Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in the Middle East this week seeking to build a network of support for what she calls "emerging moderate forces" (i.e. Iraq, the Palestinian Fatah Party, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt) against "extremist" ones that are opposed to US interests.
The No. 1 extremist Ms. Rice intends to to counter, say analysts, is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This trip comes at a time when an oil-flush, potentially nuclear Iran has growing clout in the region, particularly among armed Shiite groups in Lebanon and Iraq.
So is this development saying we are going to accept a nuclear Iran under the mullahs and are trying to contain Iran for the long run in the hope we can outlast their regime?
Or are we trying to judge sentiments for direct action against Iran in the near future to prevent Iran under the mullahs from going nuclear? And no, I don't know whether we might be planning to overthrow the mullahs so that at least a sane Iran might go nuclear; or whether we will disarm the mullahs of nuclear ambitions while we can even if the mullahs survive the attack. Or it could be regime change combined with a disarming military campaign, of course.
I keep assuming we are playing our cards close to our chest. It is always possible that the apparent decision to do nothing and hope for the best is actually our hand.
