Which Devil Should the U.S. Dance With?

Judah Grunstein points to this interesting article by James Brazier on the brewing Saudi-Iranian Cold War.

Brazier concludes:

Ultimately, the winner of this strategic tussle will be decided by the U.S., whose dedication to destroying the Taliban is beginning to wane. Some in Washington, like Korb, believe that Barack Obama’s new administration should embrace Iran, whose strategic priorities clearly overlap in part with those of the U.S. Others, however, remain convinced that Iran is a greater long-term problem than the Taliban, and that the U.S. would be wise to balance Iranian influence with the Sunni hardliners preferred by Riyadh.

Am I the only person flummoxed by the notion that Washington would even contemplate backing "Sunni hardliners preferred by Riyadh" to counter Iranian influence? To recap: 19 "Sunni hardliners" plowed hijacked aircraft into American targets on September 11, 2001, resulting in the greatest terrorist massacre in U.S. history.

Just the kind of people we need on our side!

Seriously, though, according to Brazier's report, there's apparently no one in Washington who thinks that taking sides in this dispute is a bad idea. Obviously, insofar as we have forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're not disinterested observers. But if two of the world's leading sponsors of violent Islam want to go toe-to-toe, why stand in the way?

Right about now is where you quote Henry Kissinger's famous phrase about the Iran-Iraq war: "too bad they both can't lose."

Of course, the U.S. didn't content itself to sit back and watch both sides bleed. Instead, we interceded on behalf of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The long-term consequences of that decision, I'd argue, have not worked out well for the U.S.

I'm hard pressed to understand why we think we're going to do a better job at "balancing" the Middle East's various thug-states and theocracies this time around.