Iran

Simon Tisdall (Guardian UK) lays down some salient points with regard to the Iran pot-boiler. I don't necessarily agree with his forecast for the future as, I think, too much is reliant upon the implied intransigence of the mullah's and the neocon hawks.

Too much of this mess has been created via the Cheney administrations meddling, through rhetorical slants, with the diplomatic process. It is hard enough to negotiate with the schitzophrenic leadership of Iran, but every time a step forward is taken the US nullifies it by opening it's sanctimonious maw and blithely trashing any progress and basically calling it's head of state, rightly or wrongly, a crazyman.

The neocons need to be taken off the world stage, their naive shoot first ask questions later policy stances are not helping the broader pragmatic approach that, in this instance, may provide for a greater platform toward progress.

I am not saying we should appease the Tehran government, we should utilize every tool in the draw to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, but name calling and sabre rattling are really very unproductive and merely serve the purpose of stonewalling the process until, exasperated, Bush sees no other option than pulling the trigger on another preemptive action. And let's face it, Bush is and always has been in a constant state of near exasperation, it happens when you truly don't understand what all the adults in the room are actually talking about.

That he will be lead to that conclusion by Cheney and his feckless accomplices and by the ineptitude of his SecState is not yet inevitable. And, Iran must understand this, they too must come to the table as willing participants and give ground on key sticking points in the process.

With Europe, Russia and to some extent China engaged, the Arab world must finally grow up and become a component in this clash of idealogies. They are losing ground here and must be seen as being 'competent' regional participants, too many of their governments, historically, have hidden behind a western veil, unable to progress with one clear unadulterated voice, each playing off one another, scoring points in their internal and external games of insult and innuendo. The west has to allow the Arab world to rise or fall at it's own behest. We have policed the region for far too long and with only a modicum of success at the best of times, we cannot be the parent any longer. We must help in the transition, see Iraq, but we can not keep patting them on their heads and pulling up their socks. They need to grow as nations and experience those growing pains without the analgesic the west has so willingly and perhaps irresponsibly provided. As much as we are addicted to their oil, they have become addicted to our salves in the form of dollars, weapons and perceived protection.

If it is all about oil, and most now suspect it is, then the only guarantee we need is that the oil will flow unhindered, do we need to send in 160,000 troops, 185,000 mercenaries and a trillion dollars to ensure the 'black-stuffs' security (and we wonder why oil is so expensive)? No, it is in their interest to keep it flowing, it is, afterall, all they have now. Any 'serious' leader should be aware of that. The problem is serious leadership in the region and that is what we should be ensuring, I am not advocating regime change here, we just tried that with what could only be described as disasterous results, I am merely stating that if we want stability in the region we need to be assured that the players in the middle east are as committed to that outcome as we appear to be.

We need to turn off the idiotic rhetorical spiggott, put the sabres back in the scabbards and engage these people. Where would that leave Bin Laden and his murderous band of thugs... dangling in the wind, I would imagine!