Is containing Iran dangerous
The New York Times reports that the U.S. is providing sophisticated missile defense technology, and U.S. support troops, to several Middle Eastern states as it moves to contain Iran:
'Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.
'
A militarized containment of Iran is preferable to a preemptive military strike, but it still carries risks (outlined here). The stationing of U.S. military forces in the Middle East is one of, if not the principle political driver of Islamic terrorism. And the General's reluctance to acknowledge the specific defense commitments is telling: here America is literally putting the lives of its soldiers in between Iran and the various Persian Gulf monarchs and autocrats, and yet these autocrats dare not openly acknowledge it, lest it inflame their citizens.
Put simply, containing Iran means strengthening the very Sunni Arab regimes and the same regional political structure that has driven some Arabs to radical Islamic terrorism. The Obama administration obviously believes it can manage that threat while strengthening its Middle East position. Let's hope they're right.
(AP Photo)