Iran to Bush: You and What Army?

Bush to Iran: Good Point

Memorial Day 2007 marked another somber and ceremonial observance of American soldiers and their sacrifices. Equally ceremonial was the groundbreaking yet pointless meeting between Iran and America, the first direct communication between the two countries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

Behind the tea-drinking, hand shaking facade of diplomatic relations, the two old enemies are publicly and privately flexing their destructive and even apocalyptic muscles. Unfortunately for the leaders of the Western World, the American Armada perched on the shores of Iran has not fooled the brazen Shiite government. In the poker game of war, we just wasted a bluff.

Iran's unyielding nuclear program, their open hostility towards Israel, and their unapologetic guerrilla approach to their role in the future of Iraq all scare us for good reason. The staunch Shiite country stands tall in the American mind as the de-facto leader of the radical Muslim world. Afghanistan gone from public attention, (even though it's in no way won,) and Iraq is lacking a definable center of power to be feared by average Americans.

Could the historically combative Bush administration be so sure of itself as to attack another country and double the task of an already undermanned military? Logic, reason, and sanity say no. The Iranians seemed to know this very well on Monday, when their Ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qomi sauntered into an office in the Baghdad Green Zone to meet with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Inside, the contents of the discussion remained private, but publicly the Iranian Ambassador used the media coverage to deliver his countries standard rhetoric of feigned innocence and justified agendas. The U.S. Ambassador did the exact same. Perhaps this is what he meant when Crocker said, ""the level of policy and principle the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own."