Let's not be poor winners in the Middle East
■"Iraqi Regime May Pose New U.S. Dilemma: Shiite-Promoted Policies Concerning Islam, Sunnis Appear Set to Conflict with Washington," by Yochi J. Dreazen and Farnaz Fassihi, Wall Street Journal, 3 March 2005, p. A4.■"Good-News Bind: The Democrats and the Democracy Movements," op-ed by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A21.
■"The Road to Damascus," op-ed by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A21.
So Iraq isn't going to turn out to be some easily manipulated puppet-state. So it'll logically fall under Iran's influence. Let's be realistic. You can't push for democracy and then whine about the outcomes. Iraq's growing democracy is a huge threat to the mullahs in Iran, whether they (or we) fail to realize it at this time. The connectivity Iraq will create will pose serious dangers to their rule in Iran. Should we trade some near-term Iranian "influence" for such connectivity? You bet.
The Bush administration has done a masterful job of working the security issues and letting the political ones fall out as they must. That is a tack we should keep on Syria: work the security issue of their troops in Lebanon, and then let the political fallout from this eventual retreat work its magic inside Syria.
For now, the White House has wisely avoided politicizing these developments back here in the U.S., realizing what a bind the Democrats are in regarding past criticism of the Big Bang strategy. So Rice is getting what she wants in the Middle East and Rove is getting what he wants back here.