Contagious Speechlessness

Michael Ledeen on the seven-hour meeting yesterday between our ambassador to Iraq and his Iranian counterpart that left me in a "humina-humina-humina" haze of frustrated exasperation:

We got nothing—except for those who are addicted to talks, any talks, at whatever cost—while Iran got a success because we have now brought them into some sort of security body for Iraq.

Just what we needed. Just when we are winning the war, arresting Iranians daily, and destroying their Sunni and Shi'ite proxies, the appeasement lobby snatches a new defeat from victory's jaws. Probably the deep thinkers at the White House are telling each other how this will deflect any criticism from those who accuse them of planning war with Iran. I hope they enjoy it, because Iran is planning a lot more war with us.

Peter Brookes' best attempt to try and explain this appalling kow-towing to the mullahs didn't sound much different from Ledeen's overt sarcasm:

But while it may seem crazy — even reprehensible — to meet with representatives of the Iranian regime over Iraq under the current conditions, there may actually be a method to the White House’s putative madness.

For instance, if the United States shows a minimal amount of ephemeral good will by having tea with a gaggle of Iranians in Baghdad, it could score some points — and breathing room — with:

a) The international community that is relatively soft on Iran, especially the Europeans;

b) Those in Congress that worship at the altar of the Baker-Hamilton Report (i.e., the Iraq Study Group); and,

c) Parts of the U.S. domestic audience that favors at least some engagement
with Iran, especially if it will improve things in Iraq.

So while these talks are likely to fail as resolutely as the last round, the United States will show international and domestic audiences it tried to engage Iran on Iraq — and failed — but not of its own accord. The United States will be able to — once again — point the finger at Iran for failing to keep its promises to improve the security situation in Iraq, while appearing the aggrieved party. At best, it will continue to expose Iran for what it is — a rogue regime — with the goal of strengthening domestic and international consensus for taking firmer action against Tehran.

This is a risky strategy, especially considering the potential consequences of appearing concessionary in the face of an emboldened Iran. But the idea of building a case against Iran — even one line at a time — does have some merit, if the White House really believes it will result in broad agreement for a harder line against Iran.

The counterpoints are sufficiently obvious that I didn't bother discussing them yesterday, so I'll list them for the sake of pedanty now:

a) The "international community" will never, EVER approve of a hard line against Iran, much less engaging them militarily, any more than they ever approved of taking out Saddam Hussein;

b) Ditto the Treason Lobby in Congress. I'm frankly astounded that the Democrats haven't tried to impeach Bush and Cheney already, but I guarantee you they would if the President even looked at Tehran with a narrowed eyes, no matter what the mullahgarchic provocation.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could go on CNN, give the order to launch nuclear-tipped ICBMs at New York and Washington, D.C., push the button himself while shouting, "Allahu Akbar!!!", and in their last thirty minutes of life congressional Democrats and their RINO lapdogs would STILL blame Bush for "inciting" this attack by his "cowboyunilateralistwarmongeringoillustingneofascist" invasion of Iraq, and impeach him if he so much as contemplated retaliation of any sort. And the surviving Enemy Media shrunken heads would ridicule Bush for fleeing the mushroom clouds instead of "taking his medicine" like a man.

There is no possibility of building an agreement for a "harder line" against the mullahs. And even if there was, George W. Bush would be the least qualified man to build it. That's why this "strategy" isn't "risky," which implies a measurable statistical probability of success, but utterly foolish, because there is none.

UPDATE: Jeff Jacoby wonders why Dubya can't find his inner TR.