Talking with Iran and divorce mediation: the naked emperor (shh, little child!)
It’s not just that I disagree with the “we need to talk with Iran” folks. It’s that they actually seem demented and deluded. Their suggestion makes no sense–or about as much sense as “talk with Hitler” would have made in the middle of WWII.
Faith in the overwhelming power of talk has gone beyond the bounds of rationality into an irrational and yet strongly-held belief system. I read pundits and watch talking heads nodding in agreement that talking with Iran might just be the ticket, the get-out-of-jail-free (or relatively free) card needed for extricating us from a difficult situation in Iraq. And it seems patently absurd to me, actually laughable–if it didn’t have such potentially enormous consequences.
I usually manage to see some sort of reason in the proposals of the other side, however much I may disagree with them. But this proposal seems so dangerously divorced from reality as to be as absurd as the emperor prancing around nude when he thinks he has a fabulous suit of clothing on, while those on my side seem like the voices of the little child shouting “But wait! He’s naked. Don’t you see it?”
Iran is not only our enemy, it’s our overt and blatant enemy, and has been since 1979. Ever since its revolution, Iran has been boldly proclaiming its aim to destroy us–the Great Satan. We are so unacquainted with evil that, to many, the over-the-top nature of such charges sound almost comical; surely, they can’t be serious (in much the same way, many dismissed Hitler as ridiculous: the strutting, the rhetoric, the silly little mustache).
But, we cannot afford to not take Iran seriously, any more than we could with Hitler. And, although the turmoil in Iraq is multiply-determined, one of the proximate causes is the direct and intentional influence of Iran in that country.
Frank Gaffney says it well in the Daily News:
…the new talk-to-Iran conventional wisdom is irresponsible.
Why? Because Iran is, hands down, the main impediment to freedom and stability in Iraq. Together with its client state, Syria, Iran is directly implicated in murderous attacks on American forces in Iraq. Iran is arming and training Shiite militias. And it’s using violence, intelligence and money to dominate oil-rich southern Iraq.
If we have any hope of turning the tide in Iraq, our strategy must negate those threats. Diplomatic appeasement won’t work. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who run the show in Tehran will only be emboldened and intensify their efforts to dominate the region and destroy those who stand in their way.
Instead, it’s time for a concerted effort to isolate, counter and help the Iranian people take down that regime from within.
To do so, we need to adapt theCold War strategy Ronald Reagan used to destroy the Soviet Union. It is an urban legend that Reagan brought down “the Evil Empire” by negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev.
Nonsense. In fact, Reagan systematically cut off the USSR’s funding, empowered its opponents and thwarted its military programs. Similarly, we should use political, financial and intelligence tools to enable the mullahs’ domestic opponents to undermine their power.
An enemy is an enemy, and pretending it’s not is a self-destructive act. Munich and Chamberlain comparisons are, once again, very apt. Those who say that Iran can’t hurt us because they are militarily weak ignore the fact that they are already hurting us through asymmetrical warfare and propaganda, and that they are pursuing a path that will give them atomic weapons for blackmail or actual use.
I’ve written before about the futility of talking with this particular enemy. But now I’m curious to understand what motivates those who advocate such talk in the face of overwhelming evidence of its futility and its danger. My current hypothesis is that it’s another example of the progress we’ve made in the West (which I wrote about yesterday): our own society has become so relatively peaceful, benign, and cooperative that many have lost sight of the fact that reason is not always possible–and that tyranny and cruelty, and lust for power and control, exist on a scale (in other nations such as Iran) that would make any fears about BushHitler, the Patriot Act, wiretapping, Guantanamo, and all the other myriad charges the Left has against the Bush Administration (trumped up or otherwise) seem like a walk in the proverbial park.
Among other things I’ve done in my life, I was briefly a divorce mediator. It sounded like a great idea, and sometimes it is: get the warring parties to sit down , away from those lawyers who stir things up and often lead to an even more adversarial climate, and have the couple talk it out together. After all, these people are married, and once loved each other, right? Surely they would have the ability to agree to things that, after all, are in their best interests to solve by themselves?
And I quickly learned the first rule of divorce mediation. As far as I know I’m the person who originated it, so I’ll state it here: if divorce mediation works, the couple usually didn’t need a mediator in the first place; they could have done it themselves with only the help of a booklet explaining the laws of their state. Oh, it’s nice to have a little guidance to keep things on track, but it’s not really all that necessary in most cases, and it costs money.
But there are always a number of cases–and the number is not small–where divorce mediation not only does not work, but leads to greater turmoil and/or inequity. If the bitterness is too huge, it affords the couple the opportunity to engage in more and more vicious exchanges to no avail, whereas dealing with lawyers at least gets them out of each others’ faces. And in particular, if there’s a differential of power, or any sort of abusive situation (and sometimes that’s a thing the mediator cannot determine at the outset), mediation can lead to a far less equitable solution, one in which the weaker party gets a manifestly unjust settlement, despite the pretense of biparty acquiescence.
The divorce mediation situation, of course, is hardly analogous to talking with Iran. But it’s an example of the limits of conversation, despite a firm belief in its power. And talking with an enemy such as Iran, where there is no common ground for agreement and no common goals, is far far worse. At stake are not just the assets and children of a married couple–which, of course, are important–but the future of millions of people, of history.
Chamberlain had an excuse, he didn’t have the example of Munich before him. What’s ours?
[ADDENDUM: To those who mentioned the precedent of talking with the USSR, I replied in the comments section, and am reproducing my reply here:
The USSR and the US agreed on some common goals. They didn’t want to blow each other to kingdom come, for starters. The USSR was a secular government (not a religious one) interested in power in this world, not matyrdom in the next. They also cared at least somewhat about the welfare of their people, if only as a demonstration of the superiority of their system.
None of that is true of Iran. There is no common ground for a talk. If by “talk” you mean threats with a big stick to back them up, I’m all for talking. But that’s not what these particular talks would be about. The talks that are proposed right now are to elicit Iran’s cooperation in covering a planned retreat from Iraq, to “stabilize” the country. The only stabilization Iran is interested in there is stabilization under Iran’s thumb, and they will say anything and do anything to get it. Thus talks are inherently duplicitous and counterproductive.]
Well done, Neo. A breath of sanity in an insane world.
Munich may have been given talking a bad name, but it’s a fact that Hitler talked to Stalin, and the US talked to Stalin, not once, but several times. We also talked with Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and the rest of the Kremlin leadership many times. Since 1971, we have had an incessant dialogue with Mao and Chou En Lai and their successors also many, many times. Not only that, but we talked to the Chinese and the Russians when they were actively supporting the Vietcong and the North Koreans (e.g., Pueblo incident.)
Now, it may be that none of the above individuals (save Hitler) was an “implacable enemy” of the US, or “crazy” or lacking “common ground” (I wonder what our common ground with China and the USSR was.) But the above list, which is a short off the top of my head list, was responsible for more deaths than Hitler, or, for that matter, Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, or Ahmadenijad, combined.
I am a bit surprised at this current right-wing chorus that insists that we must not talk to Syria and Iran. We have talked to much worse tyrants over the years.
Pete wrote this yesterday and would appear that here is correct judging
by Neos topic for today. Talk is useless she says again. Give me more killing she says again.
“Neo keeps ringing the same bell which is: You don’t want our country to be viewed as weak do you? So kill kill kill!
It does not matter to Neo that we are killing and being killed for no good reason. She has given up on trying to convince anybody that such reasons exist. From here on out she will be appealing to American pride alone. This is always the end game for imperialism and it always fails.
The question for the rest of you is: How far do you want to go down that dead-end road?”
I normally agree with every post of yours. I am in fact a very big fan of this site, even though this is my first comment.
But, at least riddle me this: did Reagan not sit down with Gorby, the leader of our then-arch enemy, the USSR?
I would rather we not talk to Iran, but is talking with them all that bad of an idea, especially given the results Reagan had? Personally, I’d rather this administration not talk with Iran, and that it be done by diplomats a bit more seasoned in these affairs. This is not a vote of confidence on my part for Jimmy Carter, either, but our administration is not doing so well on the diplomatic front of late, and I don’t want Iran playing us for the fool, which they’re already doing with Iraq’s leaders.
You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him. (Leviticus 19:14-17.)
Sounds to me like an invitation to talk.
I am wondering what good it (talking) will do since BOTH parties believe that their political and religious positions are the right ones. Two side with such views can hardly come to any successful conclusion as how to behave in a restaurant let alone how their actions affect their respective countries.
There’s no harm in talking, provided we do so with duplicity and cunning in our hearts. Certainly, one resource in which this country richly endowed is gas bags.
Talking is a method. You talk in order to gain a concrete goal. Talking is not the goal.
We should talk with Iran: we should inform them that they must stop their nuclear program and quit supporting terror in Iraq. We can even offer them an incentive: not having their petroleum infrastructure destroyed.
Or we could be frankly cowards and talk about what we can give them to leave us alone.
But talking isn’t an end in itself and cannot bring peace. We must know what we want and what we are willing to do or give up to achieve it.
Reagan’s message was, if you don’t sit down and talk with me Gorby, my missiles are going to blow your people to hell and they ain’t coming back.
What reason does Iran have for talking to us?
With all the leaks coming from the Baker boys and the State Department, you bet Bush can’t get any diplomatic game plan going before it still borns.
I would talk with Iran. First thing I would say is if they don’t give us back our F-14s, we are going to launch unrestricted submarine warfare on their oil tankers, oil rigs, and any other oil infrastructure in the Gulf.
Au Contraire —
In order to Humiliate “Talkers” at home and in the EU…
More Talk is the ticket, particularly with Hitler’s deformed stepchildren in Iran …
So that when the Blietzcrieg starts from Tehran to Saudi, Tehran to Bahrain, Tehran to aid Damascus/Hezbollahland Lebon, Chamberlain and Wilson can resign once again … this time in the EU.
The USSR and the US agreed on some common goals. They didn’t want to blow each other to kingdom come, for starters. The USSR was a secular government (not a religious one) interested in power in this world, not matyrdom in the next. They also cared at least somewhat about the welfare of their people, if only as a demonstration of the superiority of their system.
None of that is true of Iran. There is no common ground for a talk. If by “talk” you mean threats with a big stick to back them up, I’m all for talking. But that’s not what these particular talks would be about. The talks that are proposed right now are to elicit Iran’s cooperation in covering a planned retreat from Iraq, to “stabilize” the country. The only stabilization Iran is interested in there is stabilization under Iran’s thumb, and they will say anything and do anything to get it. Thus talks are inherently duplicitous and counterproductive.
Not only what neo said, but more often than not the “talk” ended up being one sided. That is the USSR agree to missle reduction or some such thing then not do it while the US tended to follow the agreement.
Of course, we could afford to do so – we had way more than they did. However, that didn’t solve a blasted thing. And if it had come to real war (something that Russia vehemently did not want, unlike Iran), it would have been a terrible action.
We won the cold war by outspending and out manufacturing them. In order to keep up with us they had to starve their people until they finally revolted.
*shrug* I still think people are going to have to touch the pot to see that it is hot. That is unfortunate, but I do believe it is the truth. Amusingly enough we now have Reagan winning the Cold War (something vehemently denied for ages) to further their argument coupled with trying to get us to believe that Iran offers our military no threat because they are not strong enough while simultaneously fielding such a competent force in Iraq that we have no hope of winning. Of course, the common theme in the whole thing is “my conclusion is correct” with each one having different reasons to support it – many time the reasons being mutually exclusive.
You are right on! Talking with Iran/Syria is a waste of time and allows Iran/Syria to continue fighting us.
Neo: Thank your responding. I would still demur.
What people talk about when they talk is dominance, spheres of influence, and, yes, in some cases, getting rid of minorities. Hitler was the worst at this, of course, but Stalin was almost as bad, at several points before WW2 and of course in the WW2 conferences with FDR and Churchill. I mean there’s certainly a precedent for supping with the devil.
Of course Syria and Iraq have interests. The key is whether they want to discuss those interests rationally. I don’t think Assad is crazy and I don’t think Ahmadenijad is crazy either, althought I hasten to add he is more a figure-head than anything else.
But I would talk to Syria and Iran, and see just how rational they are. For one thing, SOMEBODY has to keep the peace in Persian Gulf. Obviously, the US and EU are not up to it. Certainly, as we hear again and again, the US can do anything. But the POINT is that the American people don’t want to keep the keepers of the peace over there.
So, why not cut to the chase and let the Syrians take responsibility for the Sunnis, and Iran take responsibility for the Shiites? You can say, well, they wouldn’t agree to that. Oh, really? If/when we leave, it will not be in the interests of either country to have a chaotic state on their borders.
No doubt they will make counter-demands on us. Probably about Israel. But Israel isn’t going to be abandoned, and Israel can’t be forced to acknowledge their responsibility to improve the condition of the Palestinians they essentially control. The Israelis are doing that themselves, albeit slowly.
A comment, Neo;
You wrote:
Actually, exactly that was probably suggested and discussed in the British war cabinet in May 1940, during the height of the Allied debacle and the Nazi Blitzkrieg into the west. See this book and this review for more on the story.
Now I would expect someone to counter that the ruling elites in Syria and Iran are crazy and genocidal. I’d like to see the evidence for that. The only evidence I have seen so far is that Ahmadenijad has a propensity for making tactless and mocking remarks about how Israel is going under, comments not much different than Khrushchev’s shoe-thumping excoriation “We will bury you!”
Are Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents? Of course they are. And so are the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Russians, and probably several dozen other nations and interest groups. Why not? It makes the sole remaining superpower look stupid and weak, and it prevents us from invading any other countries.
Maybe one can still object to making deals with these guys. But the alternative is simply to widen the war, and the US hasn’t committed the resources or the people to do that, and the American people aren’t buying it.
I also think we ought not to be so presumptuous about the dynamic that may emerge from talks. I say, let them happen, see what they’re willing to put on the table, see what they want from us, and go from there. If we meet with them and blow us off, then regroup.
(…)
If you negotiated with Iran, what concessions would you be prepared to make in order to avoid the ultimate confrontations? If you are going to concede to the regimeé‚’s despotic rule and violations of human rights at home in return for their stopping to sponsor terrorism abroad, then you have failed to uphold the very moral and humanitarian principles of democracy and human rights and shot yourself in the foot. The regime will declare a victory over the USA; it will carry on its atrocities against the Iranians; and will have plenty of time to develop the dreadful atomic bomb they so badly strive for. In any case, the Islamic regimeé‚’s fundamental determination is a global Islamic rule. It is on that basis they thrive and it is on that basis they rule. The regime, under the banner of global Islam that will save the world, has managed to collect a few terrorist supporters and apologists
(…)
The West cannot do a Libya with the Islamic regime, because the Islamic regime is not a one-man dictatorship. There are too many Ayatollahs each one of them with a huge ego. Ruling Iran is not enough for them. They have to go beyond the Iranian boarders. The regime pays more attention to its foreign interventions and policies than the domestic issues. When two parties in a dispute come to a position of negotiation, in my experience, they have reached a position where they see a good chance of losing the dispute in the final confrontation. The parties then prepare an agenda for negotiations and make a list of items they are prepared to make some concessions on. In this case, it is hard to believe that the Islamic regime will be prepared to concede to stopping sponsoring terrorism and halting its nuclear activities and the reason is this: their Islam is a global ideology and it is incompatible with democracy and human rights as we know them. The fanatical Muslims who follow this version of Islam are bonded together in a brotherhood that obliges them to support each other whenever and wherever and which goes beyond borders. It is inconceivable that the Islamic regime not only will not support the Muslims who are fighting the Western values to establish their own democratically and human rights incompatible principles around the globe, but also identify and hand them to the authorities. Such concession by the Islamic regime will be regarded as the greatest betrayal by all Muslims around the world.
…
In conclusion, I’d like to ask our beloved “Realists”,proponents of “engaging” with Iran and Syria, why do they think that it’s against Iran and Syria’s interests to see chaos next door? Do they really think the Iranians and Syrians would rather have a strong and potential hostile competitor,Iraq on their border, especially one allied with the United States? The very existence and survival of their regimes rest upon creating unending external chaos to divert the attention of their citizens from their miserable failure.
They’
They’re happy to see the U.S. cut and run so they can claim victory against the great satan and use the oil money in Iraq to finance the establishment of their caliphate through Karbala all the way to Juresalem.
Iran extends $1 billion line of credit to Iraq
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/16129211.htm
There’s nothing wrong with talking as long as we go into it determined to make not one, single, slightest concession about anything. And stick to it.
There is nothing we can concede that will not be strategically damaging to us. Either it will be real, and really damaging, or it will be minor and trumpeted to the ME that the US caved and the islamofascists emboldened.
Come to think of it, even agreeing to talk will be sold as a victory for the bad guys, which will cost us in real terms.
Uh, has anyone, Baker or the State Dep’t, ever read the Koran? Especially the parts which condone lying to your enemy in order to get an advantage? As far as I’m concerned, we’re in the dark until we actually understand the tenets that these muslim fundies live by. Talking is just masturbation on our part.
We’ve always been at war with East Asia. We were never at war with Oceania.
We are not at war with Iran and there is no evidence against them of any wrongdoing.
Neo is a Likudnik shill who wants more blood spilt.
Humor Break:
It’s all about reaching a deal. It’s the point of talking. The deal is there and it’s not going to get better but it might get worse. An agreement will be settled soon. What we can discuss is boring speculation. Keep a Babe Ruth in the glove box and a sippy cup – old juice new juice it won’t matter.
Proponents of “engaging” Iran and Syria argue that it’s against their interests to see chaos next door. As opposed to what? They probably think they’re better off today than they would be if they had a strong and potentially hostile Iraq on their border, especially one allied with the United States. They’re happy to see the U.S. bled dry and Iraq immobilized as a regional player.
Given that mind-set, we would have to offer Syria and Iran some mighty enticing carrots to get them to cooperate in a U.S.-led rescue effort for Iraq. Tehran would most likely demand, at a minimum, a guarantee that we would do nothing to foster regime change in Iran or stop its nuclear program.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, for his part, would most likely seek an end to the international tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri because any trial would probably implicate Syrian officials. Naturally, Assad would also demand that no independent investigation be conducted into last week’s assassination of Lebanese Cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel, which likewise has Syrian fingerprints all over it. In addition, he would seek to reestablish Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, which Syria refuses to admit is a separate country. Oh, and for dessert, he’d also like the Golan Heights back from Israel.
Are these wishes that Washington could or should accommodate? Do we want to betray the democratic revolution in Lebanon? Do we want to give Iran’s loony president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, carte blanche to build nuclear weapons? And all in return for dubious promises that may not make any difference in Iraq?
Hard to believe, but those who advocate negotiations under such circumstances are known as “realists.” A real realist would realize that Syria and Iran are only likely to accommodate the U.S. when they’re afraid of us. Iran played a constructive role in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and Syria scuttled out of Lebanon in 2005 under strong pressure. Now, however, we would be bargaining from a position of weakness, not strength.
We are on the verge of defeat in Iraq. Our enemies have no interest in bailing us out, unless the cost is prohibitive.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot29nov29,0,5922386.column?coll=la-news-columns
Steve: So, why not cut to the chase and let the Syrians take responsibility for the Sunnis, and Iran take responsibility for the Shiites? You can say, well, they wouldn’t agree to that. Oh, really? If/when we leave, it will not be in the interests of either country to have a chaotic state on their borders.
No doubt they will make counter-demands on us.
I’m sure they’d agree. They would rightly consider it an amazing victory and it would rightly be regarded as a decisive defeat for the US and a complete betrayal of the Iraqi people. I can’t even imagine making this one of our demands; it is easily a tremendous concession.
As I see, America now is not scared enough. In its lizard’s brain fear and anger are in balance, so the decision “fight or run” can not be made. So all these time-wasting non-actions. But I am sure that our common enemies soon will resolve this impasse and scare Red America enough so it will begin fight back. After this escalation will build momentum and coerce idiots in State Department do at last what was badly needed even four years ago.
Here’s the thing about “talking”: there has to be something to talk about. That means, in particular, that there has to something that each party wishes to gain from the talks. Now, notice how this, just by itself, benefits the side willing to hurt the other side in some way — the side doing the hurting simply says let’s talk about how much you’ll give me to get me to stop, and the side being hurt certainly appears to have an interest in giving something up in order to get them to stop. I say “appears to have” because it’s readily apparent that this is an unstable situation — after you’ve given up one thing, the process can be easily repeated to induce you to give up another thing. Until you’ve given up, effectively, everything.
But notice how the process stabilizes if the side doing the hurting is itself hurt: now both sides have an inducement to talk — precisely about how they can both end the hurt.
Which means that the time to talk to Iran (and/or Syria) is after we begin to bomb them — then what we can talk about is ending the bombing once they end their support for the Iraq insurgents.
Napoleon estimated moral to material ratio as 1 to 3. Tolstoy in “War and Peace” gave another estimate: moral is all that counts. So if engagement in fighting gives your enemy an advantage, avoid it; if it hurts you less then your enemy, give the battle. (At least, so he explained Kutuzov’s behavior, with approval.) Now US has overwhelming advantage in material, so Tolstoy’s maxima is clearly true: WOT is contest of wills, and moral is the only thing which counts. As I see, talks with crazy dogs only humiliate US and boost enemy moral, while you should bust, not boost it. I already quoted an Iddish saying: “Scribe mit a Hund a Dogovor” – so it would not bite you. A very stupid move, especially when the dog is rabid.
Talking to them. It’s enough to make you believe there is an allah, for the idea is so impossibly stupid it could only have been planted by malevolent supernatural forces. Those whom the gods would destroy….
On the other hand, perhaps America needs to drink this cup in order to vomit out the cowards and fools who lead us for once and for all.
First off Sally you might want to produce some evidence that Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency before you even consider bombing them.
Then you’d have to consider that you’ve been threatening Iran for god knows how long – even serious dicussion whether or not to nuke them – and of course you’ve illegally attacked and occuppied a neighbouring country.
Then consider you’ve provided arms – including an undeclared nuclear arsenal – to a country that has repeatedly attacked it’s neighbours without any doubt whatsoever. And then you’d consider that Iran has never -not once – attacked another country except in direct self-defense.
And then you’d probably not being going to bomb Iran because that would instigate a much broader war – even in all likelyhood provoking a global conflict surpassing the ME.
And eventually you’ll end up talking.
Whether you like or not, Sally.
But, hey, being a complete mentalcase, your certainly allowed to dream, my dear..
To be fair to you Sally – your probably considering the fact that the U.S, being the criminal state in this situation, doesn’t really have anything to talk about.
I mean lets face it – under Bush at least it’s all about empty threats.
Sure, he went after a regime that would the Canadian military could have taken out in a day or two.
But as stupid as the man may seem – he ain’t going to risk it all attacking somebody who can shoot back – I mean, c’mon girl!
Even if poor little Sally is so scared of the Persian Hitler and his big plans to wipe out all the Joos of the world…..grrrrrrrrrrr…..
When I grew up in The Bronx, there were street gangs. You mostly stayed away from them, and, if you really had to, you fought with them. But I never remember anyone saying, “Gee, maybe if we just talk with them …”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEyMmY0YTJkMzZjZGNiY2ZiMzE4NWIyNjliMjQ4MDQ=
From where this belief in the supernatural power of “talk” came anyway, some new age book?
Naw Zeno. It came from a basic human desire. Procrastination. Delays. Excuses. I don’t want to do it, so I’ll cook up a reason why I shouldn’t and don’t have to.
Sergey has got it right, anyone who has studied military history knows about the moral to physical ratio, not just from Napoleon the Frenchy but also Sun Tzu.
We have been talking to them, and they to us; just at a distance, and through intermediaries (that we know of, e.g. the media, and channels with content that we don’t know of). The result to us, over almost 30 years, is nil, zip, nada.
The cardinal rule of negotiation is that BOTH parties must have the will to move from their asserted positions to a more common ground. If that is true for only one of the parties, the win-lose outcome is known pre-negotiation. Negotiation is therefore way more in Iran’s interest than ours.
We must accept that evil exists, and recognize it when it appears; apparently harder for secularists to do.
But one doesn’t do deals with evil; ask Dr Faustus!
So, as usual, I’m with you, Neo-neocon.
My favorite gag from “Fifth Element” is when hero has destroyed the whole gang of aliens, some guy asks him: “Where have you learned to perform talks this way?”
Mr. Bush’s critics is his refusal to hold higher-level, higher-profile talks with Iran and Syria that would amount to a public-relations windfall for these regimes. They disregard the fact that the Bush administration — like many of its predecessors — has tried time and again to resolve differences with Tehran and Damascus at the most senior levels. With both governments, the result has been a nearly unbroken series of diplomatic failures dating back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=11&d=30&a=6
Then consider you’ve provided arms – including an undeclared nuclear arsenal – to a country that has repeatedly attacked it’s neighbours without any doubt whatsoever. And then you’d consider that Iran has never -not once – attacked another country except in direct self-defense.
And then you’d probably not being going to bomb Iran because that would instigate a much broader war – even in all likelyhood provoking a global conflict surpassing the ME.
Other countries, including Germany and France, provided more arms to Iraq than America ever did.
In any case, you contradict yourself when you say:
Sure, he went after a regime that would the Canadian military could have taken out in a day or two.
But as stupid as the man may seem – he ain’t going to risk it all attacking somebody who can shoot back – I mean, c’mon girl!
I assume that the former is Iraq, and the latter is Iran? Iran nearly decimated its population in an effort to wipe out the regime that the “Canadian military could have taken out in a day or two.” Iran is weak, Iraq was weak. The Canadian military could probably take out most of the armies in the Middle East in a day or two. Only Israel and Hezbollah have real military strength.
The Iraq war was waged in a futile effort to maintain stability in an unstable area. Iran’s empowerment upsets whatever small shreds of stability remain in the middle east. If we don’t bomb Iran, someone else will, and yes it will be a mess.
There are a few ways that the mess could be avoided, but, given the intransigent attitudes of most people in all governments, the Middle East is probably toast.
Talking with the Iranians and the Syrians, joining hands and singing realist kumbaya is the express lane towards total war, but the slower route of realpolitik/democracy building will probably lead to the same place. However, at least it has some exits every few miles.
Khomeini’s Manifest Destiny being Fulfilled
Translation of the words in the bubble: The Road to Jeursalem Passes Through Karbala (a city in Iraq) Quods=Jeursalem Source
Appeasers of all stripes argue that Iran has not invaded any country in over 250 years. Iranian ambassador to the United Nation, Javad Zarif, reitratred this falsehood with no reporters challenging him while he was speaking to reporters on March 29, 2006 at UN headquarters in New York.
The fact is one of the goals Khomeini set out for his “Islamic Government” (his Mein Kampe) was to recapture Jerusalme for Islam (Qudos in Persian). To accomplish this goal, he did not accept Sadam Hossein’s offer to end of hostilities in the first two years of the Iran-Iraq war.
Once defeated and driven out of Iran Sadam hossein with the help of other Arabian countries offered to pay war reparation amounting to billions of dollars, enough to load thousands of elephants, horses, and camels.
Khomeini often talked about uniting Sunnies and Shias. Khomeini had grand plans, including expanding his empire to Jerusalam, for Islam, and repeatedly said the war is going to continue even if it takes twenty years. Ayetollah khomeini dreamed of a 20,000.000 army. You would often hear in those days was that the “PATH TO JERUSALEM PASSES THROUGH KARBALA (a major city in Iraq).
To reach Jerusalam, after conqeuring Iraq, Khomeini would have had to attack or at least bring into the war other countries namely Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Palestine. The fact that he was defeated does not diminish the fact that he intended to liberate (i.e. invade) Palestine, and free it from the occupying “Zionist regime”.
Many appeasers, Iranians or Americans on the left, want us to believe that the regime in Iran has maintained friendly relations with its neighbors but that is not true. Once the flame of war starts, it will spread quickly as everyone knows and that certainly was true with the Iran-Iraq war. In June 1984, Iranian and Saudi Arabian jet fighters were involved in an aerial battle, where one or two Iranian jets were destroyed. During the same periodKuwaiti oil facilities and tankers were attacked and destroyed by Iranians, and overall hundreds of ships belonging to several countries were also attacked and damaged during the Tanker War.
In July 31,1987 Iranian pilgrims in Mecca tried to stage a political demonstration against the rulers of Saudi Arabia who were allies of Iraq. Security forces used firearm and over 400 Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and citizens of other countries were killed. The following day about one million people demonstrated in Tehran, and attacked Saudi Arabia and Kuwait’s embassies and demanded the overthrow of their rulers. Meanwhile the Saudi’s were issuing the sternest warnings that they would not tolerate any violation of their territories or interference in their domestic affairs.
In the same period Iran and Pakistani backed Taliban nearly e
In the same period Iran and Pakistani backed Taliban nearly entered into a war when Afghanis killed nine Iranian diplomats and officials in 1988.
So, the argument that Iran historically has had friendly relations with its neighbors is ludicrous. It wasn’t there with (clockwise) the Russians when we lost a good chunk of Persia to them and were occupied by them under Stalin, it wasn’t there when we fought the Afghans under Mahmud and lost our claim to it when they were under the British, it wasn’t there with the Pakistanis (India), not there with the Persian Gulf countries (Bahrain and Oman), and not there with the Ottomans (Turkey), and we were definitely not friendly with the Iraqis.
Is Iran fulfilling Khomeini’s manifest destiny? It certainly appears that way if the so-called ‘realists’ get their way.
http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/
Iran Foments Civil War in Iraq Utilizing Hizballah
NY Times reports that evidence has emerged indicating the extent of cooperation between the Mahdi Army in Iraq, Hezbollah and Iran,”Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.”
Moktada al-Sadr’s forces have deployed to Lebanon in large numbers (1000-2000) for training with Hezbollah and Hezbollah has sent advisors to Iraq.
Again, this is illustrative of Iran fulfilling it’s core ideological and hegemonic “manifest destiny”. The Iranian regime’s constitution clearly states the need to “build an ideological army capable of expanding the sovereignty of the law of allah over the entire world.” To this end, the regime has used any means at its disposal, from supporting terrorist groups and religious extremism to interfering in regional countries’ internal affairs.(Lebanon, Iraq, Hamas somalia, etc.)
http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com
The December 11 and 12 international gathering aims to “create opportunities … for a suitable scientific research so the hidden and unhidden angles of this most important political issue of the 20th century become more transparent,” said a statement on the Iranian foreign ministry’s website.
The gathering, titled “Study of Holocaust: A Global Perspective”, has been scheduled to coincide with international Human Rights Day on December 10.
================
noted white supremacist David Duke(PhD) will also be in attendance…
In 1974, David Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.In 1978, Duke left the Klan and two years later formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP). In September 2005, Duke received a Ph.D. title in History from the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP).
FOR MORE INFO……http://www.duke.org/
================
Human memory is a marvelous but fallacious instrument. The memories which lie within us are not carved in stone; not only do they tend to become erased as the years go by, but often they change, or even increase by incorporating extraneous features. -Primo Levi
================
Let’s see how many Iranians speak out against this event. How many will foam at the mouth, or write op-ed pieces denouncing this disgusting event.
http://samiramohyeddin.blogspot.com/
Colin Powell says:
“Iran is a regional power and it will have to be dealt with. We should find ways to speak to them and also speak to the Syrians.”
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-12-01T110948Z_01_L01374566_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-IRAN-POWELL.xml
Does that seem “demented and deluded” to you?
Why don’t you back your analysis of Iranian history up at least another 20 years to get some clues as to why we have trouble over there?
Or do an analysis of President Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American People. They, it seems, are not afraid to talk with us.
“Not afraid to talk to us” is meaningless. Talking is a means not an ends, it is the ends, the intentions, that are meaningful.
I forget but didn’t that letter have buried in it the “call to Islam” which puts a definite slant on their dialog. Scratch that if I am confusing his letter to Bush.
Just is lieing about lieing. How’s that for a house full of mirrors?
Sergey is a riot. I’ll take 5 Sergeys for one Justa, please. Where’s my quantum duplication at anyways?
I don’t see what harm can come from talking to Iran.
And talk, unlike nation-building, is very cheap…
justaguy sounds like an operative to me. He is focused and impervious to facts.
Mary, Saddam’s Iraq attacked Iran on US/Saudi behalf. Bought and paid for. US even assisted militarily, destroying oil infrastructure and shooting down a civilian airliner as a ‘warning’
The reasons why Iraq attacked Iran are irrelevant – the point is, both armies are very weak, like most Arab/Muslim armies. The Syrian army, the Saudi army, etc. – all could be defeated with very little effort by any reasonable Western Army. Even New Zealand could do it if they tried.
mary – I read your reply – Iraq attacked Iran, the only country in the ME with nuclear weapons is Israel, and Hezbollah and Israel are not the only military strength in the region and Hezbollah is small Lebanese militia with some arms support from Iran.
You should expand your sources somewhat, honey….
Iran is not weak – Iraq was. Iraq is in chaos and and out of control of U.S forces – after 12 years of crippling sanctions and regular bombing of it’s infrastructure during the same period. Iran is a military power in the region – it does not possess advanced weapons systems anywhere near that of Israel or the U.S – but if you were watching this past summer a militia with at maximum about 40 000 soldiers kicked the shite out of the invading Israeli army – stuffed to the tits with enough equipment to arm Iran and Iraq twice over.
Which is why people like neo and the crew shouldn’t be where your getting your info from – simply because they don’t have any.
Give your head a shake man!
“a militia with at maximum about 40 000 soldiers kicked the shite out of the invading Israeli army”
Only because they weren’t willing to do what would be necessary to defeat that militia: kill a hell of a lot of civilians. Your second sentence “stuffed to the tits with enough equipment to arm Iran and Iraq twice over” illustrates my point. Had Syria, Iraq, or Iran decided to destroy that militia, hypothetically, using the same military might as Israel, would that militia have survived?
“Only because they weren’t willing to do what would be necessary to defeat that militia: kill a hell of a lot of civilians”
I know you get a very proIsrael media bias in the US, but there comes a point where there is no excuse for this sort of ignoramce. Little wonder the neocons are having journalists gaoled, killed and threatened.
Yo Justafag,
Human shields dude … hiding among the women and children. You know little kids that like to idolize their fathers and play with their friends? Kids. Women. Innocent people. Big boom comes and they all fall down. It’s a tactic that turns defeat into half a victory. It’s the circus that the world watches in a synthesis that is stuck in the general – and you have the nerve to be here all this time and still refuse to pursue the truth? Beneath bottom-feeding depths of contempt.
I think Israel needed to kill more of Hezbollah’s troops, not more civilians, Isaiah.
Yo Justafag,
. . .
Wasn’t Rummy’s head enough of a taste, pete?
“Just keep taking down my posts you coward. I’ve got more. Until you come out from behind the apple you will have no place in the American tradition of dialog. Terrorists hide in anonymity.”
God like aren’t you? This is really OTT, obsessive to the point of scary.
You were better at making lists.
Your heroic IDF uses human shields regularly and kills civilians intentionally. To steal arab land and water.
Don’t mind justaguy – his mind has been polluted by a conspiracy/hate/’news’ site down under.
Here’s another clip from Scoop- New Zealand:
I’ve learned a lot about both Israel and the United States in the last five years — most of which I fervently wish I didn’t know. I learned very quickly in the wake of 9-11 that the neoconservatives in the US claim an ideological right — the Zionists in Israel a theological right — to do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want, and those who question their increasingly bloody aggression are labeled “anti-American” or “anti-Semitic.” Those who protest are ostracized from both religious and patriotic society (not to be confused with “civilized” society) and are immediately bombarded with ridicule and vicious ad hominems. Some receive death threats. Some receive death.
I learned that there is a vast difference between Jews, or people of Israel, and the warmongering Zionists who control the state of Israel, just as there is between most American citizens and the cowardly neo-fascist chickenhawks who control the United States. The people of both regimes cry out against the barbaric genocide and ethnic cleansing perpetrated in their name — they shriek, they march in protest, but the world media pushed the “mute” button long ago, and no sound emerges from the weeping masses…
…The current conflict raging in the Middle East has less to do with self-defense or protecting the homeland than with zionist politics, Christo-fascist talking points and corporate media spin. It is a war of extermination — a carefully planned crusade for world dominion, and it has been simmering on US and Israeli back burners for decades…
What are you guys smoking down there, sheep dip?
pete: Kind of fighting upstream, aren’t you? While the tactic of insulting somebody until they’ll debate with you can be effective at times, it doesn’t work so well when they can simply delete your posts.
Well, at least your arguments will keep the crows away. Liked the list, though.
Justin,
I think of it as spitting into the wind.
The thing I don’t understand is if someone asked me to leave their home, their car, their blog, I would. It is an aspect of human decency that seems to have not reached the Net. Perhaps too many that we would never let in our homes inhabit the Net.
“While the arguments of the paleocon attract the maggots”
Is that why you stay, the attraction is too great to resist?
(I would give you a BZ for a good comeback if only it didn’t leave you wide open.)
The way I look at it, I am a guest here, so, I play by house rules. That means being polite to the hostess and toning the rhetoric down. Anyway, not toning the rhetoric down is a waste of time.
I suppose you can read. Did I not acknowledge just that in my post.
Uh, no. You indicated that you intended to keep trying. Your response to my post suggests that you missed my point in its entirety: I’m not sure it’s worth your effort to outlast her; if you can indeed outlast her.
Unless your post to which you are referring got deleted before I could see it, in which case I must confess I have no idea what it said.
Steve | 12.03.06 – 2:33 am
Exactly. No more no less.
Damn. I hit the button too soon.
No one has a right to comment here except at her pleasure. It’s her house, metaphorically, and we should respect that. It has nothing to do with courage or cowardice, but with what the guest owes the host.
Iraq is doomed to disintegrate. This is artificial state, carved by colonial powers after desintegration of Osman empire, without any consideration of natural ethnic and religious divides and in betrayal of previous promisses to create independent Kurdistan. The whole ME consists of such artificial states with arbitrary, non-negotiated borders. Kurds now are busy, they successfully build their independent state and can take Kirkuk in any day, but they do not want fight for it and wait political settlement. Would Saudi and Iran invade Arabic part of Iraq is an open question, but a major war can result if they would. But hardly US talks with Syria or Iran can deter them from invasion; but naval blockade or threat of this can.
Neo, full steam with the banning. These agent provacateurs no longer phase me, their game is predictable and I’ve seen it before. No longer am I surprised. Can’t get me to lose my cool if you don’t surprise me. So I do not say delete comments for my sake.
However, banning and deletion would be good for the peace of mind of some of your other commenters. They seem a mite too fired up in my view. True, they feel a righteous need to do the arguing, but I cannot help but think that it is a waste of energy, and that in the end, it will come to no constructive end.
Just my piece on whatever complaints on deletion that people come up with. Sounds like the echoing death rasps of terroists to my ears. Sweet and annoying.
Perhaps there’s something about the topic of Iran that makes people a little crazy:
We won’t be able to stabilize Iraq unless we stop Iran’s interference.
But there will never be support for an attack on Iran unless Iraq is first stabilized.
That’s some catch, maybe the best there is…
If you can’t get enough support to invade or bomb Iran. Then take a piece of Iran and say it is now Kurdish territory. Or do what always works. Say you got a piece of land. Anyone that can come in and protect it, gets it for free. Kurds are a good first choice. But others may apply.
neoneocon only tells us what not to do, but of course has no idea what TO do.Every policy she has supported has failed and every prediction she has made for two years has been wrong and yet she hesitates not one moment to throw more advice out. She truly would fit well into the Bush cabinet.And now it is “don’t talk” because talking is, what, some sort of trap? A sign of appeasement or weakness? A way to get contaminated with their “evil”?
I’ve been reading you a long time, Neo. At least subjectively in terms of the war.
I have never heard you advocate straight out, the iron fist way of fighting that I have advocated as I progressively learned more about war and its natures. You’ve spoken much about will and your belief that we have lost it, early on I believe. But I don’t think you did as Troutsky said. You’ve spoken about more need in America for the WWII era unity, but never about any specific tactics. Not until your recent posts, anyway. You don’t usually advocate a specific path, without talking about the alternatives or weighing the balance, Neo.
I can say summarily, that
Neo keeps her cards close to her vest, simply because I am trying to recall over the long period that I’ve been reading her blog, just exactly what her position was concerning Sadr and Fallujah and what not. I cannot recall, simply because while I know of what she was thinking about during those times, I do not know what result she settled upon, because Neo doesn’t usually “settle” upon any ONE solution or path. As with her two paths poem by Frost, she considers all options. That is her charm, as I see it, and her unique way of looking at things. The path is long, but the path she chooses dictates where she desires to go.
Iran is our Enemy?????
Iran is a puppet state of the western intelligence agencies.
I wonder if Iran was our sworn enemy when Reagan was trafficking WMD’s to Iran during the Iran-Contra scandal. Or when we were selling biological weapons to them during Iraqgate.
Neo…You are either woefully ignorant of history and the fact that Iran is just a puppet state of the military industrial complex…or you simply know this and choose to ignore it thinking it is irrelevant.
Please dont be ignorant of our past relations with Iran…Dont forget that the CIA in collaboration with MI6 installed the Shah and supported the Ayatollah (who was an extremist)
Everyone who has posted in support of bombing Iran completely ignores the fact that we have SOLD Iran a lot of weapons technologies…and entire weopons systems.
As far as trying to liken Iran to the Nazi threat….Keep in mind that Germany had the largest military in the world before WWII…IRANS GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
…CONTINUED…..IS SMALLED THAN THE PENTAGON’S BUDGET!!!!
Everyone who has posted in support of bombing Iran completely ignores the fact that we have SOLD Iran a lot of weapons technologies
So what?
We sold the Soviet Union a lot of weapons technologies during WW2, too, but that didn’t make them our friend during the Cold War.
I realize that this sort of point is lost on the fried brains of the contemporary left — and on the various Islamist collaborators who cynically manipulate such sheep — but the implication that if we once supplied weapons to a regime then we are unable to ever again oppose it in the future is such a stupid, and such a common, non sequitur that it’s still worth exposing.
David’s point is not that Iran cannot be dealt with because we whatever with them, his point is that Iran is a false flag operation of the US, in order to create a false enemy in order gain power inside the US. Sort of like blowing up Jews really.
Iran is a puppet state of the western intelligence agencies.
Whatever davidp’s “point” may be (assuming he actually has something as coherent as a point), my point is that this particular meme — the US once supported X and therefore can never be opposed to X — is both universal among lefties and ridiculously illogical on its face.
I remember watching the Glenn Beck show oncen and he had the former CIA Director under GHW Bush on to talk about the “threat” from Iran.
Wolsey and Beck rambled on and on about their leaders making threats toward Israel and the West…and their nuclear research…..So Glenn finally asked “So what should WE do now?” (Glenn was obviously trying to get Wolsey to say we should engage Iran militarily) Wolsey dodged the question at first, so Glenn asked the same question again…Wolsey responded “…MAINLY WE NEED TO GET OUT OF FOREIGN OIL”…I almost fell out of my chair, knowing that I just heard a Neocon on national television saying that we need to cut off our foreign policy that is heavily dependent on controlling one of the Earths most profitable assets-OIL.
Immediatley after Wolsey completed the above mentioned statement Glenn cut him off and moved onto a new segment of his program.
monky:
“I think Israel needed to kill more of Hezbollah’s troops, not more civilians”
And how exactly were they supposed to tell the difference, when rocket launchers were being placed in residences?
Not to mention they, Hezbollah, only wear uniforms in parades? This isn’t a WWII movie.