IGNORANCE IS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE

Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go again (Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, August 27th, 2004)

There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the security council for a decision on sanctions or other stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move to the UN.[...]

The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's stance. Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes constructive engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides, but the three European states are willing to keep it going.

They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle East, especially if Washington subcontracted the attacks to the Israeli air force.

Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different. People of all political persuasions in Tehran support their country's right to have nuclear power, and probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is not the most intelligent way to persuade them otherwise.

The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's unfair elections, as well as the certainty that President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq war who are influenced by nationalism and economic imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better relations with the west.

Here is the voice of the left in all its mendacious fantasy. Nowhere in this article does Mr. Steele question that Iran is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a prospect is presumably far less worrisome than trigger-happy Americans swaggering around the globe pushing around freedom-loving peoples concerned with global warming and human rights. Although the anti-regime liberals have been crushed, he sees a quiet cabal of “pragmatic conservatives” ready to hold the mullahs back and save the day provided nobody wounds their pride by daring to put pressure on Iran about anything. Presumably, that is why the British were so clever a few months ago in allowing their sailors to be captured and publically humiliated without protest. It is called constructive engagement.

This article might have been lifted verbatim from the 1930's with only the names changed to protect the guilty.