Iran’s missile-rattling
Amidst all the brouhaha involved in our interminable election campaign, Iran not-so-quietly continues on its course to obtain nuclear weapons. It’s also recently fired off a few demo long-range missiles with enough reach to target Israel, and although that’s gotten more press, it’s the nuclear program that’s particularly worrisome.
What’s the solution? The question, of course, presumes there’s something like a “solution” to the problem of a nuclear-armed and belligerant Iran. One “solution” is an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear sites, but that promises to escalate things in the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically vital conduit through which much of the world’s oil flows:
Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans ”” or Israelis ”” do launch military action, including threats to hit Israel and American Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region…In late June, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, who was then the commander of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, said any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. The American 5th Fleet is based at Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran.
I hope that we don’t have a President Obama in the White House when this particular excrement hits the proverbial fan. But Newsweek’s Michael Hirsch seems to hope we do, although he doesn’t actually come out and and say so.
In an article on the subject of Iran’s missile tests, he describes the problem as some sort of brinksmanship similar to the outbreak of World War I, a time in which the great Western powers (all of whom, by the way, shared a general culture and basic outlook, as well as the religion of Christianity) went to war because of an unstoppable set of circumstances involving alliances, rather than a real conflict of interests and ideas.
Historical analogies are always flawed, but Hirsch’s seems especially inappropriate. Iran and the West (including Israel) have been on a major ideological and religious collision course for over twenty-five years. The conflict is real, and it is deep. The leaders of Iran do not give the impression of being totally rational actors, and have used diplomacy mainly to stall for time and to cover their tracks and try to convince the more gullible in the West that they are only seeking reasonable goals.
But Hirsch writes:
…right now there may be only one way left to stop hostilities: a direct diplomatic overture from Washington to Tehran. Iran has long made clear it wants what any sensible government wants: to negotiate with the power that has the ability to threaten it (the United States), as opposed to dickering with proxy powers that don’t (the Europeans). It’s time to stop playing around with pretend diplomacy.
Why he thinks such a thing would work, what he thinks Iran wants from the Great Satan, and what he thinks they could be given that would solve anything is anyone’s guess. I think the proper analogy is World War II rather than World War I, but Hirsch doesn’t seem to agree.
On the other hand, the author of this piece (“Spook86,” a former military intelligence officer) writes:
Not long after Wednesday’s missile salvo was revealed, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama called for more sanctions against Iran and direct negotiations. But we’ve been trying that approach for several years (largely through the European Union), with no appreciable progress. Why does Mr. Obama believe the failed policies of the past will now work with the clerics in Tehran?
If anything, the missile test is a reminder that there are limits to diplomacy, and at some point the next commander-in-chief may be forced to try something else. Senator Obama’s refusal to consider those other options will only embolden Iran, and likely lead to further acceleration of its missile and nuclear programs.
I’m with the spook.
This time I agree with you, Neo: Iran should be threatened with a military strike if they do not accept certain strong limits on their nuclear ambitions. I’ve expressed this view numerous times. However, as I’ve said before — I believe the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and has greatly weakened us in terms of leverage in the region and political clout in the world, dramatically reducing our influence and ability to act in this matter.
Actually, Israeli air-defence specialists believe that this Iranian demonstration was a bluff. It was not modernized version of “Shehab-3” with alleged range 2000 miles, but an old one, with a range 1400 miles – not enough to hit Israel. They also believe that a missle of adequate range is not ready yet, and all declarations to the contrary are mischievous. Iran often tries to seem more powerfull than it really is for propaganda ends.
I think LGF said the photos of the missiles launched are photoshopped
“I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
-Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).
Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can’t trust them. You can’t take what they at face value. As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate” (quoted in Wittkopf and Jones, 2008, 329).
The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities. By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.” The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement (Woodward, 2004, 122).
In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world. The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times. In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients. Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq (Woodward, 2004, 129).
A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.
We still have enormous leverage in the region: oil. Should Iran interfere in the Straits, it will put more than a few countries in a bigger bind than we would be in. Right now Iran’s nuclear ambition is a threat that seemingly only the US and Israel take halfway seriously.
But if they had nuclear capability and decided they would dominate the Strait to their advantage, how much bigger a problem it would then be.
I suggest we entice them into stopping oil traffic and then step back. That way our problem with Iran will become the rest of the world’s problem, too. Sure, we’ll take some heat for it, but it’ll also force a lot of bystanders to step into the ring.
Security and stability in the MidEast is not just an American concern, after all.
sergey: the article by Spook that I linked to makes that point, that the missile launches aren’t much. At any rate they’re not the real problem—the nuclear ambitions are.
As the hard liners in Tehran face growing dissent and dissatisfaction among various segments of the Iranian populace the leaders there would like nothing more than to have their saber rattling result in a “preventative” attack from Israel or the U.S. Such an attack, presumably air strikes on various targets associated with their minimal nuclear processing capabilities, would do little to improve the overall situation in the region or change the government in Iran to a more compliant one. It would, however, afford the hardliners an ideal opportunity to purge rivals and convince skeptics that Israel and the U.S. are indeed bent on attacking and destroying Iran, exactly the line they’ve used to gain and hold power in the first place.
Some might take the view that, rather than “surgical” strikes, we should go all out and leave Iran a sea of glass following a massive nuclear attack to “solve” the problem once and for all. That opinion should only appeal to those longing for the Rapture and the End of Days whose views are not based on real political calculations, but on existential fears and apocalyptic visions.
We have far more to lose at this time, both in the Middle East and at home, by being drawn into combat with Iran, absent more overt aggression on their part than an annual display of aging missile technology dolled up with new nomenclature or the (admittedly reasonable) supposition that they eventually want to divert their nascent nuclear power program into a weapons program. Most knowledgeable observers think that any viable weapons program remains years away at the soonest, which makes any argument about “immanent threat” premature at best, if not totally spurious.
As for the impact of these issues on domestic politics, I trust that whoever occupies the White House would not hesitate to act swiftly should Iran move from ritual saber rattling to active aggression beyond their ongoing low level support of small bands of insurgents in Iraq and so forth. The question is whether a more aggressive military stance or a more active diplomatic engagement policy is more likely to improve the situation. I still find engagement the wiser choice.
@ John Maszka A better approach to Iran would be negotiations.
Unfortunately, the track record of the EU countries with Iran has not been a good one. Iran has used negotiations for delay, nothing more.
It’s hilarious that people like Maszka and White insist we must negotiate with Iran and stop “demonizing” them, even as they refer to President Bush in terms that the Pope would hesitate to apply to Satan.
People like Maszka and White automatically presume that we are the cause for the mullahs’ threats, from the get-go. I would have loved to hear their views on what was happening inside Iran back in 1979. Would have been a most interesting discussion. But, you know, as usual it’s always – ALWAYS – our fault. Muhammad getting messages from his sock puppet deity in A.D. 622 to go and raid the caravans, kill the Jews, and turn loose the dogs of war against the world was all our fault.
The promise of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, is all our fault. If only we could talk to them and convince them to ask the Mahdi to spare us, we would be in much better shape.
It’s just all our fault…
It’s not a question of trusting Dubya. He may want peace and diplomacy, but they’re not his to have. For either, you need the acquiescence of Iran. If they don’t accept diplomacy, you don’t have diplomacy. If they don’t want peace, you don’t get peace.
If they want peace, but only on terms that amount to our surrender, then Dubya must decide whether to surrender. You may wish he does. Since what his is surrendering is our freedom (all at once or in little bits) I hope at least as fervently that he does not. Dubya and I want peace, but not at any price–and not at the price that Iran is offering.
Chris: How the hell can you bring up Christian end time beliefs and complete avoid the fact that indeed is what Iran is doing.. they are fullfillign Islamic escathology.
But yet you bring up your ignorant notion of Christian end time.
What a piece of work..
John: I have a direct challlenge for you.
In light of your statement
Read the below and then tell us why we should believe Iran.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/216/805.htm
Title:
Chief Iranian Negotiator on the Nuclear Issue Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz
Did you see that… Iran pulling the chain of the EU3 bought the time they needed to get expertise on uranium fuel cycle.
Here is the transcript.
I get so frustrated about how naive so many in the West are.That they allow Iran to play them like the fools they are.
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage — that is, in August 2003 — we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[…]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA — this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.
[…]
We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.
[…]
Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.
[…]
Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting – the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.
[…]
There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.
[…]
Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.
As another piece of evidence that Iran uses “talks” to string along gullible Westerners and play them for time, I present this.
Originally from Iran’s news service, FARS (in Farsi), published by National Review; here we have the Iranians stating that the so-called reformists Khatami years , whereby Iran had given the appearance of having the potential to reform and moderate itself was simply a tactic Iran used sot hey could establish the foundations of thier nuclear weapons plan.
So all you stupid ignorant lefties.. what’s the deal.. why do you let Iran use you to destroy our nation?
Thanks to former Royal Danish Defence College analyst Ali Alfoneh for finding this story in his scan of the Iranian press and providing a pre-dawn translation.
It is specifically the Obama wing of the Democratic Party that makes a successful negotiation with Iran unlikely. Because the Iranian leadership knows that the Democrats are word people, believing that all problems can be solved if one just says the right magical phrases, and hence will prevent any military action. Without the assurance of safety, they (the Iranian leadership) would be much more likely to come to terms–still not certain, given their apocalyptic views, but more likely than it is now.
The Iranian position is a bluff. They repeatedly threatened during the Iran-Iraq war to block the Straits of Hormuz and never did – for the excellent reason that firstly, they rightly fear they could not (see the confrontation with the US Navy which they lost in a day when they tried) and secondly and more importantly, to do so seriously would invite the destruction of their entire oil export and production capacity in retaliation, which in turn would entail the destruction of their economy and government – not the next day, not the next week but soon and completely. They dare not try it. The fact they faked their missile launch photos (and much else regarding their military capacity) indicates they know they are weak and not strong. There is a winning strategy here for the US – the Israelis threaten to attack (a US threat is not credible for obvious domestic reasons) whilst the US and Israel actively undermine Iran’s ability to respond either against Israel, or the US, in other ways. Given the current effort to destoy Iran’s proxy forces in Iraq, the moves to get the Syrians to switch sides, and Israeli anti missile tests, you might even believe that the Bush and Olmert administrations are well aware of this. The more credible the threat of an Israeli attack becomes, the more likely diplomacy is to succeed. Some suggestions to improve the odds that the Iranians will cave – a statement that the US will not interfere to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, a statement that the US Navy is capable of keeping the Straights open if the Iranian’s threaten them and that the US would retaliate against Iran’s oil industry if they attempted to close them or attack other US interests, and action to strengthen the long range Israeli strike capacity by supplying them with tankers, or better, long range bombers.
The good thing about appeasers and similar idiots is that you aren’t waiting and waiting on tenterhooks–whatever they are–for war. It comes a lot sooner than otherwise. Appeasers are a boon for the impatient.
John R: I didn’t ask you about Iran’s “position”
I specifically asked you to reconcile your position that we need to negiotate with the fact that Iran uses negiotation only for the purpose of buying itself time to do whatever it is it wants to do.
Chris White:
“Some might take the view that,…we should go all out and leave Iran a sea of glass following a massive nuclear attack to “solve” the problem once and for all.”
I was thinking Berkley myself. To each his own.
Mitsu:
“I believe the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and has greatly weakened us in terms of leverage in the region and political clout in the world, dramatically reducing our influence and ability to act in this matter.”
Explain how.
VinceP,
The Leftists do not recognize the fact that Iran uses negotiations to buy time for its deeper purposes. Essential to their worldview: parties to negotiation bargain in good faith. This is the delusion that they will not go beyond, however much reality demonstrates that it is a defective logic.
You won’t get an honest answer from these people. They are incapable of it. You (and I) much of the time are responding to debating points of theirs, not serious thought that is conscious of itself.
Fred: I have yet to see one COWARDLY lefty address the facts of Iran’s behavior when I present them.
I’ve probably gone through this about 20 times now.
What I thought was interesting was Obama’s use of the phrase ‘aggressive diplomacy’. He really does like to play with words doesn’t he?
Martin: isn’t that interesting… and then he also says that we can’t use strident rhetoric or whatever.
So we need aggressive diplomacy because use of force is bad.
but then we also can’t talk very harshly either.
I want to be on record –
Either Israel, or the U.S., takes out Iran’s nuclear tech facilities this summer.
I would prefer it be us; we have less controversial weapons to make sure the job is done.
But time is running out for all the players on this field.
Bush sees a better than even chance of a replay of “end of history” governance, so his choices are actually pretty easy to make.
Furthermore, I’m actually quite certain that Iran’s missile silliness over the last two days was intended to provide an opportunity for media and the Democrats to badger Bush to engage in formal talks.
I think Amawhackjob badly miscalculated how much damage that photo shopped (assumed to be) failed launch would actually do to any impetus on the part of the disloyal opposition to lobby for him.
Our economy is going to crap out in the next few weeks. We are looking to elect one of two choices – bad and horrible – for president. And our efforts of the last seven years to see two countries step up as democracies – after all the treasure and blood we have spent – depend on our continuing attention for at least the next few years.
A nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and Bush won’t leave office without taking care of the problem. And if we don’t do it, the Israelis most certainly will, with what tools they have to get it done.
Have a fine one. We live in interesting times.
“I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
-Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).
I think Podhoretz is wrong. I wish he were not wrong but I fear he is. I very much fear that Iran will succeed in obtaining nukes, in large part to the type of thinking as reflected below.
Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can’t trust them. You can’t take what they at face value. As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate” (quoted in Wittkopf and Jones, 2008, 329).
Whoa! John W. Dean condemns Bush! I’m impressed. But we can “trust” Dean over Bush and Cheney, can’t we?
The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities. By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.” The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement (Woodward, 2004, 122).
In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world. The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times. In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients. Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq (Woodward, 2004, 129).
It’s pretty clear that the writer is unhappy over the efforts of the President to keep the enemy from knowing about war plans. The writer no doubt would prefer they be published on the front page of the NYT. Myself, I believe that a prime virtue for a Commander in Chief would be the ability to NOT let the enemy in on US military plans.
Also, another slight bitch. Woodward has written many things. A name, a date and a number (Woodward, 2004, 129) doesn’t really give enough information for the reader to access the source and check the commentor’s accuracy. The writer also quotes Bush yet gives no source.
But what if Bush HAD said, “I have no war plans on my desk.” Such a statement could be interpreted in a number of ways. A paraphrase might be: I have no immediate intention of warring with Iran – which could have been true. But what if it WAS true in the meaning ascribed by the commentor? Is Bush supposed to publicly reveal war plans to the enemy? There’s some disturbing basic assumptions in the way the writer views issues.
How is a Commander in Chief supposed to plan for war? Is the Commander in Chief as envisioned by the writer supposed to openly reveal war plans? Most anti-war folks berate Bush for LACK of planning. Here the writer pulls a switch and castigates him for it. In their view they’ve got Bush coming and going – no matter what he did.
A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.
The US has attempted negotiations aplenty with the Mullahs – the latest being a generous offer underwritten by the US, China, France, Germany, Russia and the Secretary General of the European Union. There have been similar diplomatic initiatives in the past, to no avail. Below is a link to a blog page which has a link to a pdf of the official offer with signatures.
http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2008/06/latest-diplomatic-offer-to-iran-english.html
As the hard liners in Tehran face growing dissent and dissatisfaction among various segments of the Iranian populace the leaders there would like nothing more than to have their saber rattling result in a “preventative” attack from Israel or the U.S. Such an attack, presumably air strikes on various targets associated with their minimal nuclear processing capabilities, would do little to improve the overall situation in the region or change the government in Iran to a more compliant one. It would, however, afford the hard-liners an ideal opportunity to purge rivals and convince skeptics that Israel and the U.S. are indeed bent on attacking and destroying Iran, exactly the line they’ve used to gain and hold power in the first place.
The people the commentor refers to as “hard-liners” are a group of murderous Mullahs who have been in control of Iran since the US embassy was overrun in 1979, with no likelihood as far as I can see of giving away power to whatever hopeless “rivals” might exist in Iran. The Mullahs have never been in danger of loosing their power.
Some might take the view that, rather than “surgical” strikes, we should go all out and leave Iran a sea of glass following a massive nuclear attack to “solve” the problem once and for all. That opinion should only appeal to those longing for the Rapture and the End of Days whose views are not based on real political calculations, but on existential fears and apocalyptic visions.
What the commentor doesn’t realize is that the “apocalyptic visions” are what dances in the heads of the Mullah’s, bin Laden and other terrorists. The commentor has it backwards. Western leaders are the ones who sign diplomatic offers, the terrorists and the nations who sponsor them are the ones who have the murderous “visions.”
We have far more to lose at this time, both in the Middle East and at home, by being drawn into combat with Iran, absent more overt aggression on their part than an annual display of aging missile technology dolled up with new nomenclature or the (admittedly reasonable) supposition that they eventually want to divert their nascent nuclear power program into a weapons program. Most knowledgeable observers think that any viable weapons program remains years away at the soonest, which makes any argument about “immanent threat” premature at best, if not totally spurious.
I wish I was as confident as the writer in regards to the Iranian nuclear development he posits as “years away at the soonest,” and wonder where he gets his optimism. I wouldn’t put my trust in the CIA, which has been wrong about the timetable for every nuclear program ever developed. The nuclear development of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea – the CIA has been wrong about them all.
As for the impact of these issues on domestic politics, I trust that whoever occupies the White House would not hesitate to act swiftly should Iran move from ritual saber rattling to active aggression beyond their ongoing low level support of small bands of insurgents in Iraq and so forth. The question is whether a more aggressive military stance or a more active diplomatic engagement policy is more likely to improve the situation. I still find engagement the wiser choice.
Those “small bands of insurgents in Iraq” the commentor refers to are responsible for many US soldiers’ deaths because Iran has provided them with powerful roadside bombs that spew molten metal into US tanks. But in admirable forbearance the US continues to make diplomatic offers of which the commentor seems blissfully unaware.
Note the following well placed comment (from another blog), concerning Maliki’s latest tact on a “time table” for withdrawl, and certainly related to Iran’s “saber rattling”; Both are “posturing”, and which Obama’s coming election is certainly inspiring:
“Jul 9, 2008 – 5:16 pm
fred:
Maliki senses that Iran is the big dog now, and they assure him that they are. He sees that in January President Obama will embark upon a repudiation of present policies and alliances that may well leave him out in the cold. And there is historical precedent – one that the kiddies voting for Obonga know nothing about: the Republic of Vietnam in the Spring of 1975. We reneged on a security agreement. The Democratic Congress and Senate and a weak president did this.
So, I differ from the author’s thesis that Maliki is acting out of a sense of strength. I think he senses his government is weak and that Iran is about to kick us out of the neighborhood. And an American President, Congress, and people will go along with the deal.
It only gets worse from here.”
Incidentally, in a world of public figures who are well aware of the possible ramifications of their actions, and in which a little solidarity goes a long way in boosting their particular interests, it becomes obvious that Obama can’t be less than an authentic “manchurian candidate” for this time. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and the possible consequences, and so does the power establishment in Iran.
Maliki senses that Iran is the big dog now, and they assure him that they are.
While identifying with most of this commentor’s sentiments I think it is too early to know what Maliki intends by a withdrawal timetable or how the eventual and inevitable US withdrawal will happen. It is to be expected that Maliki must demonstrate a degree of independence from the US in order to be credible to the domestic political forces in Iraq with which he has to contend. Timetables and US troop levels can be negotiated. All that is required is a government not inimical to the US and its allies. Maliki may be smart enough to know that eventual independence and prosperity, as with Japan, Germany and North Korea in the post-WW2 era, shepherded by the US in the early years is preferable to domination by Iran. For now I will wait for a response from the Whitehouse before devoting too much time to this issue.
A previous commentor is upset about war plans. I’m sure the higher echelons of the US military and government have at least several different war scenarios that are constantly being tweaked in response to changing international conditions. They would be bereft in their duty if they didn’t. One of them is sure to be with Iran in mind. If so, such a plan would be proof of prudence, not mendacity.
“A previous commentor is upset about war plans. I’m sure the higher echelons of the US military and government have at least several different war scenarios that are constantly being tweaked in response to changing international conditions.”
I learned ages ago the following is true – there are three levels of planning for war.
First is what we see. This ends up being some combination of what is released, leaked, and civilian (even if they are veteran) plans. These are, well, usually crap. Yes, they are different levels of crap – a top general that planned the middle east strategy up to six months ago is a lot less crap than, say, a general who was relieved of command for incompetence by Clinton (Wesley Clark) but they are still both crap. Unfortunately this is all we have, as such I never get worked up over things I don’t like in this one.
The next one, the first that isn’t crap, is what the President and Congress know. Well, that’s not wholly true it may be crap in cases like the Vietnam where the “wonderkids” decide they know more than the last class but that is a different story. While they know what CENTCOM and the JCS the most likely were not part of the discussions and only really know what the final proclamation is.
Lastly the only part that has no crap as far as what is planned is what CENTCOM and the JCS plan and want.
This is especially true in that the last group regularly uses the first as propaganda, measured leaks that are not true in order to misinform the enemy. Many “Informed” people don’t really like to think about this (after all, being one of the “informed” means you can’t be a dupe) but it is more common than not.
The last group has people that sit around and do nothing but come up with every scenario that they can think of. They can only move that up the chain and the upper parts may not like what they see, but I can assure there are plans for nearly everything one can think of militarily wise. They tend to be bad about things like stopping looting as that isn’t a military objective (it may be a political one but it has little to do with the boots on the ground) but they are VERY good about military objectives. In fact experience shows they are some of the best that have ever been on the face of this planet (in large part due to learning from the failures of the past – each generation *should* be the best the planet has ever seen and has nothing to say about the talent of.latter planners).
Ah well, it’s more fun to armchair plan wars from what we see on Fox or CNN as they are obviously the most connected people on the planet 🙂
Right . . . Iran wants nuclear weapons. Just like Iraq did yeah? And Iraq went so well! Loads of ragheads and sand-niggers killed there, hey? And loads of cheap oil to boot. Shame about the oil price running at $145, though. A real shame.
Another drug addict leftie
Theres nothing nuanced or sophisticated about lefties approach to conflict resolution. Just steer clear of all crucial decision making and point fingers at those that do.
Sort of like a world where hindsight proves utopia was always at hand, but for stubborn people insisting on making decisions in the present.
Iran will get its nukes. And then we will see that in their own perverse way the mullahs are quite rational.
Once they have acquired the ultimate protection, they will get on with the real business, which is to control the middle east and the oil. In the short term Israel can relax. She is worth more alive than dead. Iran needs her as an object against which to unite the arab world, but eventually, she will go the way of Constantinople.
But wait! There’s more! Russia. Iran+ Russia will control most of the world’s energy. Introducing the new improved Iron/Koran curtain, with all the oil on one side. The EU has already seen the writing on that wall. Maybe they’ll get China’s left overs.
But don’t worry. The little buffoon Obama will know what to do.
armchair: I hate to tell you this, but you’re wrong.
The government of Iran is a bit of an exception. You see, Twelver Shiias (which the Mullahs are), do not believe that they have full authority to be head of the Muslim. Their mission is to install the only legitimate ruler , the 12th Imam al Mahdi.
Iran adheres to Islam..which holds that the only legitimate system of law is that given by Allah.
It is the obligation of all Muislims to strive toward bringing the world under the domination of the law of Allah.
Man-made law is considered idolitry and a great sin. Living a life that is anythign other than the kind of life proscribed by sharia law is blasphemy.
The eventual fate of mankind is that of living in peace and unity under the just religion of Islam, and no other religion will be acceptable. Nor will there be nations as Islam rejects the entire concept of nationality. borders. soverignity. human rights.
Iran is governed by fanatical members of the Twelver sect of Shiia.
Twelvers reject even the notion that normal people can be in positions of government. The ONLY acceptable political leadership is that under the lawful authority of the Imam.
The 12th Imam after the establishment of Islam was put into occultation by Allah around the 900-1000s. He is in hiding until a time comes in the world where there will be massive chaos and great destruction.
In order to redeem mankind from this time of unparrelled devastation Allah will return the rightful Imam from his hiding place and the Imam Mahdi along with what the Muslims think is Jesus will engage in a global struggle which will reestablish the Caliphate, this time with its capital in Jerusalem and all those who refuse to be Muslims around the world will be killed.
The government of Iran is commited to creatign the condidtions required for Allah to return the Mahdi.
The Shiite Muslims have passively and quitely waited for Allah to return to them a proper ruler for 1,000 years.. they have been brutally persecuted by the rest of the Muslims throughout this time.
They are done with waiting. They are now going to do what they think they need to to bring Allah’s law to all of the earth as is the obligation of all Muslims
yet somehow you dont seem to care about those violations of the community of nations. In fact you probabaly think all of that is crazy.. and yep it sure is nutty.. but they beleive it.
just as you believe in the United Nations, the rules of Iran believe in Allah, his Messenger, and the Last Day. Just as Surah 2:177 states:
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets.
The United States is the direct target of Iran’s nuclear program. It is not Israel. Iran is motivated by their religous beliefs.. beliefs which state that their future Caliphate’s capital is in Israel.. they are not going to nuke Israel.
oops i didn’t edit my message all the way. i originally wrote it to someone else and the “yous” toward the end was directed to him
I have a question for your “negotiate negotiate neogiate” fans:
If I have all the cards, and I don’t believe you’ll use your trump card (military strikes), why should I give away anything in a negotiation? It gains me nothing. On the other hand, if I can keep you at bay, and finally get a nuke in my pocket, now I can threaten my neighors while painting you negotiators as toothless, paper tigers. My status goes up, yours goes down, and I can probably start breaking any embargo.
Neo: you state [t]he leaders of Iran do not give the impression of being totally rational actors. This is a perception. From their point of view, they’re totally rational. We are the irrational ones.
Vince,
I hope I am wrong. Foaming religious fanatics waving around nukes would be less dangerous. They would not live long enough to punch the button twice. I’m more afraid of subtle and clever religious fanatics out to slowly, patiently, impose their shitty little religion on the world by means of oil blackmail.
And I am very afraid of the Axis of Oil. Iran + Russia. It’s an unnatural partnership having nothing in common except malevolence, but it will last enough to wind our clock but good!
To the pro-negotiation crowd:
When you say that negotiation is the better option, how do you mean “better”? By what measure is it better? Is it more likely to compel Iran to do what we want, and they don not? Is it more likely to so charm a nation that declares daily that we are God’s enemy on earth that they will stop trying to get the one weapon that we fear? Or is it more likely to delay the moment when we have to face any real fear for our lives and our futures? If all it will do is delay that moment–for how long?
Infinite negotiations gives Iran time to arm itself and western liberals time to tame free peoples and their unfair advantage in the world.
Russia and Iran are a threat. Just not as big a threat as our homegrown intellectual masturbators we call modern liberals.
We are forgetting China and China has huge energy contracts with Iran and our stores are filled with cheap Chinese goods. Iran will shut the strait down if the US takes action but won’t if Israel does, so it falls on the IDF to do the deed – I mean, it’s not like they aren’t used to world condemnation…….
We should be careful what we assume about Iran, or any country.
Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.
Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.
“On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.”
But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.
“World comdemnation” usually means Arab condemnation, and it was a complete hypocrisy. Most Arab rulers were happy to hear about Osiraq reactor destruction, because they feared Iraq hegemony more than anything else. Now they fear Iran hegemony most, and while ritually blame Israel, will be happy that this menace was vaporized.
War with Iran is unevitable. The only real question now is who would strike first. Let us hope it will not be Iran.
John Maszka Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
We should be careful what we assume about Iran, or any country.
John: Did you already forget the video from Iran that I told you watch?
I question the sanity of these peolpe.. I really do.
“Oh lets not assume Iran is lying , even though they openly admit it… But lets conclude Bush is Hitler! ”
These people drive me crazy.
Here’s the link of my challenge you to.. which you are failing.
http://neoneocon.com/2008/07/10/irans-missile-rattling/#comment-76814
I call you on this lie.
Present any demonstrable lie by the Bush 43 administration (a statement that is not a matter of interpretation, such as whether an erroneous statement was a lie or a mistake). Otherwise, you are a either a reprehensible, lying propagandist or else a sheeple following one of the same.
Second, any promise from a position of responsibility must be contingent on changes in those responsibilities. “We are not going to war with Iran.” What if Iran rolled an infantry division across the Iraqi border? Would you hold the president to that promise? What constitutes a war? Does destroying a rogue state’s nuclear arsenal without attacking its civilion population, its other armed forces, or its leadership constitute a war? What about sending soldiers out of uniform into another country’s war zone to train terrorists and guerillas?
Kashani very close folk to lunitic Ali Khaminie.
“My enemies enemy is my friend”, and the “Treaty of Hudabiya” (sp?), rules the day, until that particular alliance for that particular battle is, theoretically, concluded successfully; Then it will be back to business of world conquest, and avenging the deaths of muslims at the hands of Chinese communist and Russan fascists; These are simply mega gangster wars… The free world hasn’t lost it’s ability to fight back, but has lost it’s will… Israel is simply the microcosm reflecting the larger picture, see Glick’s latest:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/
Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says.
The Guardian, Wednesday June 21, 2006
Today 12 July 2008???
OK, critical question:
What does talking to the Iranians, if necessary without preconditions, actually cost?
Let’s concede for the sake of argument that the Iranian government has all the various evil intentions people on this board have ascribed to them. Let us pretend that we know for sure that when the Iranian speaker quoted by VinceP said “The peak of our goal is an honorable life for the people”, he meant a nuclear terror campaign, rather than an Iranian nuclear fuel cycle.
I ask again, what exactly do you lose by talking?
Let us imagine, that despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the people of Iran never had, and will never have, the ability to drive their theocratic government from office. Let us pretend that all authoritarian governments (except one, the government of Iran) use external hostility to rally a restive population. Let us pretend that Iranians have a completely different psychology from Americans, and that they react to foreign hostility in a completely different manner.
The question still remains: what will a serious effort at negotiations cost you?
You appear to understand that Americans will not make sacrifices for war unless you make war the last resort. You can’t do that without negotiation. Even Winston Churchill made that point in his funeral address for Neville Chamberlain: for all he opposed Chamberlain’s concessions to Germany, those concessions had made the issue clear to everyone: the Allies had done everything possible to avoid war, and nobody facing the terrors and hardships of the war could realistically blame the war on anyone but Adolf Hitler.
Nobody proposes any concessions here. But, as Chris Matthews pointed out, talking to a potential enemy does not mean conceding anything to them.
So granted (for the sake of argument) unlimited viciousness on the part of the Iranian government, granted every evil intention on their part, what do you lose by talking and hearing their demands for yourself?
I can only conclude that John is retarded.
Isn’t it sick how this guy still pretends that he has been shown the Iranian nuclear negioator on Iranian TV stating that Iran’s strategic choice is to go along with the appearence of “talking” while really they only do so to buy themselves time as they pursue their nuclear objectives.
John: What sort of mental deficiency do you possess?
One fix:
“Isn’t it sick how this guy still pretends that he has *NOT* been shown …”
John Spragge, thank you. This is a critical question.
First, it costs us time in the future. The time we spend is time not spent on other options. And (on the opposing theory) those other options are the only ones that can move the adversary.
Second, it costs us time from the past. When we drop preconditions, we throw away whatever negotiating gains we might have made in the past. (In this case, it’s not much.)
Third, the delay gives the adversary time to continue working on nuclear weapons, weapons which will greatly constrain our future choices when they are completed. And that will cost us a part of our future, and it will cost the freedom of millions and the lives of more.
If we ever know with certainty that Iran obtained a nuclear weapon last night, we will have a choice: submit to the fait accompli or strike Iran with enough force to cripple their military and destroy their civilization. (Destroy power plants, communication nexuses, and sewer plants; take out bridges.) Such a strike will leave Iran with a choice: use their one weapon–which they might not be ready to use, which we might be able to defend against–and face certain death in retailiation, for them and their cause or accept defeat. We might not have the national will to make that choice.
But if we are never sure that Iran got the nuke last night, if we suspect they’ve had it for a while, but we don’t for how long, then we don’t know if we even have a workable choice. That is what Iran wants; that is why they are stringing us along; that is why they are content to have people ‘negotiating’ with us until the nuclear dawn rises over Tel Aviv or New York.
“…until the nuclear dawn rises over Tel Aviv or New York.”
Sounds like smoking gun mushroom cloud all over again. You could be a Bush speech writer.
You know I actually put in a pretty good jibe after that last sentence, but then I took it out. This is because 1. I try to be nice, and 2. because you, njcommuter, really need some peace and love in your life.
For you to have such a philosophy motivated by so much fear clearly shows that you’ve had some bad experiences in your life, and I’ve very sorry about that. If not… I guess I’m just not a very good psychologist.
What things come down to is this: those willing to destroy an entire civilization, as you said, clearly do not place much value on their own (or perhaps aren’t “civilized” at all). That you even imagine such horror and death is very sick indeed, let alone imagining that any human being would be capable of doing such a thing.
What if we showed the world how great we are by destroying our own nuclear weapons… America can truly lead the world- it can lead it to a peace far out from the madness that you fear-stricken sheep senselessly spew.
Sorry. I got mean. (And no I am not a troll. I am being serious here, despite what some may think.) Anyways… come visit my blog! I have free cupcakes for everyone!
What does talking to the Iranians, if necessary without preconditions, actually cost?
The latest offer by the US was put forth without “preconditions.” A very generous offer it is too – one that the Mullahs do not deserve. It will no doubt be rejected by the Mullahs as similar offers have been before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203647.html
Let’s concede for the sake of argument that the Iranian government has all the various evil intentions people on this board have ascribed to them. Let us pretend that we know for sure that when the Iranian speaker quoted by VinceP said “The peak of our goal is an honorable life for the people”, he meant a nuclear terror campaign, rather than an Iranian nuclear fuel cycle.
I ask again, what exactly do you lose by talking?
But the US HAS been “talking” ad infinitum to the Mullahs for years for all the good it has done. I, for one, do not have to “pretend” that the Mullahs have “evil intentions,” considering that the Mullahs themselves have proven these intentions since at least 1979.
Let us imagine, that despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the people of Iran never had, and will never have, the ability to drive their theocratic government from office.
“… all the evidence to the contrary …” But where is all this evidence? When have the Mullahs ever been in danger of loosing power? The only evidence I’ve seen offered by the commentor is a blog detailing the Mullahs’ crushing of demonstrations in which the same blogger offered the opinion that the Mullahs were NEVER in danger of loosing power. Is that the “evidence” offered by the commentor?
Let us pretend that all authoritarian governments (except one, the government of Iran) use external hostility to rally a restive population. Let us pretend that Iranians have a completely different psychology from Americans, and that they react to foreign hostility in a completely different manner.
The question still remains: what will a serious effort at negotiations cost you?
I would call the latest offer by the US something other than pretense yet the commentor remains stubbornly unaware of it. But isn’t that the linchpin of any apologist for the Mullahs – that the apologizers pretend to have a deep understanding of Iranian psychology and ignore the many diplomatic initiatives already attempted? The Mullahs must have a good laugh at such pretenses.
You appear to understand that Americans will not make sacrifices for war unless you make war the last resort. You can’t do that without negotiation. Even Winston Churchill made that point in his funeral address for Neville Chamberlain: for all he opposed Chamberlain’s concessions to Germany, those concessions had made the issue clear to everyone: the Allies had done everything possible to avoid war, and nobody facing the terrors and hardships of the war could realistically blame the war on anyone but Adolf Hitler.
The latest offer by the US promises everything conceivable to the Mullahs. One wonders what tact the commentor will take when the Mullahs turn it down – as they did similar offers in 2006 and 2003. How many times must the Mullahs be offered and to refuse before the commentor comes around to the fact that the Mullahs are not interested in such offers?
Nobody proposes any concessions here. But, as Chris Matthews pointed out, talking to a potential enemy does not mean conceding anything to them.
But contrary to the commentor’s(and Chris Matthews’s) lack of knowledge the US has been talking its head off to these rascals for years – making every concession possible – with no success.
So granted (for the sake of argument) unlimited viciousness on the part of the Iranian government, granted every evil intention on their part, what do you lose by talking and hearing their demands for yourself?
The US has lost time, energy and lives by “talking.” And the potential for harm is immense after the Mullahs get their nuclear wishes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203647.html
I’m reposting this for our Iranian apologists. This video shows why “talking” to Iran means playing into their game of stalling for time.
What qualifies any of these critics to have any advice on what to do? they completely ignore what Iran is doing.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/216/805.htm
Title:
Chief Iranian Negotiator on the Nuclear Issue Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz
Did you see that… Iran pulling the chain of the EU3 bought the time they needed to get expertise on uranium fuel cycle.
Here is the transcript.
I get so frustrated about how naive so many in the West are.That they allow Iran to play them like the fools they are.
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/805.htm
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005
Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage — that is, in August 2003 — we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.
The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.
[…]
There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA — this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.
Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.
[…]
We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.
[…]
Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.
[…]
Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting – the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.
[…]
There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.
[…]
Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.
Maybe Peter would lke to tell us why he defends Iran. Does he support its agenda?
Iran rejects the notion of community of nations.
Iran adheres to Islam..which holds that the only legitimate system of law is that given by Allah.
It is the obligation of all Muislims to strive toward bringing the world under the domination of the law of Allah.
Man-made law is considered idolitry and a great sin. Living a life that is anythign other than the kind of life proscribed by sharia law is blasphemy.
The eventual fate of mankind is that of living in peace and unity under the just religion of Islam, and no other religion will be acceptable. Nor will there be nations as Islam rejects the entire concept of nationality. borders. soverignity. human rights.
Iran is governed by fanatical members of the Twelver sect of Shiia.
Twelvers reject even the notion that normal people can be in positions of government. The ONLY acceptable political leadership is that under the lawful authority of the Imam.
The 12th Imam after the establishment of Islam was put into occultation by Allah around the 900-1000s. He is in hiding until a time comes in the world where there will be massive chaos and great destruction.
In order to redeem mankind from this time of unparrelled devastation Allah will return the rightful Imam from his hiding place and the Imam Mahdi along with what the Muslims think is Jesus will engage in a global struggle which will reestablish the Caliphate, this time with its capital in Jerusalem and all those who refuse to be Muslims around the world will be killed.
The government of Iran is commited to creatign the condidtions required for Allah to return the Mahdi.
The Shiite Muslims have passively and quitely waited for Allah to return to them a proper ruler for 1,000 years.. they have been brutally persecuted by the rest of the Muslims throughout this time.
They are done with waiting. They are now going to do what they think they need to to bring Allah’s law to all of the earth as is the obligation of all Muslims
yet somehow these apologists dont seem to care about those violations of the community of nations.
just as they believe in the United Nations, the rulers of Iran believe in Allah, his Messenger, and the Last Day. Just as Surah 2:177 states:
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets.
The United States is the direct target of Iran’s nuclear program. It is not Israel. Iran is motivated by their religous beliefs.. beliefs which state that their future Caliphate’s capital is in Israel.. they are not going to nuke Israel.
Peter, I hope we never have to reduce a civilization to the Stone Age, but if the alternative is having nuclear weapons in the hands of a state whose expressed policy and purpose includes (a) the destruction of a peaceful state that was created as a refuge for a people–the Jews–who were the victims of genocide,
(b) the subjugation of the world beneath an intolerant, terroristic theocratic rule, and (c) the use of individual and mass murder for that purpose and the justification of any lie whatsoever, then I will chose to destroy that civilization rather than accept its will for me and the world, because accepting that will means the destruction of ALL civilization and ALL freedom.
It is time to ask what we will do if the worst happens. That means that we must refuse to call the adversary’s intentions “unthinkable”: that they are his intentions indicate that he is thinking them.
With regard to North Korea and progress: The progress that “we” have made has been made because China is keeping Kim Jong Il on a short leash. Here’s the reality: If anyone but the PRC makes a move on the DPRK, the PRC will move in. But that will be costly, so the PRC will prevent the DPRK from going quite far enough to make it necessary. The six-party talks put the PRC in the position of having to take the situation seriously, and Dubya deserves some credit for jawboning them effectively. It came at the cost of recognizing reality: that China is THE regional east asian power, protected by mountains in China, in subjugated states (Tibet) and in dependent states (the DPRK).
If you’re worried about our loss of mutually linked power and prestige, consider India and China. They are becoming powers to reckon with, and nothing we do or don’t do can change that. They both have corruption problems, but India’s ‘modern’ military has a good history and China is building up its army along western lines, with a professional NCO corps. Moreover, China’s severe sex imbalance will probably send more young men into the military, as soldiers and officers.
Oh, and China probably worries about Taiwan for the same reason that Hitler should have worried about England: it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Vince P: No amount of ad hominem will obscure the essential weakness of your logic: both Iranian speakers you quote speak not of building a bomb, still less of nuclear terrorism.
njcommuter: The Bush Administration has refused to talk to the government of Iran for the past five years. During that time, they have not acted in any apparently effective way, either. Right now, both economic and political considerations weigh very heavily against an attack on Iran before the next president takes office. I have no doubt that if the current president sees a danger he can eliminate through the use of force, he will do so without delay. However, I see no advantage in both refusing to talk and in failing to act.
grackle: Please name the date, time and place the United States last engaged in direct, nation to nation talks with Iran.
OK, I’ll bite: What would you talk to Iran about? Please be specific. And what would you hope to see come out of the conversation?
What would I talk to Iran about?
If I had to do it, I would start with an apology, especially directed at Iran’s young reformists, for the notorious “axis of evil” comment by George W. Bush and his too-clever-by-half speechwriter David Frum.
I’d then get down to brass tacks:
1) A mutual interest in a functioning Iraqi government
2) Legitimate security concerns about American troop presence.
3) Integrating Iran into the world economic system.
4) Convening a general conference to produce a treaty limiting support for irregular forces and armed political movements.
5) Iran’s conformity with the non-proliferation treaty.
What would I want out of the talks?
1) A binding treaty limiting assistance by all countries to irregular forces and armed political movements in other countries. Cut of Hizbollah, yes, but also mojÄhedin-e khalq, and prevent any successors to thugs such as RENAMO, the “contras” and so on.
2) An informal understanding on Iran-Iraq relations and any US troop presence.
3) An informal understanding on Iran’s uranium enrichment programs.
Right now the Iranians have no legitimate security concerns about American troop presence. American and Iraqi troops have repelled armed attacks coming across the Iranian border deep into Iraqi territory by fighters in and out of uniform. The present government of Iraq has shown no hostility to territorial Iran, but has captured and killed Iranian agents on its soil. Nor is that government, answering to a nation recovering from a war, likely to invite the US to attack Iran.
This is an Iranian straw man.
I don’t have time now to fisk your other points. Iran has been playing bad boy since they took hostages in the American embassy. That, by the way, was an act of war on their part, only half-covered by the claim that it was ‘students’ rather than the government involved. We had the right to react with armed force at the time; all we did was mount a rescue mission that failed.
What would I talk to Iran about?
First of all you need to be a good chess player as they invented it!!
grackle: Please name the date, time and place the United States last engaged in direct, nation to nation talks with Iran.
Below is a link to an article about the latest offer from the US to Iran. I wish I could post the actual offer, but all I can find is pdf versions. But no matter, below the first link is a link to a pdf of the proposal if the readers wish to peruse the details. The readers can see for themselves that the offer contains everything but the kitchen sink.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203647.html
http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2008/06/latest-diplomatic-offer-to-iran-english.html
And another in 2006, also turned down by Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/world/middleeast/30diplo.html
There was considerable interaction in the aftermath of the earthquake in Iran when the US gave humanitarian aid. The article linked below mentions a conversation between US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Iran’s permanent envoy to UN, Mohammad Javad Zarif. The CSM article also mentions “many informal channels between Iran and the US[that] are active.” Informal channels have been active beginning quite early after the Iranian embassy takeover. Iran and the US has had an on-going exchange of communications out of the public eye all along.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p01s01-wome.html
The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi held talks last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/24/iraq.iran
If I had to do it, I would start with an apology, especially directed at Iran’s young reformists, for the notorious “axis of evil” comment by George W. Bush and his too-clever-by-half speechwriter David Frum.
We have an actively hostile regime who is probably going to succeed in going nuclear. Throughout their regime the Mullahs have unceasingly and successfully played the terrorism game; I see no reason for them to stop after they nuke up. These days it’s lethal ordnance delivered to US tanks in Iraq and other deadly high jinks. They will soon have something a lot better than that.
There’s a double standard underneath much of what the apologists offer about the issues. It has been in place so firmly and for so long in their consciousness that it becomes one of the basic, probably subconscious, unstated assumption behind most of their critiques. For instance, the writer has been adamant in his insistence on the need for the US to apologize.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly called Americans and President Bush “Nazis” but WE must apologize. He did this well before Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. I doubt it even occurs to the apologizers that Iran would owe the US an apology. The article linked below gives the details:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP41702#_edn2
MEMRI is an excellent site to check out what various people in the Middle East are actually saying and doing. They have a special section devoted to Iran. Most of it is never aired or written about by the US news media.
grackle:
1) The talks and invitations to talks that have taken place so far have either involved back channels or low level contacts, or involved invitations of the form: do what we want, and then we can talk about what you want. I reiterate my challenge: what would it cost to have high (meaning cabinet) level bilateral talks without preconditions? What does not talking for the sake of not talking actually get you?
2) If I didn’t apply a double standard, I would start by asking why the Iranians should even begin to consider stopping their nuclear program before the US eliminates their nuclear arsenal. In fact, the American position rests on the assumption that the United States and its allies have a degree of probity and political maturity that entitles them to dictate matters such as disarmament to the Iranian government. As long as they base their policies on that contention, I do expect the “western” powers to live up to their own self-appointed role and demonstrate the political maturity they claim. As long as the United States claims an entitlement to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and decide who may obtain one and who may not, I do expect the President of the United States to show more political intelligence and maturity than the Supreme Leader of Iran.
Spragge: Essentially there are 3 classes of outcomes from talking: highly desirable, moderately desirable, and not at all desirable. I’m sure you’ll understand the latter category actually means “over my dead body” types of outcomes…
Anyways, where we’re at right now is this: Iran insists on a highly desirable outcome for themselves, which at the same time is a “not at all desirable” outcome for ourselves. The generally accepted
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the basis for your reasoning seems twofold: 1) the Iranian most desirable outcome is really quite reasonable, 2) the Western not-at-all desirable outcome is really not very reasonable.
We don’t disagree about the value of vague ‘talking’ or other forms of non-violent negotiation; ultimately, we seem to disagree on the fundamental importance of the underlying issues. It seems you have an opportunity to use your “without preconditions” approach to problem-solving right here. Drop your pre-conceived notions and biases and bring only your open mind to the discussion. Perhaps then we’ll see some progress. But as long as you insist on clinging to the argument you brought with you, we’re clearly not going to get anywhere.
Lame-R: You have misunderstood my position.
1) We don’t know the Iranian’s most desired outcome of negotiations. In fact, we don’t even know the current Iranian government will agree to negotiate. We won’t know these things until and unless we offer to talk.
2) I can easily think of several outcomes the “Western” governments can and should consider themselves ethically bound to resist. My point remains: under the current circumstances, how would talking to the Iranian government make such resistance any more difficult?
The basis of my reasoning goes like this: any military action against the Iranian nuclear program involves far greater risk of catastrophic economic disruption than it would have a year ago. The timing suggests that the Bush Administration and the Olmert government have decided they have no effective military recourse in this situation, or they would not have delayed acting until mere months before a pivotal US election. Under these circumstances, it makes sense for the United States government to make the bast use of its remaining advantages, as I see it, the US has two advantages: the awareness by the the Iranian leadership of the serious military risks a serious confrontation in the Gulf poses for them, and the goodwill of millions of ordinary Iranians. Under those circumstances, I believe a willingness to talk will only help the Western position.
So, one more time, please explain what a negotiation would cost. Keep in mind that a negotiation without preconditions means the other party gets to put anything they want on the table; it doesn’t mean you have to agree to anything. If the Iranian government insists on a completely unacceptable agreement, the talks will fail, and that failure will clarify the need to take effective measures to resist their agenda.
John S keeps pretending we dont know what Iran’s intentions are. Here they are again:
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” — the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
Vince P. You will save bandwidth by posting links back to thinks you have said already, rather than reposting them. I think we know that some factions in Iran have dreams if vanquishing “Western” post-enlightenment Civilization. We also have good evidence that the anti-western factions do not speak for all, or perhaps even a significant number, of Iranians.
Talking to Iran would make it clear to us how strongly and widely these factions influence the Iranian government as a whole. And posting the most inflammatory quotes of revolutionary guard commanders doesn’t answer the fundamental question: what do you (we) lose by agreeing to talk to the Iranian government.
I would start with an apology, especially directed at Iran’s young reformists…
Uh, you don’t think that might be starting off on the wrong foot with the actual government you’re supposed to be negotiating with, who very much aren’t “young reformists”?
That aside, I’m not as opposed as some of my co believers here to talking to Iran. As a matter of fact I might be very interested if something like this was on the agenda:
Recognition of the entire middle east as within Iran’s sphere of interest and its right to develop and deploy nuke weapons
in exchange for:
Recognition of Israel
Cessation of all aid to all terrorist organizations
Active cooperation in the hunting down and destruction of same
A formal religious declaration endorsed by all clerics under Iran’s thumb that it is the religious duty of all pious Moslems to depart from the infidel West at once and to never return
Use of Iranian routes and airspace to supply the forces in Afganistan
Preferential access to all the lovely oil
What guarantees of good faith and faithful performance there could be be are beyond my poor brain to imagine.
And, of course, this discussion presupposes that the leaders of Iran don’t have rabies, that their ambitions are rooted in this life and revolve about the increasing the greatness of Iran. If not, we should put them down before they bite someone.
See? I am open minded.
1) The talks and invitations to talks that have taken place so far have either involved back channels or low level contacts, or involved invitations of the form: do what we want, and then we can talk about what you want. I reiterate my challenge: what would it cost to have high (meaning cabinet) level bilateral talks without preconditions? What does not talking for the sake of not talking actually get you?
2) If I didn’t apply a double standard, I would start by asking why the Iranians should even begin to consider stopping their nuclear program before the US eliminates their nuclear arsenal. In fact, the American position rests on the assumption that the United States and its allies have a degree of probity and political maturity that entitles them to dictate matters such as disarmament to the Iranian government. As long as they base their policies on that contention, I do expect the “western” powers to live up to their own self-appointed role and demonstrate the political maturity they claim. As long as the United States claims an entitlement to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and decide who may obtain one and who may not, I do expect the President of the United States to show more political intelligence and maturity than the Supreme Leader of Iran.
The writer does not seem to understand standard diplomatic maneuvering. Iran has pretended to take the carrot(the various diplomatic initiatives offered by the US and its allies) before, only to back out after valuable time and effort has been wasted. In the aftermath of these shenanigans Iran’s considerable propaganda apparatus, along with a sympathetic news media, have had a field day painting Iran as an injured party.
In this latest offer the US and its allies insist only that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program while any negotiations would take place – not destroy its facilities already in place or abrogate its program entirely. If the Iranians decide the proposals are not to their liking they can always pull out of the negotiations and continue their nuclear development apace – with little sacrificed in regards to their nuclear development.
If the Iranians are unwilling to stop uranium enrichment activities while negotiating it would reveal the Mullahs’ true intention – a determination to continue their nuclear development and use such talks only as a way to buy time and propaganda points – a tactic of which they are the masters. We’ve all read of such deceitful tactics, even from the Iranians’ own mouths when they boast about it afterwards.
Preconditions are a way of determining whether the actor in violation is entering into negotiations in good faith instead of using protracted negotiations to buy time and propaganda points, otherwise the Mullahs would have zero incentive to negotiate seriously. They could jack us around for years(as they already have) if no preconditions were required. Let us not forget that Iran was found to have secret on-going nuclear weapons development after some ten years of public lying.
Also, despite the commentor’s implication above, it’s not the US alone who decides “who may obtain one and who may not” have a nuclear arsenal. There are actually 189 countries party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Iran itself.
But the commentor’s stance confirms what many of us already know, which is that most apologizers for Iran want the Mullahs to nuke up – a very dangerous and short-sighted sentiment in my opinion. The apologizers are evidently given to this attitude because of their hatred of the US, which is all but laid bare in the writer’s comment. Given the Mullahs’ proclivity for using terrorism such an outcome has the potential to bring on a nuclear conflagration the likes of which would make previous conflicts(WW1, WW2, the Iraq War) look like so many tea parties. That’s why the Treaty was created in the first place.
I’m glad the US developed a nuclear arsenal in WW2 ahead of the Japanese and the Nazis, each of which had their own nuclear development programs during WW2. Imagine a world in which Hitler won WW2. As an American I thank Providence that the US was first in that particular arms race, otherwise the world would no doubt now be under the domination of the Nazis or the WW2-era Japanese military elite.
grackle:
Neither my putative emotional attitudes nor anyone else’s have anything to do with the issue.
1) If the Bush Administration or anyone else had any effective measures available to stop Iran’s nuclear program, or to prevent an Iranian bomb, it would not make sense to halt those measures in favour of negotiations. That should go without saying. But the Bush Administration has done nothing so far, and they have shown no intention of doing anything other than wait for the next administration. If the Bush Administration has no effective options, or at least no alternatives that negotiation would prevent or postpone, I see no reason not to make an effort to negotiate.
2) I see no way the Iranians can obtain a propaganda advantage from talks that they cannot extract from the current refusal to engage in negotiations without preconditions.
Please cite the exact passage where I expressed a desire to have Iran construct a nuclear weapon, or for that matter any negative emotional attitude towards the United States.
Neither my putative emotional attitudes nor anyone else’s have anything to do with the issue.
1) If the Bush Administration or anyone else had any effective measures available to stop Iran’s nuclear program, or to prevent an Iranian bomb, it would not make sense to halt those measures in favour of negotiations. That should go without saying.
Hmmm … I’m not making sense of the above. I am afraid the commentor will have to explain because I’ve no idea what the point is.
But the Bush Administration has done nothing so far, and they have shown no intention of doing anything other than wait for the next administration. If the Bush Administration has no effective options, or at least no alternatives that negotiation would prevent or postpone, I see no reason not to make an effort to negotiate.
But Bush has made an “effort to negotiate.” A offer similar to the current proposal was floated a couple of years ago. The commentor continues to castigate Bush for lack of effort even when the commentor is presented with the public record of such effort. “Options” are possible only if the Mullahs are willing to negotiate in good faith.
2) I see no way the Iranians can obtain a propaganda advantage from talks that they cannot extract from the current refusal to engage in negotiations without preconditions.
Here again, the commentor may have to explain further because I’m not sure I see the point in number 2 either. The Iranians have had a propaganda advantage for a long time. The media are left-leaning and hate Bush and spew out material that is so biased as to be propaganda. The commentor himself is one proof of that, apparently having downed such cloudy spirits without a chaser.
Please cite the exact passage where I expressed a desire to have Iran construct a nuclear weapon, or for that matter any negative emotional attitude towards the United States.
The apologizers offer very little in direct statements, usually choosing to hew faithfully to sly implication. One such example is:
In fact, the American position rests on the assumption that the United States and its allies have a degree of probity and political maturity that entitles them to dictate matters such as disarmament to the Iranian government.
The only thing the US and its allies insist on is that the Iranians enter into negotiations with a precondition that they suspend uranium enrichment while negotiations are undergone. Yet this reasonable requirement is described by the commentor as solely an American “dictate” while the commentor overlooks the fact that China, France, Germany, Russia and the Secretary General of the European Union also endorse the same precondition. The commentor seemed also unaware that the US does not determine who gets a nuclear arsenal. There is an international treaty, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which Iran, a violator of the treaty, is a party to. Yet he claims the US plays a “self-appointed role.”
As long as they base their policies on that contention, I do expect the “western” powers to live up to their own self-appointed role and demonstrate the political maturity they claim. As long as the United States claims an entitlement to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and decide who may obtain one and who may not, I do expect the President of the United States to show more political intelligence and maturity than the Supreme Leader of Iran.
The commentator expects President Bush “to show more political intelligence and maturity than the Supreme Leader of Iran.” Does the commentator expect the President to show the same degree of ruthlessness as the Mullahs? Or the same degree of fanaticism? If he does he has not mentioned it.
The President is expected to live up to the commentor’s odd ideas of what constitutes “political intelligence and maturity” but the Mullahs are given a pass. President Bush will retire from the field of politics undefeated, having won every political post he’s ever campaigned for, yet his political acumen is downgraded by the commentor.
How intelligent would it be to enter into negotiations without precondition with ruthless fanatics who have shown their lack of good faith in the past and even bragged about it afterwards? How mature would it be to enter into protracted negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program without a precondition while the Iranians steadfastly continue to nuke up? If the Iranians will not stop, even temporarily, their enrichment of uranium, why negotiate at all? What is there left to negotiate?
The commentor has laid into US economics in a derisive and self-satisfied manner, has implied that President Bush is immature and stupid, has insisted that the President apologize(that’ll be a cold day in Hell) for accurately characterizing Saddam, Kim Jong-il and the Mullahs as evil, even though the Supreme Leader of Iran called Bush and America “Nazis” beforehand, has ignored the facts about diplomatic offers to Iran and has disregarded Iran’s violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
I would start by asking why the Iranians should even begin to consider stopping their nuclear program before the US eliminates their nuclear arsenal.
Furthermore, his stated attitude as illustrated above, seems to be that since the US has a nuclear arsenal that the world should look away and serenely stand by while hostile rogue regimes obtain their own. It would serve us right seems to be his mindset.
Although I’ve never singled the commentator out vis a vis hatred of the US, referring instead to “apologizers” in general and assigning the caveats of “evidently” and “all but laid bare,” given his comments so far I would have to bet that he doesn’t like us, even to the point of a “negative emotional attitude towards the United States.” Are we supposed to believe after all his negative comments about President Bush and the US that he has a glowing affection for us?
grackle: I don’t propose to go into too many of the specifics, the many things you’ve read meaning into or taken out of context.
Let’s just deal with the really big issues:
1) George Bush works for you. He has a responsibility to formulate and implement policies to keep Americans safe. Preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon would definitely keep Americans (and many other people) safe.
2) George Bush’s administration has to deliver. Protests that his policies could or should have worked will not change the reality if the current Iranian government builds a nuclear weapon. Right now, most of the published evidence suggests that the current administration has no way to induce or force the current Iranian government to give up their nuclear program, which means the Bush policy towards Iran has so far failed.
3) Best practises in military and security policies include not making enemies unless you need to. No urgent US security policy need required the Bush administration to name Iran as an enemy. Not only does the US now not have a need to remain at odds with Iran, but the evidence suggests that remaining at odds harms your interests in serious and specific ways.
4) Recognising this evidence does not make anyone anti-American. Pointing out that a public servant has certain deliverables, in this case security for the American people, does not in any way make anyone anti-American.
One more time, pointing out failures, and suggesting changes to policies that have, from all the published evidence, not worked, does not indicate hostility, and by the way, George Bush does not equal the United States; a person can loathe politicians and still care about the nation they represent. Not to grasp this, completely identifying the land and people with government and state, means accepting a pure form of totalitarianism, which identifies dissent from within as disloyalty, and criticism from without as hostility. I can have a genuine affection for the American people, even if I believe your government has made serious mistakes.
1) George Bush works for you. He has a responsibility to formulate and implement policies to keep Americans safe. Preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon would definitely keep Americans (and many other people) safe.
So far, so good.
2) George Bush’s administration has to deliver. Protests that his policies could or should have worked will not change the reality if the current Iranian government builds a nuclear weapon. Right now, most of the published evidence suggests that the current administration has no way to induce or force the current Iranian government to give up their nuclear program, which means the Bush policy towards Iran has so far failed.
Here goes the Double Standard again. For the commentor, our opinion of Bush should be predicated on whether a ruthless and fanatical regime decides to do what is right. For me, all Bush has to do is make a reasonable effort to stop them, which is what I believe Bush is doing. If a criminal is robbing a bank and one of the depositors attempts to stop the criminal and fails I don’t blame the depositor for the robbery. And I certainly do not put the depositor on trial for the attempt to stop the criminal.
3) Best practises in military and security policies include not making enemies unless you need to. No urgent US security policy need required the Bush administration to name Iran as an enemy. Not only does the US now not have a need to remain at odds with Iran, but the evidence suggests that remaining at odds harms your interests in serious and specific ways.
The commentor is naive if he thinks Iran is not a security risk and therefore not an enemy. Iran is killing American soldiers in Iran by providing deadly roadside bombs to the enemy there. Iran is the primary instigator of terrorism in the Middle East. If Iran develops a nuclear capability there is no reason to believe they won’t use nukes to heightened their already considerable terrorism – with catastrophic results. And it wouldn’t require sophisticated delivery systems either. I invite the commentor to peruse the links below:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2008/07/14/the_war_with_iran
http://www.empcommission.org/reports.php
4) Recognising this evidence does not make anyone anti-American. Pointing out that a public servant has certain deliverables, in this case security for the American people, does not in any way make anyone anti-American.
The commentor applies a consistent double standard in regards to US-Iran relationships, refusing to recognize Iran as a threat one moment(“No urgent US security policy need”) then castigates President Bush for failure to remove the threat the next moment(“published evidence suggests that the current administration has no way to induce or force the current Iranian government to give up their nuclear program”). His beliefs apparently depend on the point he wants to make: Iran is a threat and Bush is at fault, Iran is a threat and Bush has no way to stop it, Iran should be allowed to nuke up because the US possesses a nuclear arsenal or finally, Iran is no threat at all. But I will accept his assertion that he is not anti-American, only that he is very wrong about Iran’s intentions and inconsistent in his stances. Below is a link to an article in which Iran makes it clear what Iran’s intention is:
Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled “The World Without Zionism”, Ahmadinejad said, “To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.”
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of “death to Israel, death to America, death to England”, Ahmadinejad continued, “Once, his eminency Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini – leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution], stated that the illegal regime of the Pahlavis must go, and it happened. Then he said the Soviet empire would disappear, and it happened. He also said that this evil man Saddam [Hussein] must be punished, and we see that he is under trial in his country. His eminency also said that the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html
But Bush needs to apologize for his “axis of evil” remark, according to the commentor. I ask the readers to imagine if President Bush had declared an intention of a ‘world without Iran.’ No doubt the commentor’s head would have exploded from the pressure.
grackle:
1) On your armed robbery analogy: Mr. Bush hardly qualifies as a bystander. He asked the American people to entrust their security to him, and he has a responsibility to deliver.
2) The United States had nothing to gain from declaring Iran an enemy, with the exception of a glib phrase from a too clever speech writer. I never suggested Bush should trust Iran, or endorse the Iranian government; only avoid gratuitously identifying Iran as an enemy.
3) I have never suggested any sanctions against Bush over his Iran policy, other than recommending the strategic wisdom of an apology to the Iranian people for the axis of evil remark. I have never suggested that Iran should build a nuclear weapon, or anything other than taking all feasible measures to dissuade or prevent them. I have suggested that the current policy has not produced any visible success, and that prudence calls for a change of approach, form one that attempts to strong-arm the Iranian leadership to one centred on an appeal to the goodwill of the Iranian people.
1) On your armed robbery analogy: Mr. Bush hardly qualifies as a bystander. He asked the American people to entrust their security to him, and he has a responsibility to deliver.
Bush’s responsibility is to try to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear arms. I am satisfied that he is doing what can be reasonably expected. If Iran will not stop after all that has been put on the table it will only prove that the Mullahs are determined in their plan for a “world without America” and that mere diplomacy will not change them.
The commentor says that President Bush “hardly qualifies as a bystander.” To extend the analogy, it’s obvious that the commentor sees Bush as the defendant and would have the judge give the true criminal a pass out of the courtroom.
2) The United States had nothing to gain from declaring Iran an enemy, with the exception of a glib phrase from a too clever speech writer. I never suggested Bush should trust Iran, or endorse the Iranian government; only avoid gratuitously identifying Iran as an enemy.
There’s always much to be gained by recognizing the enemy. Part of the President’s duty is to warn the American people and the world about a ruthless and dangerous entity. Iran has been conducting a war against America since the Mullahs took over Iran in 1979. It was high time that they were called what they are. If they are not evil then the word has no meaning.
3) I have never suggested any sanctions against Bush over his Iran policy, other than recommending the strategic wisdom of an apology to the Iranian people for the axis of evil remark.
It’s the Mullahs and their regime in Iran that owe an apology but that will never come so I don’t waste time fretting over it. Name-calling and the threatening of the very existence of America is only to be expected from their ilk.
I have never suggested that Iran should build a nuclear weapon, or anything other than taking all feasible measures to dissuade or prevent them. I have suggested that the current policy has not produced any visible success, and that prudence calls for a change of approach, form one that attempts to strong-arm the Iranian leadership to one centred on an appeal to the goodwill of the Iranian people.
The commentor has never suggested that Iran develop a nuclear weapon but instead usually just moans about how Bush has caused them to develop it. Myself, I think it is good to blame the folks who do the dirty deed instead of the folks who try to stop it.
Even in the face of all that is contained in the latest offer to Iran, which is generous in the extreme, the commentor persists in his cockeyed belief that President Bush is strong-arming the Mullahs. The commentor is oblivious to what is really happening and has constructed his own fantastic version of the issues. Some illusions are difficult to dispel, especially self-imposed illusions.
The “goodwill” of a people under an authoritarian government means nothing. The Iranian populace has no control over events. They are under a rigid system that does not tolerate opposition. The behavior and intentions of the Mullahs are evil and the Iranian people need to hear the truth expressed.
We interrupt the ideology to bring you this bulletin from the outside world. Another timely reminder comes before us that reality always wins:
I give full credit to the Bush administration for working to protect the American people (and everyone else) instead of indulging in political posturing.
CNN has an article in which McCormick is quoted:
“Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said.”
An interesting development. Let’s hope the Mullahs become sane and accept the precondition.
Forgot to post the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/us.iran/index.html