The Progressive Patriots

When Iraq Went Wrong

2005-02-24T22:12:00.000-05:00

Contrary to popular belief the problems in Iraq are not entirely to do an at once ambitious and blind American foreign policy. The challenges facing the current re-construction of Iraq are actually not the fault of George Bush at all.

In 1916, during the midst of World War I, the British and French secretly sliced up the Arabian provinces that were at that time under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the British completely neglected their promise to support an Arab State in exchange for an Arab revolt led by the Amir of Mecca against the Ottomans is one source of discontent that Arab peoples could hold with the two former imperial powers. But, something more misguided lies at the bottom of the division of the Arab territories.

Whereas the peoples of Greater Syria, what the agreement divided into the states of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and (trans)Jordan, share a relatively common history, the provinces of Mosul, Basra, and Baghdad are ethnically, linguistically, and religiously very diverse. Instead of maintaining a larger Arab state of Greater Syria, the British and French opposed the formation of an independent, unified state in favor of randomly dividing the region into imperially controlled mandates. The division of Greater Syria should have been the post-Ottoman strategy for what became Iraq. Our current situation too often glaringly reveals why this is so.

So, it is not in fact George Bush who has caused the wide spread division in Iraq- not all of it anyway. But, American foreign policy can learn a valuable lesson from the ill-fated Sykes-Picot agreement that set the stage for a tumultuous Middle East. The random (re)shaping of a region by an outside force, unless done with great tact, often leads to an outcome that is quite obviously the work of those without adequate local knowledge.

Atheism!

2005-01-17T23:19:00.000-05:00

Ironically, presumed leader of the iraqi insuergeny Zarqawi stated that Iraqis should attack the infidel tyrannts who are impossing (now this is the funny part) atheism on the muslim people of Iraq. Now thats what I call good propaganda. Insurgency leaders are scaring the people of Iraq into fighting the godless Americans by threatening them with the worst thing possible-atheism. As if they didn't know that our President is God's own messenger who has been set by the big man on high to bring people god's very best gift: freedom. Didn't they pay attention to how much Bush said he talks to God throughout the campaign?

The irony abounds. When running for president this past year, Bush and the Republicans made use of the insurgent's tactic themselves. They smartly threatned the American people with the same thing as Mr. Zarqawi. If you don't vote Red, I believe the argument ran, god-hating, homo-loving, new york times reading, latte drinking, pagan liberals will run into your small town, burn your Bible, and make little Tommy wear a nice pink dress.

Maybe the solution to the Iraq situation isn't as hard then as it seems. If only Zarqawi and Bush can get together and share with each other their common disdain for atheists, then maybe, just maybe (cross those fingers!) they could negotiate an end to hostilities and bring this pesky insurgency to an end. Because, when it comes down to it, both of them are fighting for Abraham's God in the end. They just disagree on how many Hail Mary's they have to say to hang out with Allah in the after-life.

Obedience is Virtue

2004-12-16T11:50:00.000-05:00

Watching church on TV, as if the concept wasn't distorted enough, opens a window into the rituals of some of our country's most blasphemously pious preachers. I was recently lucky enough to catch a few minutes of the middle of a service of one of the many denominations that now claim to be followers of Jesus on TV.

The preacher, with wide stretched arms, speaks the word of god in polemic fashion, paying tribute to the King on High and his son, Jesus. After a rhetorically driven sermon, the preacher (or the ring leader-whatever we call him these days) introduced his two daughters who were going to sing a song of praise to God, the father. His two daughters, dressed in their Sunday’s best, took the stage and sang a song of praise to God, the father, while their proud earthly father looked on with sadistic praise. His two little girls, exalting the transcendent at his command-what more could a father want?

My question is this: were those two young women singing a song to praise God, the father, or their Father, the God.The patriarchal symbolism of Christianity and the art and music that it spurred blurs the line between piety and misogyny. Piety for the female is obedience to two males - God and their father. Later in life a third male authority figure is added in the form of a husband. Loyalty to one's maker, creator, and provider is the most important virtue.

Such suppression of the female is not new to Christianity. It has a long tradition, going back to the four evangelic writers of the gospels and, most notably, Paul who penned roughly half of the New Testament. The two most prominent women in the New Testament are telling examples of this. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the ideal woman-why? She is praised for her chastity-her virginity. She is ideal because she has been raped of her sexual identity. Conversely, Mary Magdalene, is the female villain. What better way to villanize a potential symbol of feminine strength and independence than labeling her a whore?

The question is simple: how do women, in the age of sexual equality, still tacitly ascribe to this patriarchal power tool known as Christianity?

On Listening to the Radio (and a Priest)

2004-11-23T19:05:00.000-05:00

As our music collections grow continually larger like the national deficit under a Republican President, the difficulty of picking what song or artist you want to listen to becomes nearly unsurmountable. Choosing a song fitting to your mood when you have 93 cds and 3,000 mp3’s worth of music to choose from is indeed a great challenge. Existential angst abounds: Eminem or Eric Clapton, the Beatles or Beethoven. This kind of radical free will is indeed too much to handle.

Recently faced with an indiscriminate mood and an overstuffed cd wallet, I escaped this dreaded choice of musical options and turned on the radio. Despite the fact that there is a greater chance of hearing a song that I detest on the radio than one I enjoy, I decided to surrender my musical choice to the mass media conglomerate that owns the station I am listening to. Why should I decide what I want to listen to when someone will take that burden from me? Radio programming directors, pick away.

There is somewhat of a resemblance that I can’t avoid seeing between listening to the radio and seeking the advice of a priest. You are faced with a dilemma, so you see a priest for advice. He tells you to do this or that and you listen. But after you are done listening you ultimately have to make a choice whether or not you follow that man's advice. No one can make that ethical choice and evaluation for you. Your action may or may not turn out to be the best decision in the end, but you and only you must take responsibility for that choice. You, not the giver of advice, owns your choice and action. No man (priests are just men, remember-some better than others mind you) or book (the bible is still just words on paper the last time I checked) can be your excuse to hid behind. There are no excuses - you choose - you are responsible. So if you support a war, it is you supporting the war-not someone who told you that it was right. If you are anti-choice, then it is you, not anyone else making that stance.

In the end, no matter whose advice we seek it is still in the end just that-advice. So, if you don't like what is playing on the radio, just remember that you turned it on.

Barcelona V. Madrid

2004-11-22T11:33:00.000-05:00

Barcelona’s waterfront and bohemian neighborhoods are juxtaposed with run-down areas filled with petty crime and the kind of basketball courts that don’t have hoops. San Francisco meets Tehran. Its homeless population is nothing surprising, though the line between street performer and beggar is unclear and the city seems to be a mecca for vagabond amputees.

Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, which has historically fought for its independence, both politically and culturally, from Spain. Under the dictatorship of General Franco, the Catalan national identity was violently oppressed: the Catalan language was banned in public institutions and the region’s economy suffered as it was denied access to new industries. Today, Catalonia is an Autonomous Community within Spain with its own semi-autonomous government.

However, its rancor towards Spain is still palpable, most noticeably when FC Barcelona plays Real Madrid in football. During the Franco era, FC Barcelona was an emblem of national independence and pride for the Catalans, though a Madrid victory was prearranged. The football fervor remains strong today as the Catalans fiercely hold on to their national identity, which is now utterly tied to their sense of themselves as the underdogs, as the repressed, and as victims.

In his new book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank considers how the idea of victimhood has been seemingly co-opted by conservative middle America. The same "average" Americans who claim to despise "whining" liberals for their attention to minority rights and grievances, are now taking this stance themselves. In this past election, conservatives, though holding most of the government power, have still been able to sell the idea that extreme liberal policies are threatening to tear the fabric of American society, specifically by citing the rulings of "activist judges." Frank examines how the threat of rampant liberalism convinced middle America to vote against its own economic interests. The left is of course guilty of trumpeting their abuse at the hands of George W. Bush, though they managed it with less hypocrisy.

It seems to me that both sides of the political spectrum rally their base around the clarion call of victimization. Perhaps both sides of any major conflict need to claim the role of victim- it affords a self-righteousness that is indispensable for the endurance of a unified populace. The War on Terror and the Israel-Palestine conflict are apt examples. So is victimhood something that is earned or claimed? Are the lines of victim and aggressor clearly demarcated like sides on a football field, or are they just national songs chanted by a drunken mob filtering out of the stadium, sung regardless of who won or lost?

Rice: right resume, wrong choice

2004-11-16T17:27:00.000-05:00

After the resignation of Colin Powell, the lone voice of dissent in the Bush administration, President Bush has nominated Condoleeza Rice to take his place as the Secratary of State. (Bush Picks Rice To Succeed Powell) Her strong personallity, resoluteness, and close relationship with Bush are good qualities for someone advising the president on pressing foreign policy issues. But a good resume and list of character attributes does not neccesarily make a good secretary of state.

Rice's hard-line stance on foreign policy is by no means a bad thing in itself. It does, however, create an overwhelmingly homogeneous cabinet for the President. The national security advisor, secretary of defense, and secretary of state in the current administration are now addressing foreign policy issues from the same ideological stance. Colin Powell, although he was largely ignored, at least served as a gadfly stinging the administration in its side when it may have overzealously proceeded without considering alternative options.

The Powell doctrine was ignored during the first administration. What does not boad well for the next four years is that the Rice doctrine is the Bush Doctrine is the Rumsfeld doctrine is the Wolfowitz doctrine. Tension within a president's cabinet is undoubetdly a good thing. It ensures the American people that the president is acting based on balanced advice. Now, we are left with a foreign policy machine with no gadfly-no conscience-no one to suggest a prudent second look at the situation.

Condoleeza Rice may be qualified to be the Secratary of State, but she is not the best choice.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany

2004-11-13T01:05:00.000-05:00

Unlike your typical liberal, I'm not going to be making comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler-not tonight anyway. To do that with would be ridiculous. First of all, Hitler was a far better orator than Bush and if Bush were Hitler we would have taken over Iran and Syria by now (and Poland for good measure). So why then the subject of this post?

Hitler once brilliantly stated, "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." The dangerous thing with America today is not Bush's potentially fascist and anti-democratic leanings (ie the patriot act, Guantanamo bay, etc.), but rather the gullibility of the American people. What should be of alarm to those interested in democracy is how easily fooled the American people are: Bush voters wake-up! Sadaam had nothing to do with 911. Kerry voters wake-up! We were going to have to deal with Sadaam eventually. We were attacked on 911 (viscously attacked-I realize this), but we are too eager now to throw away our civil rights for safety. We are scared of terrorists (justifiably so), but we let fear decide our foreign policy decisions over reason. Obviously the German people were unjustified in believing that scapegoating the Jews would solve their problems. And Americans are right to be weary of terrorists-but not to the point of surrendering what we hold most dear-our reason and right to dissent.

If people truly think that Bush or Kerry is the right man to be president, than that is fine with me. But if a person's vote is influenced by one party arguing that the other will lead the country down a slippery dark path- that is not good for democracy. A "conservative" voter should not be scared into voting against their interests (ie economic, health, education, etc) because they are unduly influenced by a fear of being attacked. Likewise a "liberal" should not be scared away from Bush because they think he is going to draft them and imprison homosexuals.

If you think Kerry is a pansy liberal who is weak on defense-fine. If you think Bush is going to take away all of your civil rights-good for you. But come to that conclusion from a stance of strength and reason. A vote guided by fear is an undemocratic one. If the American people continue to let both sides of the political spectrum play on their fears, then we will all be making comparisons to Nazi Germany. Except the American people will be the guiltiest of all-because who is more guilty, the fool or the fools who follow him blindly?

Enough with the censorship

2004-11-11T23:38:00.000-05:00

In honor of Veteran's Day, ABC planned to show Saving Private Ryan tonight. Many affiliates, however, refused to show the program out of fears that they may be fined by the FCC over improper language that occurs during the movie (TV stations canceling 'Ryan' telecast). With the recent re-election of Bush and the vast number of voters citing "moral values" as being an important deciding factor in their vote, many affiliates opted to play it safe instead of pay tribute to our veterans with the stirring WWII film.Technically, the FCC does not censor stations-they only respond to complaints after a program has been aired.

This may not "technically" be censorship since fines are handed out after the fact, but anyone with common sense knows what is going on. Instead of launching a diatribe about the importance of free speech in a democracy (remember those liberties that we will die for?), lets examine the effect of censorship on the moral compass of people in our country.

There seems to be an infinite number of groups that claim to "defend" and "support" American families. These groups yell and scream about the importance of keeping our airways free of the F-word and our super bowl half-time shows nipple-free. What the religious right of our country and those in favor of family values want with such cleansing of media outlets is to move the responsibility of raising well-balanced children from parents to media executives, movie producers, and artists. Here's a novel concept: instead of blaming Janet Jackson’s nipple for everything that is wrong with our children, chastise the lack of parenting going on in our country. Maybe if parents taught their kids about taboo topics such as the human body, evil curse words, drugs, and violence we wouldn't have to worry about what smut our children come across on the internet and TV.

I fully recognize that today's parents match an unprecedented challenge when trying to control what their children see. From the dark and dirty boundless depths of the Internet to 900 TV channels of sexually enticing programming, parents have their hands full. But herein lies the point. We can never control everything our children see. They are bound to eventually come across a naked body in a movie or on their computers. Eventually, they will learn about cigarettes, beer, and marijuana from their friends. Movies and television shows will bring to them and glorify shockingly grotesque acts of violence. The key is not to put blindfolds on our children, but rather to get to them before someone else does. The decision parents have is simple: would you rather have your child learn about sex from you or britney spears?

This problem in our country is running wild. If you can't succeed as a parent (and I recognize that it is not easy to raise a well balanced child in today's world), blame the media. If someone shoots kids in their school, blame the movie's the person watched or the music they listened to. Blame everyone except yourself. The concept of personal responsibility, which is central to ethical action, is startlingly absent from moral discussion in our country. We assume that morality ends with censoring "bad" content from being aired or telling our kids “no!” but not teaching them why. If our country wants to regain its moral compass, we need to rediscover personal responsibility. What our children need is not to say prayers before school starts or be banned from the Internet, but they need for someone to teach them responsibility. That responsibility importantly starts with not hiding the world from them.

American Noise Pollution

2004-11-11T14:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, a front page article in the International Herald Tribune on Fallujah described the relative quiet descending onto the city after the firefights earlier In the day. Besides the occasional shots in the distance, the only thing that could be heard were the sounds emitted by the US speakers engaged in psychological warfare. The US military played sounds of a baby crying and hysterical laughter. I can only guess at the process by which military psychological determined that these two sounds, transcending language and cultural barriers, would be most frightening and disheartening. I suppose that a guerilla warrior would be induced to lose heart if he thought he was facing such a heartless, sadistic, omnipresent enemy. I suspect that their resolve is even more shaken by the sheer sophistication of the tactic.

Tuesday, in Prague, I stopped in at the Franz Kafka Café- a dark, dreary, authentically preserved café- and was confronted by another form of American noise pollution: Usher’s "Yeah!" rang out through the café. It seemed obscene that a cobble-stone city so steeped in the past and connected to historical hardships both architecturally and atmospherically, should be playing American hip-hop in Josefov, Prague’s Jewish Quarter. But then again, as Prague continues to thaw from decades under Nazis and Communist control, it should not be expect to be in mourning for its history forever. The imperialism of America’s military and corporations are one thing to consider, but the global spread of American music is not something to be ashamed of- as long as, of course, a country is listening voluntarily. Besides, Prague is literally filled with puppet shops and vendors stand at the door making the puppets dance to attract tourists. And there is nothing better than seeing Pinocchio dance to "Jesus Walks."

Arafat is dead: a chance to reflect and to build a new future

2004-11-11T01:22:00.000-05:00

Yasser Arafat, 75, may not be popular in the United States or in Israel but he is a popular leader among his people and to many around the world. He once claimed that he was born in Jerasuleum but in fact he was born in Cairo, Egypt. There he will receive a state funeral. His body will likely be buried in the Ramallah.
In 1959, Arafat and his friends created Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, advocating an armed struggle against Israel. In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was formed by Arab League. At first it seemed that the PLO would be more concilatory towards bringing about peace with Israel. But after the Six Day War, the underground Al-Fatah movement became the largest faction in the PLO. In 1969 Arafat took became the chairman of the PLO executive committee.
In 1994, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for the Osolo Peace Accords. Yitzhak Rabin was assisinated before Oslo could be implemented.
Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister of Israel went to Camp David at the end of the Clinton Administration. The initial plan gave the Palestinian 73% of the land area in the West Bank and all of Gaza. In 10 to 15 years Israel would give up additional areas helping the Palestinian state get extend its border to over 90 percent of the West Bank. It is likely the both sides could not agree on the sensative issue of refugees returning and who would be exercise more control over West Jerusaleum including the sacret Haram As Sharif (Temple Mount).
After the uprising in 2001 it seemed as if the peace process was dead. But liberal-minded leaders among the PLO and many Labor Party have agreed to the Geneva Accords. The agreement calls for Palestine state living alongside Israel. The borders would follow the 1967 lines with some alterations. Israel would control the Gus Etzion settlemts, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, Jewish parts of the Old City and Ma'aleh Edumim. An international religious authority would control main holy sites and the Temple Mount would be under palestinian soverignty. Israel would decide how many refugees would be accepted and the other refugees would be given compensation. Such a peace accord is unlikely to go forward in real terms until the Labor Party takes power again from the current conservative Likud government.

Some public opinion polls say 53.3 percent of Israelis would support such a proposal while 43.9 percent said they would oppose it. On the Palestinian side, 55.6 percent expressed support for it.

The mentality among both populations must change. Many more Palestinians need to accept the fact that the state of Israel will exist. The Israeli's must accept the fact that they have the upper hand in the situation thus they will need to make the largest sacrifies in terms of giving land, settlements and agree on a Palestinian state if they are ever to achieve peace.

Bush is not always a radical

2004-11-08T06:50:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration is not as socially conservative as many liberals think. The president supports a federal ban on gay marriage-which doesn't make sense because marriage in the United States is a state's issue. This also makes no sense since the Republicans are supposedly strong supporters of state's rights. But Bush's official position is that states have the right to allow civil unions among homosexuals. Civil unions would give homosexual couples almost all same rights under "marriage". According to some polls roughly 66 percent of Americans support some form of civil unions. So why is it that so many people are demanding homosexuals be allowed to marry before they achieve civil union status- considering the fact that in most states they have no legal status as a couple?

Social movements that attempt to change societies too fast almost always fail to achieve their goal. During the French Revolution many leaders attempted to radically change the structure of French society quickly-throwing the country in to chaos. This lead to a backlash by the populace, restoring the government power to the monarchy. Something similar occured to the homosexual movement when 1 state allowed gay marriage but 11 states have now decided to ban gay marriage. Many states went beyond marriage curtailing certain rights guranteed under civil unions. The vast majority of states will eventually ban gay marriage and I believe it is very likely that the Bush administration will be able ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment. It would then be nearly impossible to reverse such a constitutional amendment.

Personally I believe that every state should decide if they will ban gay marriage and civil unions, ban gay marriage but allow full civil unions, or allow gays to marry. This would be in accordance with the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton, my idol. In fact, it is said that Bill Clinton called John Kerry to tell him that he should support the 11 initiatives to ban gay marriage. Is Bill Clinton against gay marriage? I think so. Is John Kerry against gay marriage? Yes, but he is in favor of civil unions. Now consider the fact that Kerry gained no votes from the position that he is against gay marriage. Most voters who are strongly against gay marriage favoring "traditional values" probably voted for Bush anyways. Dick Gephardt, whose daughter is a gay, is against gay marriage. These men have lead the more liberal Democratic party in the 1990's, but they are all against gay marriage because they know that such a drastic change to the traditional viewpoint of marriage would lead to a backlash among Americans. Did we just witnesses the first of many backlashes against gay marriage? I think so.

GOP moves to the right?

2004-11-08T01:42:00.000-05:00

Conservative Leader Targets Specter

James Dobson, founder of the nonprofit Christian organization, Focus on the Family attacked Arlen Specter, a pro-choice moderate in the Republican Party, claiming that he was a "big-time problem" and that Specter's strive to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee "must be derailed".
Arlen Specter, the only pro-choice Republican on the Judiciary Committee is also unpopular among Christian conversatives for comments he made in favor of stem cell research.
It seems that after the most recent election social conservatives feel more ambitious about their chances to push ahead their agenda and will put massive pressure on President Bush to appoint like-minded judges.

A Party of Personal Responsibility

2004-11-07T11:35:00.000-05:00

Today on Meet The Press, Karl Rove stated that he believes in the values of the republican party. Those values being (to paraphrase) small government, a belief in the ability of individuals to make choices, and the rights of all people to life freely. No one can argue with these values-but it seems that George W. Bush does. His record consistently contradicts these principles.
Small Government: Bush watched over the federal government's move from the greatest surpluse in its history to its greatest deficit. In that time, he does not have the prudence to veto a single spending bill. What happened to being fiscally conservative?
Responsibliity of Individuals: The republican party asserts that they stand for a small government that gives people more control over their lives-that they don't want big brother micromanaging their lives-but who does? Easy answer: George Bush does. George Bush's patriot act which is both ineffective (note how many terrorists Ashcroft convicted because of it) infringes on the civil liberties of all americans-anyone who believes in a small federal government should be troubled by the bounds it oversteps. Furthermore, Bush believes that he, along with religous conservatives know what is in the best health interest of a woman-not a woman and her doctor. To top it all off, President Bush believes in expanding the federal government so much that he wants to tell consenting adults who they can marry. If we believe that people should be taxed less so that the money is in their hands-if we believe that social security should be privatized so that individuals can make choices on how to save for retirement-then why do we not trust people with their social freedoms? If we truly want a government that places responsibility on individuals and not the federal government to make ethical decisions, we must limit the social engineering that is going on within the Bush administration.
The Right To Freedom and Liberty: President Bush firmly believes that the United States should bring Freedom (which he believes is God's gift) to all people- hence, we have Iraq. This is obviously a noble goal. But how about starting at home first by not opposing the equal protection of the law be extended to all people and by not opposing the reproductive rights of women.

The Need For Realistic Sex Education

2004-11-06T20:00:00.000-05:00

Despite what the Bush administration and the religious right in our country asserts, abstinence-only sexual education does not work. Abstinence-only programs do not work for one simple reason: they do not educate the student about sex, they simply (and naively) tell students to not have sex. These programs result in adolescents and young adults who are completely unprepared to safely engaged in sexual activity when the situation arises:
"In Minnesota, for example, a recent study of the state's abstinence-only program, Education Now and Babies Later, found that sexual activity among participating students doubled between 2001 and 2002 and that the number who said they would probably have sex during high school nearly doubled, as well.In 2001, researchers at Columbia University found that, although a limited number of students who signed so-called "virginity pledges" delayed sexual activity for more than a year, they were also one-third less likely to use protection when they did have sex -- a massive failure from a public health perspective"
The Failures of Abstinence Only

Studies show that students who are educated about effective birth-control options are no more likely to engage in sexual activity because of being taught how to have sex safely. What is more likely, however, is that upon making the decision to have sex, those trained in effective forms of birth-control and STD prevention are less likely to result in pregnancy or transmit disease. Many are scared that if we teach the adolescents of our country to use a a condom they will be more likely to have sex. This could not be farther from the truth:
"From 1991 to 2001, the proportion of American teenagers who had had sex decreased, according to a 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the same period, condom use among sexually active teenagers increased by 19 percent for boys and 35 percent for girls, the study found. "
Religous Consultation: Abstinence Only-does it work?

Sex education is not something that is pushed by the "liberal elite" of the country. Only 15 percent believe in the abstinence -only methods put forth by the Bush administration. For a defense of sexual education and reproductive rights by a moral theology expert read:
Religous Consultation: Sex, Ethics, and One Billion Adolescents
If the conservative portion of our country truly wants to prevent abortion, they will adopt a more effective and realistic position toward sexual education. The best way to prevent abortions, which all americans, both liberal and conservative want to do, is to bring back sexual educations programs that actually educate

Repeat in Iran

2004-11-06T11:51:00.000-05:00

Today CNN reported(China: Don't Refer Iran To U.N.) that China will oppose any effort to refer Iran to the UN security Council over its nuclear program. China believes that the situation should be handled by the IAEA. The Chinese Foreign Minister believes that Iran has been sufficiently dealing with the IAEA. Clearly, there is some validity in the Chinese position: introducing the issue at the security council may unecasarily complicate the already delicate situation. One must be suspect of the Chinese position however considered there great trade interests with iran: "Iran is eager to step up trade with China. It signed a preliminary agreement for the export of gas to China for 25 years. It also has offered China a concession to develop oil and gas fields in the Persian Gulf."

The question is simple: how can the international community confront nuclear proliferation in Iran, let alone any country, if the country being dealt with has significant economic ties to other nations. We dangerously saw where this situation led the international community over Iraq- no consensus clearly could ever be reached betweent he United States and its European allies such as France because they had considerable economic interests in Iraq. This is not to blame only the Europeans for the failed diplomacy in Iraq or potentially the Chinese with Iran. It does demonstrate, however, that the efforts at diplomacy with Iran must supercede those in Iran by leaps and bounds.

A recent war game conducted by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel and war games expert, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows) revealed the neccesity of the success of diplomacy in Iran: "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." Gardner's war game revealed that the US military options in Iran are extremely limited, given the current situation in Iraq. The recent developments with Iran's vote to further its nuclear program and China's willingness to oppose consideration of the Iran situation by the security council make the dire need for diplomacy terrifyingly apparent. Hopefully, the Bush administration can rise to the diplomatic task.