Rikki-Tikki-Tavi

I'm reminded of Rikki in the latest iteration of our dance of death with Iran. Having failed to sway the Iranians with reckless threats of war the Bush gang has settled into one of the two or three remaining plays in their playbook: the slow strangulation scenario, perhaps topped off with some variable use of force (700 ton bombs?). But there is an important difference worth noting—among others—between Iran and its predecessors in this gameplan, Serbia and Iraq. The latter were not particularly appealing causes and the fight seemed more between rival cobras seeking brood rights in the melon patch at the bottom of the garden. Iran, however, has certain claims on the US, after decades of American meddling in their internal affairs. By simply asking for fair treatment it attains the moral high ground. While perhaps not innocent it can honestly be said that Iran is a neutral bystander at risk of being afflicted with an extension of the US war on Iraq.

Iran's policies, while perhaps incorrect, nevertheless reflect explicit human concerns. Do ours? Is there a single aspect of US policy towards Iran that isn't driven by corporate greed or global strategizing of such a cold, inhuman nature that, like Nag, it remains unblinking while contemplating the death and destruction it may cause?

I would respectfully suggest that this mis-match of moral rectitude may entail profound consequences. That there is hidden strength in being a good guy. And that when the final story of the US-Iranian conflict is told, that is, the established and generally agreed version of the story around the world, there's more than an even chance the US will be seen to have been the villain.