Iran or Pakistan?

The competition for 'greatest foreign policy challenge' to face the new administration has begun. Iran has sentenced a 28 year old Iranian-American Journalist to 8 years in prison behind closed doors- and Pakistan is close to either another military coup or out right implosion.

Roxana Saberi, who hails from North Dakota, I believe has been working in Iran for years doing journalistic work for a variety of places, including NPR now and again. Why she was arrested wasn't clear- but the Iranians, were, as usual, quick and efficient about getting a conviction. Her lawyer wasn't even allowed to mount a defense. (President Ahmadinejad has since said that her lawyer should be allowed to mount a defense during her appeal. Nice of him.)

I think it's laudable that President Obama wants to have a conversation with the Iranians. American policy has been stuck in 1979 for thirty years now and it's time we move it forward a bit. Ignoring them hasn't done much in the way of anything, but I think this is a case when the President makes it clear that until Saberi is released, any such conversations will involve short, one-syllable words that won't include the words 'pretty please.' The other side of this equation is Israel. Talking isn't a bad thing, provided we do it from a position of strength. But if we look too soft, then we risk Israel think we're not taking their security seriously enough and at that point, there's a real risk that they could do something, well, precipitous. And if they act unilaterally, then all we're gonna have is our dick in our hand while the Middle East flushes itself down the toilet.

It's a fine line to walk- and Obama might be able to do it. But Saberi should be released first.

Pakistan might nip Iran at the finish line for the title of 'biggest foreign policy disaster in the making.' There's a real worry that it could implode. Literally. Pakistan wasn't a very stable country to begin with, mainly being a concept that sprung from the mind of Jinnah before Partition in 1947. There's no historical basis for it whatsoever, it's boundaries are somewhat artificial and before 1947 there was no such thing as a Pakistani.

This (along with the too early death of Jinnah) left Pakistan with a problem. What does it mean to be Pakistani? Their leaders came up with a simple formula: national unity through the one uniting factor in Pakistan- Islam. Trust in the military to defend the country from the boogeyman of India- The Army. And with India firmly in the non-aligned camp during the Cold War, kissing the ass of the most powerful country in the world so they can get money to fund the Army to defend them against India. The United States.

It's been a nice little triumverate for five decades now, but we're getting to a point where the triangle may be breaking down. The Army may be suspect, Islam may be getting too powerful and the United States is starting to realize that it may not be in our best interests to fund an Army that isn't necessarily on our side. So what exactly does it mean to be Pakistani? What's Pakistan about?

The easy answer they've had since independence isn't working for them anymore. What do they get to replace it? Democracy is flawed. They keep trying it, but they keep effing up somewhere. Usually by electing politicians. With US Troops in Afghanistan, what happens across the border, where we assume Bin Laden is hiding under some dung heap is of great concern to us- but when it comes to the 'pain in the ass foreign policy problem' sweepstakes consider this:

We're freaking out because Iran mightget nuclear weapons. Pakistan actually has them.

Just sayin'