Borat, Iraq and Variations on Democracy

William Tucker post an excellent piece on the American Spectator.

In regard Iran, Tucker writes:

I THINK OUR BEST STRATEGY right now is to let Iraq sink or swim -- but not necessarily to expect the worst. There is something oddly compelling about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "letter to the American people." Why not allow him to join the discussion? After all, Iran will be living cheek-by-jowl with Iraq much longer than we will. Whatever influence the Iranian Shi'ia have in Iraq, it will be offset by Sunni intervention from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and so on. They can do a much better job of calming the civil war than we ever will. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been killing each other for centuries. If we can put them under the glare of world opinion, they may learn to get along better -- which would make the whole Muslim world less lethally violent.

While interesting, I think Tucker assumes a level playing field between nations that does not exist. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria each have internal considerations that may not allow them to have the single-purpose driven policies towards Iraq as does Iran, which considers itself THE new power player in the middle east. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will be able to modulate the policy goals of Iran in the region; I think this is particularly true when viewed in light of the fact that America has always supplied the military backbone for the Saudis (and this only when the flow of oil is endangered).

This does not mean that talks with Iran are impossible in either the near or short term; but it must be done from strength; none of the aforementioned countries have the muscle and they and Iran are acutely aware of this.

Also in today's AMSPEC, Joel Himelfarb expands on the potential dangers of rushing into talks with nations who have failed in the past to respond to diplomacy.