Saturday, September 10, 2005

Hussein

Saddam's name sounds like a sneeze, doesn't it? Hussein! But I digress. I find myself in agreement with the theocratic state of Iran. Either they're talking sensibly or I need a punch in the head. Noting my intro, I think it's the latter.

What if we did listen to the Iranians and asked the Iranian supreme court to bring their case against Saddam? In descending order, I predict that it could draw world opinion towards the United States, particularly if we asked the World Court to assist the Iranians in preparation of their case--which would have the dual benefit of getting them involved and also prevent them from adjudicating. I predict that it would give the United States a much less shaky position, regionally, since Iran would, by addressing a court in the new republic of Iraq, be granting it de facto recognition. I believe it would also solidify the support of the Iraqi Shi'ite majority behind the new government, but it would also drive the Sunnis further away.

However, it seems to me, at this point, that all the Sunnis have learned is that by being uncooperative they can force concessions from those desperate for a consensus. It's time we called their bluff.

3 Comments:

Blogger Noumenon said...

I predict that it could draw world opinion towards the United States, particularly if we asked the World Court to assist the Iranians in preparation of their case--which would have the dual benefit of getting them involved and also prevent them from adjudicating.

At first I thought, "No way, exhibit A is all the aid and encouragement the U.S. gave to Saddam in that war!" But the World Court is a good idea, it would gain good will from Europe and it wouldn't dare be too hard on us since we barely acknowledge its existence.

Iran would, by addressing a court in the new republic of Iraq, be granting it de facto recognition.

The recognition goes the other way. If Iraq allows the trial to proceed according to Iran's wishes, rather than America's, it will be signalling close ties with Iran. It sounds like we're going to see more and more Iranian influence on Iraqi politics, and this is just a symbol of that.

Finally, any mention at all of Saddam on trial requires me to repost this link.

12:23 PM  
Blogger Octavo Dia said...

As a follow up comment, here's an excerpt from an article in the Saudi publication Arab News,

"The best allies of the Islamic Republic [Iran] are those in the United States that argue that the U.S. should cut and run, allowing Iran to fil the voice, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then claim supremacy of the entire Middle East. If Iran begins to threaten the U.S. or its allies with nuclear weapons, the 'cut and run' party will not be permitted to do its work. The United States is unbeatable in a short war in which it can use its overwhelming technological superiority. But when it comes to long wars in which reasonable number of GIs inevitably get killed, it quickly faces the Cyndi Sheehan effect.... The Islamic Republic's greatest insurance policy against American military action is precisely not to have a nuclear arsenal. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons and is, in fact, safer without them."

11:21 PM  
Blogger Noumenon said...

You're making more use of WatchingAmerica than I am... showing me the value of it somewhat.

Iran would not be safe from America if they used their nukes, but they would be safer having them -- it's the developing period when they are least safe.

2:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home