The US on the horns of a dilemma

Since Washington has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979, Washington is unable to talk directly to Ahmadinejad and his government. To do so now would only raise Ahmadinejad’s prestige and give him a free “win” in the diplomatic shell game.

Ahmadinejad knows this. He knows he can keep pressing his advantage to the limit; the limit being an air strike or other hostile act by the United States.

So Ahmadinejad defies the UN, makes bombastic statements (“the Zionist state should be wiped from the map”) and pursues his nuclear ambitions. He also funded and armed Hezbollah and other terror groups and stands behind and fosters the insurgents in Iraq.

So America’s continued presence in Iraq is very much a test of wills, between George W. Bush (and the American people, who could run out of patience) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The future of the Iraqi people, one would normally assume, lies totally in their own hands. But in this case, the future of the Iraqi people is in many hands indeed.

The choices of the West are limited. An air strike or similar military action may seem to be an overreaction, especially among radical Islamic extremists. This may just incite more terrorism against the United States from some quarters.

Economic sanctions might seem, to the Islamic extremists, like an Iranian victory. The sanctions might be seen as western near-impotence.

So the United States is on the proverbial horns of a dilemma.