Something vaguely familiar...

Here are a few more items on the issue of Iran, the U.S., and the United Nations, in the wake of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s confrontational speech Saturday to the General Assembly. As would be expected, American and British officials see Mr. Ahmadinejad’s position as proof of the conclusions they’ve already drawn, and believe it’s just a matter of time and “tactics” until they get what they want. Marginalization. Condemnation. Punishment.

It’s quite illuminating to see how this same situation is being reported in the Arab press, because there’s a clear indication of just how well our campaign to win the “hearts and minds of everyone who loves freedom” is playing out around the globe. And I wonder if anyone in the White House or diplomatic corps has bothered to pay attention. I mean, all that’s at stake is world peace.

I guess the reason this concerns me is that there are such obvious parallels with the buildup to Iraq. The arrogant swaggering. The slide presentations. The questionable intelligence. The rush to the Security Council. The attitude that we know more about what is in the Iranian mind than the Iranians themselves.

After all, Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected, wasn’t he? Even if we didn't necessarily love the outcome.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, and I’m not that naïve. Iran is an excitable theocracy with a history of support for radical groups, and a place with whose policies, I’d have to say, I pretty much totally disagree. And its hostility towards Israel is a genuine issue that must be met with some sign of concession and reassurance by the Iranian President. But beyond that (and yes, "that" is considerable), it’s their country, and the Iranians have the right to fashion their society in any way they like, as long as there’s no concrete proof they want to f#%k with their neighbors or my little slice'o'heaven.

And so far, there’s not.

In fact, given the recent track record and prognosticating powers of our policy makers, I’d have to say that Iran is beginning to look like the f#%k-ee here, and that's a role we don't necessarily want to concede just yet. As I wrote the other day, U.S. impatience to condemn Iran has a familiar scent. I’d be indignant, too, if a bully was backing me into a corner.

If Ahmadinejad’s goal, as he repeatedly contends, is to exert a sovereign right to modernize his nation; to do so in conjunction with the supervision and support of outside countries; and to regularly submit to IAEA verification of Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear energy; then before throwing another area of the Middle East into chaos, we’d better have a stronger reason than “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Downing Street Memo ring a bell, anyone?

I guess if the Bush Administration had gotten anything right over the last four-and-a-half years, I’d have a bit more faith in its judgement. But the nations in opposition to America’s stance on this issue are simply echoing what we should already know all across the fruited plain. An attitude of pre-emptive beligerence hasn’t achieved the things the Bushies promised, nor has it won us any friends in the Third-World community. And who are we to sound the alarm against Iran, when the man with his finger on the trigger of the most powerful atomic arsenal in the world can’t even pronounce the word “nuclear”.

About diplomacy, John Kennedy once said,

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

Unless the Administration has gotten its hands on a new crystal ball, we have to insist that every avenue of negotiation be pursued with respect to Iran before leaping to another drastic course of action. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, nuclear energy is a serious business. And more than ever, we need people of patience, intelligence, and nuance to make sure that everything goes right.