Bear-baiting

_________________

If Russia is leaving its Matrioshkya doll, it is we who are goading the bear to do so.

The proposed missile shield for Europe, which the U.S. is so magnanimously offering to construct, is not a necessary component of the trumped up Iran/U.S. to-do. Instead, these new missile sites are a provocation to Russia, a front we do not need to open. The Cold War gave us something to do when we weren't otherwise occupied, but we are now otherwise occupied.

Everything is so contrived in Bush's bald-faced, trumped-up marches to war. Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles during war games Wednesday in the Strait of Hormuz, and the White House responded saying the test "was 'completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world' and served to further isolate the country."

Hypocrisy never has hobbled this administration. The U.S. may explode missiles in space, militarizing yet another dimension of man's environment, but that is democracy in action. While the U.S. has vital interests in keeping the Strait and Gulf open to oil traffic, goading Iran does not favor securing that goal.

The U.S. also has a vital interest in protecting Europe, but goading Russia does not facilitate achieving that goal, either. U.S. Gulf policy has destabilized the region and is counterproductive for the attainment of overall Mideast security. Forgetting missile technology for a moment -- let's talk spears.

If Iran wants to disrupt the flow of oil all they have to do is block the Straits, which can be achieved via a number of low-tech means. The Egyptians blocked the Suez Canal with sunken ships. Imagine the consequences to the price and availability of oil on the world market were Iran to undertake such actions.

In fact, this issue of maintaining shipping lines is a world issue, not simply a national concern. Why is the U.S. again playing a High Noon scenario in the region? Any possible Iranian aggression is a United Nations issue. If Bush and Co. talk diplomacy, then let them put their money where their mouths are.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement opposition from Russia, is vital to defending U.S. interests and allies (US and Iran Appear on Collision Course.)"

No hard intelligence has been presented of strategic indicators that Iran intends to attack Europe. Just going on common sense (something in short supply in the U.S. today): Why would an oil exporter attack its best paying customers? In the New World's preferred currency, the Euro, to boot?

That may be the kind of of paranoiac, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot behavior that characterizes the U.S.'s current treatment even of its own citizens via civil rights curtailment. But most people and countries are more pragmatic than that.

Europe is no longer the Old Europe of 1946-66. This Europe has outgrown NATO, as the members have entered into a stronger alliance sans the U.S., the European Union. the military situation will eventually realign to this new reality.

Therefore, if Europe is to be protected from missiles or spears, let the EU nations protect themselves. Doesn't make much sense for the U.S. to be protecting Europe's oil lanes and homeland while the Euro is supplanting the USD on the world market. Their Army's and Air Forces taken as a whole exceed U.S. military capabilities.

Iraq displays this sorry fact nicely, when the U.S. cannot secure a nation in which they are not even fighting an army. The U.S. must stop acting as white knight to the world. the AP article depicts Washington and Tehran as "jousting," but the reality is, neither are knights. They are players with economic interests. In this game, the EU can assume the mantle for their own defense.

The U.S. lacks the assets and funds to protect Europe from a questionable threat.