Giuliani's position on Iran shows he hasn't learned from Iraq
I have a weakness for wars with colorful names. My favorite is the War of Jenkins' Ear, which occupied Britain and Spain from 1739-41 and ended in a stalemate. This brings me to the coming war with Iran that Rudolph Giuliani has solemnly vowed he will launch should, God forbid, Iran get nuclear weapons and he becomes president. It will be called the War of Rudy's Mouth.
Rudy's mouth is a formidable weapon that, when turned on a target, can vaporize the person. An oft-cited example is the poor fellow who called into the then-New York mayor's radio show and asked why the law prohibited the keeping of ferrets as pets. "There is something deranged about you," Giuliani explained.
Not surprisingly, the Republican front-runner -- an astounding phrase -- is treating Iran as a nation of ferret owners. He has vowed to strike the Islamic republic militarily should it develop a nuclear weapon -- not a mere threat, he has added, "but a promise." This is both a cliche and the kind of rhetoric of the "bring 'em on" variety that suggests Giuliani has learned nothing from the Iraq fiasco. Since issuing that statement, Giuliani has sounded this theme often. The other Republican candidates do not, for the most part, disagree with his claim.
Similar statements have come in recent days from the White House. President Bush, an exceedingly slow learner, has suggested that a nuclear Iran could result in "World War III" and Dick Cheney, chastened not a bit by a record of heroic mistakes and misleading statements, promised Iran "serious consequences" if it proceeds with its nuclear program. By now, I think, Tehran has gotten the message.
Sadly, it is not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat. Not only is Iran proceeding with a nuclear program, but it projects a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world. Intelligence agencies assure us that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and its president is the voluble and bizarre Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The time indeed may come when the only way to deal with Iran is with force. In the meantime, it might not hurt to try old-fashioned diplomacy. War with Iran would be ugly. An airstrike would cause Iran to unleash Hezbollah, Hamas and other extremist groups, causing no end of trouble in the Middle East. It could close the Persian Gulf to shipping, producing an oil shock. It could foment trouble in the oil-producing region of Saudi Arabia, which is substantially Shiite.
Giuliani ought to recognize he is no longer the big-mouthed mayor of New York but a serious contender for the White House. All his talk can accomplish is to make Iranian moderates rally around Ahmadinejad. That's a pity. But Ahmadinejad does not rule the country. The mullahs do. Rather than enhance Ahmadinejad's standing in his own country, rather than put Iran up against a wall and dare it to back down, rather than make Iran the hero of anti-American Islamists everywhere, why not attempt to engage in direct talks and treat the country not as a pariah -- one-third of the ludicrous and illogical "axis of evil" -- but as a fellow state? Why not, as it were, treat Iran as we once did the Soviet Union or we now do China? We talked to the former, we talk to the latter.
The next president is going to have to use his noodle. Iran may be trying to go nuclear, but Pakistan already is -- and it's so unstable the present government may not last for long. The U.S. cannot make war all over the globe, leading the West in a resumption of the crusades against the Islamic East. War should be the last resort, spoken of with the respect it deserves, acknowledging dizzying chaos, widespread terrorism and grievances that will haunt us long into the future. War with Iran will not turn out to be the applause line it is in the campaign. That, Mr. Giuliani, is not a threat. It is a promise.
© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group