Saturday, July 12, 2008

Engage or Attack?

Jon Alterman, Director of the Middle East Program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, contrasts the Cold War with the current situation with Iran. He feels that we were successful in the Cold War because we had relations, albeit strained, with Russia. We exchanged ambassadors, entertainers, academics and goods. Maybe both Russia and the U.S. understood the civilization destroying dangers of the Cold War turning hot.

True, Russia and Iran are and were very different countries with very different roles in the world. But, Alterman argues, both Russia and Iran could threaten us in very vital ways, Russia by attacking Western Europe, Iran by stopping the flow of oil. And both countries were ideologues. In our view Russia was behind the Korean and Vietnam wars. Today some think Iran is supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraqi insurgents.

Alterman acknowledges that Iran may be irrational, whereas Russia was rational. However, he claims that in the 30 years of the Islamic Republic, the leaders have pursued their interests in realistic and cold-blooded terms, despite the rantings of the Ahmadinejads. So, it would be a good idea to find out whether they are nuts or just nasty and you can’t find that out unless you have relations with them over a period of time.

That’s one thing the Cold War taught us. Engaging with the enemy diplomatically may result in not having to engage militarily.

No comments: