And Britain also hopes Santa will give it a pony for Christmas
I don’t know about you, but this headline seems both absurd and tragic to me:
Britain says it hopes for negotiated deal over Iran’s uranium enrichment
The statement was actually by British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, but I doubt she was speaking for herself only. This appears to be official British policy.
Perhaps Beckett’s statement was merely an example of “keeping the temperature down” (a strategy of the West mentioned in this post), and not really meant as a true reflection of the expectations of the Western powers vis-a-vis Iran.
But then again, perhaps it was exactly what it sounds like: a dreamy pie-in-the-sky reflection of a befogged and befuddled–and bewitched, bothered, and bewildered–state of mind on the part of people who should know better.
But some are not quite so wishful in their thinking. Some have taken the measure of the West and judged it to be exactly as they had hoped–which is to say, not up to the fight ahead. The last sentence of the article reads as follows:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that his country would never give up its nuclear program and accused the West of lying when it claims Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Clear enough. So, let’s talk!
(What’s the relevance of the photo above? It’s from a production of the definitive work on false hope, “Waiting for Godot.” And it’s written by another Beckett–Samuel, rather than Margaret.)
“All of England mourns the destruction of Tel-Aviv” – that’ll be the next headline…….
“Britain says it hopes for negotiated deal over Iran’s uranium enrichment”
As has been said by our current military commanders, “Hope is not a strategy”.
Chamberlain also hoped. As Kerensky and Bakhtiar. That is time for switch from Chamberlain policy to Churchill’s, from Wilsonian to Jacksonian. Now! Tomorrow can be too late.
Haha, I have your RSS feed right below my Onion RSS feed on my Google homepage–I thought this was an Onion article right up until I saw the site design :p.
-NC
You should always try to strike a balance between realism and idealism. Some of the world’s most pressing problems were solved by avoiding the cynicism of the day and thinking imaginatively.
I think in this case also there is an issue of establishing what the problem is – and what the problem isn’t. Iran claim to want nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. What we’re looking for, and what would avoid bloody, sapping confrontation for both parties is if a way of refining Uranium were established which did not simultaneously help Iran towards a nuclear weapon. One option is to have Russia refine the Uranium for Iran, something Russia has proposed doing. There may be other options which do not involve Iranian dependence on Russia – a monitored facility in Iran? These may be judged to be inadequate from the West’s perspective, but to begin without hope that it can be achieved – i.e. from a position of hopelessness – is not so much “realistic” as disabilitatingly cynical.
And no, hope does not replace a strategy, but it’s important nonetheless.
Iran has a legitimate right to develop the “total system” of nuclear power for its own good. If it relied upon another state for a certain piece of the fuel cycle it would be forever dependent upon that country’s goodwill and stability. This is why they are pursuing the full package. People in the UK know this as it has been widely reported, as has the lack of evidence regarding any sort of weapons program. I think people here have accepted that Iran’s program is peaceful and that US attempts to condemn it are simply spear-shaking on your part as Bush can’t back down and let a member of the “Axis of Evil” dvelop nuclear technology without suffering further blows to his already pathetic credibility on the world stage.
The Iranians have a pressing future need for nuclear power and they have a right to develop it. Until the US stops pushing for sanctions without adequate reason the Iranians will not let the inspectors back in and the IAEA will not be able to monitor their harmless activity and the room for doubt will persist, allowing the US to continue spread lies and rumours about some covert nuclear program as they did in Iraq.
All nuclear energy projects (even thermonuclear) are by-products of nuclear arms building. This is because physics involved, and without this arms development programm they are economically senseless. Only as utilization of heat, produced in process of plutonium accumulation in fission reactor, for energy production, this technology can be competitive.
Intellectualizing gayness, it certainly is [gay as in goofy].
The Iranians have a pressing future need for nuclear power and they have a right to develop it.
Iran arms and supports terrorism throughout the world. Since Iran has freely given the terrorists whatever weapons that are possible for the terrorists to use and the Iranians to give, there is no reason to believe that once Iran is nuclear that Iran would hesitate to slip a suitcase device to the terrorists.
As far as I’m concerned Bush is free to level Tehran to a smoking pile of rubble. To my view any terrorist-supporting regime is fair game for any non-rogue nation. Once a few are thoroughly chastised the rest will fall into line. Carter, by letting them get away with the terrorism on our embassy, set the tone for what we witness today. Every despot and Islamofascist in the Middle East watched and noted while the Iranians screwed America with absolute impunity.
All nations have a “right” to develop nukes; they also have the “right” to suffer should they sponsor terrorism. May their remains feed the dogs.
Grackle, by your logic the US should suffer your proscribed punishment as it was a major source of support and funding for the IRA. Southern Ireland (Eire) would suffer a similar fate.
Very rational. You twat.
scary,
Are you off your meds yet again? Sheer delusion. some few American citizens gave support of various kinds to the IRA; many were punished for it. It was never US policy. Take the little blue pills, they will help, dude.
A subset of the Irish-American community, in fact. The US Government stopped the cash flow whenever it could catch the front groups.
It is not very rational to claim equivalence. Or ethical, or moral, for that matter.
What we’re looking for, and what would avoid bloody, sapping confrontation for both parties is if a way of refining Uranium were established which did not simultaneously help Iran towards a nuclear weapon.
This was already tried. The US, along with others(Russia, France, England) offered to provide for free the fuel needed to run nuclear reactors but the Iranians turned it down – the offered fuel, not suitable for weaponry, could be used only for peaceful purposes and was of course rejected by the mullahs. They want nukes not electricity.
Bush’s field theory of fear
Sidney Blumenthal
23 – 8 – 2006
The United States president’s flawed understanding of the global war on terror connects Israel’s strategic debacle in Lebanon with the US’s in Iraq, says Sidney Blumenthal.
——————————————
On 14 August 2006, the day the ceasefire was imposed ending Israel’s war in Lebanon against Hizbollah, and just days after police in London arrested a group of people in connection with an alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners, President Bush strode to the podium at the state department to describe global conflict in neater and tidier terms than any convoluted conspiracy theory.
Almost in one breath he explained that events “from Baghdad to Beirut”, and Afghanistan, and London, are linked in “a broader struggle between freedom and terror”; that far-flung terrorism is “no coincidence”, caused by “a lack of freedom” – “We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001” – and that all these emanations are being combatted by his administration’s “forward strategy of freedom in the broader middle east”, and that “that strategy has helped bring hope to millions.”
If there were any doubt about “coincidence”, the president concluded a sequence stringing together Lebanon, Iraq and Iran by defiantly pledging: “the message of this administration is clear: America will stay on the offense against al-Qaida.” Thus Bush’s unified field theory of fear, if it is a theory.
Then, once again, Bush declared “victory.” Hizbollah, he asserted, had gained nothing from the war, but had “suffered a defeat.”
Sidney Blumenthal is a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. He is the author of How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime (Princeton University Press, [forthcoming, September 2006)]. He writes a column for Salon and the Guardian.
Also by Sidney Blumenthal in openDemocracy:
“Bush’s Potemkin village presidency”
(September 2005)
“Republican tremors” (October 2005)
“George W Bush: home alone” (October 2005)
“Dick Cheney’s day of reckoning”
(November 2005)
“Dick Cheney’s shadow play” (November 2005)
“Condoleezza Rice’s troubling journey” (December 2005)
“Bush’s surveillance network”
(December 2005)
“Bush’s shadow government exposed” (January 2006)
“The Republican system” (January 2006)
“George W Bush: running on empty” (February 2006)
“The rules of the game” (February 2006)
” The imprisoned president”(March 2006)
“Bush’s world of illusion” (March 2006)
“Bush’s truth”
(April 2006)
“The secret passion of George W Bush”
(May 2006)
“The ruin of the CIA” (May 2005)
“The president of dreams” (May 2006)
“The Bush way of war” (June 2006)
“The war for us”
(June 2006)
“The rule of law vs the war paradigm”
(July 2006)
” The infallible president”
(July 2006)
“Bush’s axis of failure” (Augus
What next?
Anthony Barnett
30 – 8 – 2006
The war in Lebanon is a reality-shock that exposes systemic American failure, long-term Israeli vulnerability and the danger of middle-east Armageddon. It’s time for global patriots to think European, says Anthony Barnett.
——————————————
I
Nearly five years after the “axis of evil” speech, the thing that continues to annoy is how President Bush, prime minister Blair and now Israeli spokesmen claim to be the ones who are opposing terrorism. Anyone who does not support them, they suggest, is soft and permissive of Osama bin Laden and copy-cat gangs of violent fundamentalists.
If I had a great deal of money, I would take Bush and Blair to court for aiding and abetting terrorism. They were warned that their so-called “war on terrorism” would make things worse. And it has. It makes them fellow perpetrators of the current disasters.
At the start of the Lebanon conflict I noticed that an Israeli general had said on television that Israel would turn back the clock twenty years in Lebanon. I thought: “this guy is threatening collective punishment on an entire nation for a guerrilla incident!” It is the kind of outrageous thing retired generals say. I was confident he would be officially repudiated and told to zip his mouth. But no, it turns out he was Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz, the chief-of-staff directly in charge of the campaign that aerially bombed power-stations, water-plants and factories. One definition of terrorism is precisely that it attempts to deliver collective punishment.
The word “disproportionate” is code for a deep revulsion over such behaviour – behaviour which seems to allow Israel to believe it has the right to impose on any society which touches or challenges what it has already imposed upon Palestine.
No great wisdom is needed to see that such a strategy dooms all sides to destruction, perhaps within a generation. Opposition to it, to Bush, Blair, Halutz and their approach of “making war on terror”, stems from a confidence that there is a better, more effective and lasting way of frustrating terrorism, a way that also protects human rights, democracy and justice from their hands. It is an opposition shared by large numbers in the established democracies, in many of them a clear majority. A friend suggests that perhaps the only silver lining to the destruction of Lebanon was the clarity bestowed by Bush and Blair’s support for the Israeli assault. Since 9/11 most people around the world have reacted more wisely than the occupants of the White House and 10 Downing Street. This is an important democratic resource to hold onto in the coming months and maybe years.
II
The masters of the west are not only fighting terrorism the wrong way, they are screwing up on their own terms. The invasion of Iraq was misconceived, but having done it, it would have been far better if the United States had at least succeeded in helping Iraq
Oops! Sorry Nazi crew- buggered that first one up a bit so I’ll post it for you again. Its OK! No need to thank me!
Bush’s field theory of fear
Sidney Blumenthal
23 – 8 – 2006
The United States president’s flawed understanding of the global war on terror connects Israel’s strategic debacle in Lebanon with the US’s in Iraq, says Sidney Blumenthal.
——————————————
On 14 August 2006, the day the ceasefire was imposed ending Israel’s war in Lebanon against Hizbollah, and just days after police in London arrested a group of people in connection with an alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners, President Bush strode to the podium at the state department to describe global conflict in neater and tidier terms than any convoluted conspiracy theory.
Almost in one breath he explained that events “from Baghdad to Beirut”, and Afghanistan, and London, are linked in “a broader struggle between freedom and terror”; that far-flung terrorism is “no coincidence”, caused by “a lack of freedom” – “We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001” – and that all these emanations are being combatted by his administration’s “forward strategy of freedom in the broader middle east”, and that “that strategy has helped bring hope to millions.”
If there were any doubt about “coincidence”, the president concluded a sequence stringing together Lebanon, Iraq and Iran by defiantly pledging: “the message of this administration is clear: America will stay on the offense against al-Qaida.” Thus Bush’s unified field theory of fear, if it is a theory.
Then, once again, Bush declared “victory.” Hizbollah, he asserted, had gained nothing from the war, but had “suffered a defeat.”
Parallel worlds
At the moment that Bush was speaking an Israeli poll was released that revealed the disintegration of public opinion there about the war aims and Israeli leadership. 52% believed that the Israeli army was unsuccessful and 58% believed Israel achieved none of its objectives. The disapproval ratings of prime minister Ehud Olmert and defence minister Amir Peretz skyrocketed to 62% and 65%, respectively.
The war has left Israel’s invincible image shattered and moral authority tarnished, while leaving Hizbollah standing on the battlefield, its reputation burnished in the Arab street “from Baghdad to Beirut.” Virtually the entire Israeli political structure has emerged from the ordeal discredited. When the war against Hizbollah ended, the war of each political and military leader against every other one began.
“You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power”, wrote Ari Shavit, a columnist for Ha’aretz, which published his call for the replacement of Olmert on its front page.
As the political leaders accused one another of blunders, and beat their breasts in desperate efforts at survival (Olmert confessed “deficiencies”), the mi
Awwwww! You guys have a word limit on comments don’t you. Bugger!
Here’s another goody though,
“The Cato Institute (a conservative thinktank) has released an outstanding paper, A False Sense of Insecurity (PDF), which makes the point that in any rational assessment, terrorism is really just not that big of a threat to the average person. For instance, about as many Americans have been killed by terrorists as have been “killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.” Whatsmore, many WMD threats are overblown and largely preventable. Indeed, with exhaustive research, the authors can conclude that:
Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.
The costs of terrorism are often the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.
A sensible policy approach to the problem might be to stress that any damage terrorists are able to accomplish likely can be absorbed, however grimly. While judicious protective and policing measures are sensible, extensive fear and anxiety over what may at base prove to be a rather limited problem are misplaced, unjustified and counter productive”
A sensible policy approach to the problem might be to stress that any damage terrorists are able to accomplish likely can be absorbed, however grimly.
Here’s the classic apology for the terrorists: They don’t do much damage, so what’s the big deal? If an effort is made to curtail the terrorists, why, that’s just ”hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.” WTC? 9/11? Just an insignificant event to the anti-war crowd it must be supposed – a minor thing. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it is essentially the policy of the Clinton administration.
The anti-war crowd alternates between declaring that the terrorists(and the nations that sponsor them) are harmless entities not to be feared and wringing their hands over worrying whether confrontation and actions against the terrorists will make the terrorists angry and cause the terrorists to commit more acts of terror.
Even so, we can always count on the anti-war crowd to blame the administration for the ‘harmless’ murders committed by the terrorists. The murders by the terrorists may not be significant in terms of ‘harm’ but the anti-war crowd are always quick to excoriate the administration for them anyway.
Terrorist plots can be foiled by the administration but those are seen as either exaggerated in terms of their potential lethality or simply manufactured by the administration – more scare tactics.
Reality, where is thy sting?
Another pete clone? I thought the word limit was for me, but I suppose it is good for scary as well.
Do not confuse means and goals, tactic and strategy. Terrorism is only tactics, the strategic goal of jihad is world domination. This was clearly declared by jihadists themselves. So I welcome change in Bush’s language – from GWT to “fighting islamofacsism”. It certainly makes more sense.
Sometimes Bush acts like American patriots are leading him, rather than the other way around. That’s not optimal.
Not optimal, sure, but inevitable. Weak side of democracy: lider of American patriots hardly can be elected President (if only patriots constitute clear majority, which is not the case). So candidates to presidency need to triangulate, and Republicans have Wilsonian leadership with Jacksonian power base.