OP-ED: "Beyond Saber Rattling," by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 28 May-3 June 2007, p. 5.
The money quote:
Arab allies are urging such a course on Bush [deposing Maliki] and would not object to U.S. military action against Iran. There is growing concern in Baghdad that Washington is developing a "Plan B" that involves both hitting Iran and ousting Maliki ...
Another:
"Why should we fight somebody else's war in Iran?" asked Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Maliki's national security adviser .... "We say no to Saudi Arabia fighting Iran in Iraq."
State of the World, my friends.
Haogland's advice is what I wrote in Esquire more than two years ago:
Fully engaging with Iran on both Iraq and nuclear weapons, and bringing the Gulf Arabs and European allies into that dialogue. That would be the work of a confident giant.
Exactly.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
The second quote reminds me of a recent Spengler article (the one you posted on, I think) where he observes that the Iranians and Saudis could be dragged into a war with one another by their own proxies.
The consequences of such a war are certainly disastrous, but to what extent is such a war likely? We and the Soviets did manage to avoid that fate during the Cold War; were we just lucky, or were their other factors? To the extent Spengler's fear IS reasonable, it would seem that supporting Makiki would be a good idea, at least until the Iraqis vote him out themselves.
Posted by Michael | June 1, 2007 6:09 PM
Makiki? Of course I spot the gross spelling error the second after I hit Post:P Sorry. . .
Posted by Michael | June 1, 2007 6:10 PM