This is an important question — because depending on how well we remember the run-up to Iraq in 2002, we’re going to be facing a pretty stupid reflection in, say, 2012.
The latest news is that Nicholas Burns, US Undersecretary of State, is claiming a link between Iran and the Taliban, in the form of intercepted Iranian arms shipments to Afghanistan.
“There’s irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this,” Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN.
The problem is that he then goes on to try to form a link between the Iranian government and Taliban support.
Why is that a problem? For one thing, it’s an unfounded accusation, and we’re currently living with* the effects of believing the last series of unfounded accusations to come from Washington. I realize that the Moron in Chief is setting a piss-poor example of speaking only when certain, not shooting off at the lips, being humble and avoiding idiotically-childish posturing bravado, but I don’t think Bush’s drunken frat-boy behavior constitutes an excuse for the rest of DC to act like it’s had a brain extraction.
The other problem with Burns’s claim, though, is that it’s implausible. Iran is in fact an Islamic nation, but it’s not exactly a theocracy, and it is considerably more democratic than many nations in the region. There are even protest groups there which wouldn’t be permitted to exist in, say, a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. So what purpose would be served by the Iranian government deliberately supporting a militant group which would, if empowered in Iran, overthrow the very government supporting it?
