America’s Worst Geopolitical Blunder?

Arnaud de Borchgrave, one of the deans of international journalism and now an editor-at-large for UPI, has filed an essay based on a recent meeting of foreign leaders from the government, media, and international organizations.

The worst geopolitical blunder in 229 years of American history? That was how participants at a recent off-the-record conference held in Monaco viewed the U.S. decision for the regime change invasion of Iraq.

Hyperbole from leftist malcontents? No, quite simply the verdict spoken in sadness rather than anger by 63 personalities from Europe, east and west, the Middle East, North Africa and the U.S.

They were former prime ministers, foreign ministers, heads of intelligence services, newspaper editors, TV news executives, current and former heads of major international organizations.

There was little noticeable anti-Americanism. No snide remarks about President Bush’s lack of foreign policy experience. In fact, participants stressed how important U.S. global power was to global stability. But they lamented how it had been wasted on Iraq, instead of being carefully nurtured for what could be far more threatening crises in the same neighborhood before 2010.

Later, de Borchgrave writes:

Iran was repeatedly mentioned. A retired French ambassador, a socialist, said it was critically important, not only for Israel, but for Europe too, that Iran be kept out of the nuclear club.

“Allowing religious fanatics to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said off-line, “would be the latter-day equivalent of allowing Nazi troops to reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936 when the entire German army numbered 22,000. They had orders to retreat if the French tried to stop them. All it would have taken was a handful of French soldiers. But the weakness of French and British leaders allowed Hitler to build the world’s most formidable war machine in six years (1933-39) and then trigger World War II.”

Doesn’t Iran command global retaliatory capabilities, ranging from underground terrorist cells throughout the Middle East and Europe, to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations that can set the region ablaze and spike oil up to $200 a barrel? “That,” replied the ambassador, “is the kind of cowardly response that will paralyze public opinion with fear and nudge our leaders into the appeasement mode. The reaction of European leaders in the cartoon war that was inspired by extremists is not comforting.”

He closes his essay, explaining:

Iraq has made a military operation against Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program infinitely more difficult. Iran’s assets in Iraq, including two militias, armed and funded by Tehran, and thousands of underground operatives, could easily turn the tables against the U.S. as it attempts to sharply reduce its troop presence. Comparisons with the Vietnam retreat are a staple in European media. But a disaster in Iraq and an accelerated timetable for U.S. troops withdrawals could have region wide repercussions far more damaging to the U.S. than the loss of Vietnam. The domino theory only applied to Laos and Cambodia where communist troops were already in control of most of the countryside.

Grim words from a man who’s seen a lot in his time. The whole essay is well worth the read.