Consideration

Submitted by Murray Orbuch (United States), Jun 14, 2009 at 08:44

I think another dimension to the Khamane'i choice should be considered and may explain the counter-intuitive choice. From the perspective of the Ahmadinejad camp, their policies have borne the greatest fruit; not only was the Bush perspective ousted in Washington but a diametrically opposed power base installed with Obama; his supplications to the Islamic world seen as a sign of exhaustion and defeat.

Israel is more isolated than ever, the act of self-defense in Gaza is seen as a "war crime" by certain factions in the UN and the West. The Obama administration, rapidly distancing itself from Israel as an ally, appears poised to press Israel into dramatic concessions without reciprocal actions from the Palestinians.

Despite the electoral setback in Lebanon, Hizbullah is more heavily armed than before and remains a "5th column" military force in Lebanon accountable only to Iran. The mullahs also take the long view; they feel that Islamism and Leftist apologia is on the ascendancy while the US is in a rapid financial decline, hastened by the reckless fiscal policies of Congress.

America's will and ability to afford the overseas projection of power that limited Iran's expansion seems on the wane. So from that view, why bother with the window-dressing? China will also take US reaction less into consideration in the next decade because there will be no serious downside.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".