Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home   |   Post Global

Collateral Damage

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Casualties are definitely down. Other places suddenly seem to need more urgent attention. News coverage is shrinking, as is public interest. All of which may help explain the breath of optimism one can now detect in Washington, and even in other places, about the war in Iraq. "It will all come right in the end; wait and see" is an expression I've heard more than once. Other versions of this include: "The surge is working" and "Why doesn't the mainstream media tell the truth about our successes in Iraq?"

Though I don't especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq -- it seems they are, at least for the moment -- but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What's worse is the fact that -- however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now -- our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.

Though there are many examples of how this disillusionment has manifested itself -- my colleague Fareed Zakaria has written repeatedly of how an America distracted by Iraq has steadily lost influence in Asia, for example -- one of the most disturbing is unfolding as Europe prepares for another round of meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators. For those who've forgotten (and this, too, has dropped out of the news), it is not the United States but Britain, France and Germany that are trying to persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon plans to enrich its uranium and to accept assistance in building a civilian nuclear energy program instead.

From the start, however, all negotiations between Iran and the "EU-3," as the group is known in diplomacy-speak, have been haunted by Iraq. Certainly no expert committee in existence could convince Europeans (or anyone else) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons or even that Iran intends to build them. So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing any United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.

Since no one takes analysis seriously, it's hardly surprising that no one takes the possibility of a nuclear Iran too seriously either. There is no enthusiasm for sanctions, though they will probably be tried and will probably fail: Why would anyone ditch a lucrative trading partner because of some missiles they don't believe in? As for the "military option," the surest way to sell newspapers in Europe, at the moment, is to print an article hinting that the United States is about to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The very suggestion causes outrage, not because of rampant pacifism -- "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus" -- but because most commentators (and, off the record, most diplomats) believe it would fail. Either it would " fortify Iran's nuclear hawks," or it would kill thousands of civilians while leaving the Iranian nuclear program largely intact, or Iran would strike back in Iraq-- or all of the above. Should the Bush administration try it anyway ("one last display of fireworks," as a British friend of mine put it) international support would be minimal, fury maximal, diplomatic consequences appalling. Even European politicians who wanted to show support would be cowed by the antipathy of their voters. Thanks to Iraq.

What, then, are we left with? Fingers crossed, that those who say Iran's nuclear bomb is years away are right. Fingers crossed, that maybe Iran really does just want a civilian nuclear program. Fingers crossed, that if Iran gets nukes, its government will behave responsibly. Fingers crossed, that all of the other crises whose resolution has been hampered or damaged by Iraq -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, the broader Middle East -- will somehow solve themselves, too. Fingers crossed, that it will all come out right in the end, after a decade or two. Just like Iraq.

applebaumletters@ washpost.com


More Washington Post Opinions

PostPartisan

Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity