Tehran Two-Step

Here's the type of reporting on the escalating Iranian situation that we're not getting enough of at home. Be sure and read this article in today's Guardian Unlimited, an intelligent, balanced, factual summation of the growing tensions and rhetoric over Tehran's intention to develop domestic nuclear power.

As I've said many times in the past (see sidebar, on Iran), despite the erratic and inflammatory behavior of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there still is no concrete evidence that his nuclear goal is anything other than the creation of civilian controlled power plants. President Bush's repetitive " 'cause I say so" accusations are based on... what, exactly?

And while Ahmadinejad's reckless public statements make him appear slightly unhinged, the Cowboy in Chief continues to spew some belligerent rhetoric of his own. The Guardian notes:

President George Bush indicated that the time for talking had passed. A nuclear Iran, he said, would be a threat to global security, adding that it was "logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations security council".

"Using the guise of a civil nuclear weapons programme to get the know-how for a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," he said after talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

I'm particularly intrigued by how it is that Georgie "knows" all this with such certainty. We all remember how accurate his last "slam dunk" prognostication about Middle Eastern regimes and atomic weapons proved to be. And making such a threatening allegation is something any sane person can see will only paint Ahmadinejad further into a corner - and increase his blustering, as a means of saving face with his own citizenry. The report continues:

One of Britain's most senior military officers said yesterday he strongly opposed any attack on Iran. "The impact would be absolutely horrendous," Sir Alan West, the first sea lord, told British defence journalists. He made it clear he was talking about a military strike by Israel as well as by the US. "Getting involved in military action would be a very silly thing to do."

Sir Alan's warning reflects widespread concern in the British military about the Bush administration's reliance on military action or threats to solve complicated issues. There is also anger about comments by British ministers that Iran is responsible for roadside bombs which have killed a number of British soldiers and contractors in Basra. There is no hard evidence that Iran was responsible, they insist.

I know what you're thinking. Do I trust the Iranian President? Not really. But do I think that Iran has as much right as any sovereign nation to study and develop peaceful nuclear technology for civilian use? Absolutely. And do I believe all the usual Administration talking points dutifully repeated in our MSM, the ubiquitous references to "a nuclear Iran" as if we are once again mere moments away from the horror of a mushroom cloud? Not on your life - and neither should you.

The international community is understandably concerned over such a delicate situation in Tehran. But, as is obvious from this piece in the Toronto Star, they are equally worried about a U.S. position which has "echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war." I'm trying to remain optimistic that diplomacy will prevail, and that a compromise can be reached that will not further isolate Tehran from the West for the wrong reasons.

But with a make-believe Texas Ranger in the White House, it's awfully hard to believe.