There's little new here, but it offers a view of recent history, and is a useful tool for connecting the dots.
Bush's decision to invade Iraq as part of the
"global war on terror" made America a party to the conflicts on the
ground as never before. Saddam Hussein's regime, loathsome as it was,
provided a strategic balance to the power of a radicalized Iran. Now
the invasion has put Washington head-to-head with Tehran. The
confrontation is military, economic, political, ideological, direct and
indirect, overt and covert—and on several fronts the Iranians appear to
have outmaneuvered the administration. Prominent Iranian journalist
Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, who is also an expert on Lebanese affairs,
suggests that Tehran's next step, far from making war, will be to
present itself as a peacemaker. "This will present another opportunity
to show its regional power," he said. [emphasis added]
At
the foreign ministers' meeting in Paris last week, there was general
consternation at the Iranian-backed violence on the ground in the
Middle East. "But what can we do?" one senior European diplomat asked.
"It's all part of the same problem [with Iran], but we cannot tackle it
all 'cosmologically.' We have to take it on piece by piece." Each set
of players linked to Iran has its own interests, and the Tehran regime
itself seems seriously divided. The Iranian challenge is not a Gordian
knot that can be sliced through in one bold stroke. It's a bag full of
knots, each of which has to be untied and, if possible, untangled from
the rest.