Signalling Iran with our proxy
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 2:25AM OP-ED: "Osirak II? Israel's silence on Syria speaks volumes," by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 18 September 2007, p. A14.
Israel conducts an air raid on Syria last week and announces it's put nuke cruise missiles on its German-made subs.
The strike is alleged, via leaks, to have been conducted against a North Korean shipment of nuclear materials, supposedly sent there to be put on ice while Kim shows the inspectors how little he actually has.
Plausible? Come on, we're talking Kim. The guy's capable of anything.
So a signal to whom, this strike?
Not to Kim, I would say.
Not so much to Syria either. Israel's been itching for a while on that score anyway. Doubt Damascus needs much reminding.
A dry run for Iran? The logistics make little sense, as Stephens points out.
A sign to Iran that if Israel is willing to go nuclear on Syria (our proxy versus Iran's), then what do you think America is willing to do to Tehran?
That angle, the only one not covered by Stephens (perhaps tellingly so) strikes me as most useful.
In this scenario, useful idiots (NK, Syria abound), as do proxies making proxy war (our Israel as punisher, Iran's Syria as whipping boy). We side-signal to Kim that we can see what tricks he's up to, while signal to Syria how willing we are to let Israel "bombs away," plus we proxy signal to Tehran: "This could be you."
As signaling goes, I would give Bush an A-plus on that one.
I know it must seem like I go back and forth on Bush and Iran a lot. There is simply the reality of my wearing many hats. Under certain circumstances, I make certain arguments, but in other rooms, I simply deal with the hand being dealt. I don't confuse the roles, and neither do people with whom I work. At the end of the day, it's never personal, despite the tendency of readers to imagine it's so. As I say again and again, I'm not political and my side's never out of power.
When I criticize the powers that be, though, some imagine a clear agenda. Ditto for when I praise them. Naturally, all such perceived "shifts" are considered "betrayals," which I always find quite humorous, since, by and large, I can't stand the ideologues on either side who sometimes deign me with their praise and other times damn me with this criticism. In the grand scheme of things, I find such games meaningless beyond belief. The hatchet types can wrap themselves around such axles all they want since it's a free world and since most of their posturing is just for frat-boy show, but there's a big difference between "useful" and "useful idiots."
Do yourself a favor if you want to pursue a serious career in this field and learn how to spot the differences between the two, because when the doors shut you want to be on the inside, included in the conversation and not outside performing to the cameras and microphones.
Reader Comments (5)
If you go the other direction and argue that threatening Iran is potentially useful, how does this "signal" not simply reinforce the US failure in the last proxy war, which Iran won handily? Even fearful mullahs would only have to bet that the US lacks the free ground power to chase them into a spider hole. But that doesn't seem to be happening. Talk of US troop shortages aside, the request yesterday for the British to move to the Iranian border seemed more like an announcement that the Americans could not move troops to the Iranian border. If the US ups the ante by signalling a willingness to replay the Lebanon conflict, the Iranians should start counting their money.
So unless you've really changed hats (to a black turban), I don't see the value here.