Mexico or Iran?

The radio host asked, “Which is a greater national security threat to the United States, the insecurity of America’s southern border or Iran’s nuclear ambition?” It wasn’t a trick question. True, Iran poses an international apocalyptic sort of threat; one JINSA takes most seriously. But at the end of the diplomatic day, we – and even our reticent allies – will know what to do with a country threatening us with nuclear weapons.

The radio host asked, “Which is a greater national security threat to the United States, the insecurity of America’s southern border or Iran’s nuclear ambition?” It wasn’t a trick question. True, Iran poses an international apocalyptic sort of threat; one JINSA takes most seriously. But at the end of the diplomatic day, we – and even our reticent allies – will know what to do with a country threatening us with nuclear weapons.

Mexico, our friend and neighbor, poses a different kind of problem. Mexico has been roiled by strikes and protests since July, when Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador claimed fraud in the presidential election he appears to have lost to Felipe Calderon. Several challenges to the process have been reviewed and denied, and by next week, Mexico’s top electoral court must either declare the winner or annul the election.

Assuming Calderon will win, Lopez Obrador has vowed to create a “parallel government.” He will not recognize Calderon’s administration and his legislators will not cooperate in Parliament. He urged his supporters to stay in the streets to protest and strike against Calderon and pay taxes to his movement. He is planning a “parallel inauguration” and, according to The Washington Post, “People close to Lopez Obrador say he is assuming the role of his hero, 18th century President Benito Juarez, who led a roving, ‘unofficial’ presidency from 1863 to 1867 during the French invasion, before driving out the invaders and executing the French-installed Emperor Maximilian.”

Lopez Obrador doesn’t have to do much to make Mexico ungovernable. Calderon will have few palatable choices for exerting control and the protest movement could turn violent – there have already been clashes with police. The Mexican economy will go south and our neighbors will come north in vastly increased numbers.

In the meantime, in an odd accident of timing (?), proponents of illegal immigration and easy access to American citizenship are planning a march on Washington that will coincide with the declaration by the Mexican court of a winner in the election. They expect, they say, a million people. On the other hand, Members of Congress report that their constituencies at home demand stronger border controls.

It is not apocalyptic the way Iran is apocalyptic. But it is immediate, real and could create a flood of political and economic refugees and the possibility that political violence will come accompany them. It has the potential for a different kind of violence if the U.S. tries to secure the border amid an ever-greater wave of people trying to flee upheaval at home. It has the potential for a U.S.-Mexican confrontation of the sort we have not seen in nearly a century. We are not used to thinking of Mexico this way.

Two other points: Texas law enforcement officers have warned that Arabic-speaking people are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture, then paying smugglers to sneak them into the U.S. Yesterday, Syria and Venezuela signed a “no visa” agreement – how many Syrians will transit Venezuela on their way north and to what end?

So, Iran or Mexico? Unfortunately, the U.S. is ill-prepared for either.