Which approach is better in dealing with "rogue states?" The US policy on Iraq, or the one used with Iran?

Question

Which approach is better in dealing with "rogue states?" The US policy on Iraq, or the one used with Iran?

Answer 1

The policy approaches are not dissimilar.  They're just not at the same stage yet.  By "with Iran" I'm assuming you mean the recent news that Bush is sending the third highest diplomat to Iran.  This has already been dismissed by Bush as an intentionally non productive meeting and wholly symbolic.  America and Japan were seriously negotiating just days before pearl harbor was attacked.  The sweet talk from Washington couldn't stop the fact that America had a huge oil and rubber embargo against Japan, was dispatching large numbers of bombers close to the Japanese homeland, and all the while were threatening to use them.  Tokyo felt imitate hostilities and planned to attack America.  So the lesson should be that actions speak louder than words.  In this case, there are not even any words be thrown out there, so don't expect anything to come from this meeting; you get what you put into it, and America has been pretty clear that it wants conflict.

Second, how could you even consider Iraq as a model for dealing with future conflicts?  Six trillion dollars have been spent (1/2 of the u.s. economy); 4,442 American troops lives lost (terrible and unforgivable to see conservatives dismiss this as "comparatively small to Vietnam").  It has increased the threat of terror; been a strategic disaster; and has diminished our global prestige and standing as well as respect for our military.  This has made dealing with international problems immeasurably more difficult.

Third, a problem exists with the premise of your question.  The first is, why is it America that has the moral authority in dealing with rogue states, the second is that America itself meets the qualifications of a rogue state.  A rogue state is defined as a country at odds with the prevailing norms of the international system (do a quick database search on all the security council resolutions that every nation in the world opposes aside from America, sometimes Israel is on board, or the U.S. marshal islands) and run by a government that considers itself above international law (doesn't this sound familiar with Bush declaring to the UN to get on board with our Iraq war policies or "be rendered irrelevant").  It is also defined as a nation whose government is unable or unwilling to protect its people.  This when George Tenet told Condi Rice of an "imamate attack on U.S. soil with planes hijacked by terrorists from al Qaeda" just two weeks before 9/11, and Rice's response was that "terrorism is largely a historical study".

Answer 2

The approach that was used with Japan clearly seems to have worked best.

Answer 3

They should be doing more to work with China and Russia to help diffuse the situation.

Answer 4

The problem with both approaches is that the UN and the international community won't stick to their commitments and disregard human rights and other violations whenever money comes into play.

The US policy on Iraq and Iran does not much differ. Before the Iraq war, the US tried most of the same approaches it's trying with Iran - isolation, sanctions, freezing money, offering incentives to comply, etc. But, Russia and China, particularly, help nations like Iran avoid the full impact of those actions by supporting the Iranian regime.