Maybe Ahmadinejad just likes gallopinto

I've read a lot of fear-mongering stories over the last eight years, but this one might be the best.

For months, the reports percolated in Washington and other capitals. Iran was constructing a major beachhead in Nicaragua as part of a diplomatic push into Latin America, featuring huge investment deals, new embassies and even TV programming from the Islamic republic.

"The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned last month. "And you can only imagine what that's for."

Actually, Hillary, I can't imagine. What will the Iranians do? Look for Basij recruits in a country full of Catholics and evangelical Protestants? Sell weapons to Nicaragua, a country with a whopping $40 million defense budget? Invest in a few development projects in Managua, instead of in Tehran, where they might actually boost the regime's popularity?

The State Department never really quantifies how an Iranian embassy in Nicaragua poses a "threat" to the United States. There are some vague references to Hizballah and the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing, but nothing substantive.

Unfortunately, I think this is the kind of half-baked thinking that passes for "analysis" in the U.S. foreign policy community.

Look, it's true that Ahmadinejad has tried to build up a sphere of influence in Latin America. This is what countries do. If the U.S. wants to counteract him, it can increase its own diplomatic and economic presence in the region. And frankly I'm not sure the U.S. should counteract Ahmadinejad; his Latin American investments aren't terribly popular at home (Mousavi, for one, complained bitterly about them during the campaign). Every dollar he spends building Venezuelan factories for "anti-imperialist cars" is a dollar he can't spend on projects in Iran.

No Comments

Post a Comment

Maybe Ahmadinejad just likes gallopinto, ctd.

One of Abu Muqawama's guest bloggers heaps some more scorn on the Iran/Nicaragua story I ridiculed earlier -- and points out that Iranian television is unlikely to catch on in Nicaragua.

Comparing Clinton and Condi

A cartoon in today's Al-Mustaqbal criticizes Hillary Clinton. The thought bubble says, 'Strange how they think there's no change.' And the shadow on the back wall is meant to compare Hillary to Condoleezza Rice.

B'Tselem: Settlements occupy 42 percent of West Bank

Ben-Eliezer makes "secret trip" to Turkey: Israeli TV

CENTCOM talking sense on Hamas and Hizballah

Al-Akhbar: Our weekly brief

Peace Processing

Talking about direct talks: Netanyahu returns to the White House

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivering a statement in Jerusalem on July 1, 2010. (Photo: AFP)
US president Barack Obama will use a White House meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push for an extended West Bank settlement freeze. If Netanyahu doesn't offer one - and the domestic politics are quite difficult for him - it's hard to see any possibility of direct talks with the Palestinian Authority later this year.

The Afghan Surge

Obama's southern strategy

Gen. David Petraeus testifying on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Reuters)
The president's decision to nominate Gen. David Petraeus as the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan won't mean a major change in strategy. But there are mounting reasons for pessimism about current policy, particularly the relentless focus on southern Afghanistan. The deployment of tens of thousands of additional troops to Kandahar and Helmand serves few NATO objectives.

Freedom Flotilla Killings

Anticlimax: How much did the flotilla raid really change regional politics?

A demonstration in London against the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla. (Photo: AFP)
It has accelerated Israel's isolation from several of its neighbors and allies; it has sharpened divisions within Turkish domestic politics; it has deepened perceptions that the Obama administration as too close to Israel. And it seems to have had a remarkably minor impact on Palestinian domestic politics.