Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 1987, page 14

180 Degrees

180 Degrees appears every Friday in Florida Today, parent publication of USA Today. Whenever space permits, the Washington Report will present a debate between George Thompson, a retired US Foreign Service Officer, and Dan Warrensford, an engineer, on some aspect of Middle East affairs.

Got a game for you, Dan. It's called "Didjano." It goes like this:

"Didjano that most conservatives know virtually nothing about foreign affairs? Worse, didjano they don't care?"

"Didjano that for six long years, Iran and Iraq have been doing their damndest to commit genocide on each other in what has become the world's bloodiest war?"

Sadly and so unnecessarily: "Didjano that the Israeli-brokered US sale of Hawk and TOW (target-on-wire) missiles to Iran may have given the game to Khomeini's fanatic fundamentalists?"

"Didjano that if Iran wins, Kuwait, Bahrain, and all of the Gulf States—including the Emirates and Saudi Arabia—may be lost to the West?"

And don't forget that useful something called "oil."

Give us a "yes" or "no" before trying the next question, Dan. But be careful. It is a zinger. If the answer isn't right, you lose. What is worse is that we all may lose:

"Didjano that the administration's Keystone Kops' foray into Middle East affairs may have set the board for a major East/West confrontation?"

That last question may be a tough one for you, Dan, so think a moment before you reply. Your answer may mean that you don't know that we shall probably huff and puff and snort and strut and move fleets and arms and men like the chess pieces they've become.

If history is any judge, that's what we'll do. And if WE do, so might THEY.

Ponder that one carefully, Dan. Since few countries are as inept as we in the "Game of Nations," they probably will ignore our bumbling performance. But our answers to these questions have been so wrong, and the world is now so unsure of us because of this tragic comedy, that hands hovering over buttons have begun to tremble.

Your move, Dan.

—George Thompson

Are demagoguery, presumptuousness and condescension taught to Foreign Service officers, or are those traits acquired by osmosis upon retirement?

Here's news for you, George, not only do conservatives understand foreign affairs (all nations operate in their self-interest), but they fully understand what American liberals attempt to sell as "correct" foreign policy: The United States should ignore her self-interest every time the Soviet bear woofs or some third-world country whines.

The foreign policy gospel according to US liberals is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

In the matter of the Middle East, specifically where Iran is concerned, it is in the interest of the United States to continue to probe for contacts with reasonable leaders. The fanatical Khomeini won't live forever; it is quite possible that his successor(s) will want to reestablish good relations with us. If Israel is willing to assist the US in establishing communications with pro-West parties in Iran, bully for them. It appears that may be the case for, during a recent visit here, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said, "...[We] considered it important to have some contacts between the United States and this strategically important country, Iran. We cannot leave this country only to Soviet influence."

What's that, George? How'd the Soviets get involved in this debate? Well, if Iraq prevails over Iran, we'll all find out; then, your "concern" for Kuwait, Bahrain, et al will be justified. Iran isn't likely to get cozy with Moscow; Iraq already has.

Recall, George, that liberals' foreign policy gave us modern Cuba, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, ad nauseam. Give the Middle East a break, pal. Butt out.

—Dan Warrensford