
needs. (It needs a democratic revolution.) This is the time to press ahead, and
confront the terror masters in Tehran and Damascus.
Instead of dancing around the issue, Powell should have thought of Iran and
Syria as even worse than Newt Gingrich, and expressed himself with the same
clarity he devoted to the Speaker. He might have said, "Well, Tim, the
president has said that Iraq was just one more battle in a long war, and we
will certainly have to confront Iran, probably sooner rather than later, because
it's clear they are committed to fight us in Iraq. We can do that politically and
economically, rather than militarily, but there is no question that the Iranian
regime is an enemy of ours, as the president has made clear. And if President
Assad listened carefully to my words in Damascus, he'd have heard a similar
message: You'd better change if you can, because otherwise there's going to
be real trouble."
One last point: Powell seems to believe that his words, and those of Armitage,
are always in tune with what the president believes. But on at least two recent
occasions, Armitage directly contradicted the president. The first was when
the president announced we would not have bilateral talks with North Korea.
Armitage quickly said we would welcome them. And the second was when
Armitage stated (and was pleased to confirm the statement was intentional,
not a slip of the mind) that Iran "is a democracy," even though the president
had repeatedly condemned Tehran's tyrannical regime.
Maybe the president changed his mind, and decided that Armitage's versions
were better than his own. But that remains to be demonstrated, and, in any
case, is not what Powell suggested. Meanwhile, it would serve everyone's
interest if serious policy matters were debated seriously, and not reduced to
big egos scoring debating points against one another in public. We're at war,
these are big issues, and they warrant mature debate.
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
05/01/03: Desert Shame Redux: Want a free Iran and a free Syria? We have to fight for it
|