A continued lust for war

On the surface, it almost seems laudable that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress yesterday for $75 million in funding to increase pressure on the Iranian government from within by "expanding radio and television broadcasts into Iran and promoting internal opposition to the rule of religious leaders."

After all, providing assistance to the secular voices in Iran who disagree with hard line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and encouraging internal change through the Iranian political process, sounds like a reasonable approach toward ensuring that Tehran's nuclear goals remain peaceful.

If only U.S. intentions were that noble.

Dr. Rice apparently couldn't resist the chance to (unintentionally) expose the truth that this move is for appearances only, and that the White House's stance hasn't shifted an inch from one of hyperbole, misrepresentation, and a lust for attack. WaPo notes:

Rice told lawmakers that because the Iranians have begun enriching uranium, "they have crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community." Rice said the United States has a "menu of options" available to punish Iran, adding: "You will see us trying to walk a fine line in actions we take."

I hate to keep belaboring the obvious, but Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - unlike our bestest buds India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of whom already have atomic weapons. And by charter, Iran has the right to develop a peaceful, civilian nuclear fuel cycle, subject to inspection and oversight. The nation, for all its demonstrable ills, is hardly in "open defiance of the international community."

Now, I know what you're thinking, and I've repeatedly made it clear that Tehran does have some explainin' to do, and needs to be carefully monitored by the IAEA. But "punished" by means of a "menu of options"? Can the Bush Administration wag a self-righteous finger at any nation for it's alleged international belligerence given our own track record of intelligence failures, overheated rhetoric, unprovoked invasion, violation of the Geneva Conventions, rejection of the International Criminal Court, and tacit support of France and Israel, both of whom have openly announced their endorsement of tactical nuclear attack on Arab states?

Rice's request also typically dismisses the lessons of even recent history. WaPo continues:

Martin S. Indyk, a Clinton administration official who now heads the Saban Center on Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the democratic forces the administration wants to support have failed in the past to take on the clerics and have little basis of support - and would be tainted by U.S. aid. "It's hard to see how $75 million makes a dent in that political reality," Indyk said.

The Clinton administration, under pressure from Congress, tried to assist such groups in the 1990s, Indyk said, but Iran interpreted the effort as an attempt to overthrow the government and responded by funding a series of terrorist attacks in Israel.

Swell idea, Condi.

Is it simply standard operating procedure to reject out of hand every lesson that could be learned from the previous Administration? Or is it possible that our State Department fully comprehends the potential consequences here, and is intentionally trying to provoke an incident that would justify swift U.S. military intervention?

As with so many things, the Bush Administration's approach toward this situation cannot be trusted, tainted as it is by proven incompetence and a continued lust for war. There is a crisis developing with Iran - but right now it is America that's making it so.