Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Jul 09, 2008 - 02:35 PM
![Iran's Shahab-3 missile being launched from an undisclosed location July 9, 2008. [AP]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/2008_0710_iran_bh_m.jpg)
Today, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns testified on U.S. policy toward Iran. We thought DipNote's readers would be interested in what Under Secretary Burns said:
"...I have no illusions about the grave dangers presented by the behavior of the Iranian regime, or the difficulties of changing that behavior. I am convinced that we cannot do it alone, and that a strong international coalition is crucial. Hard-nosed diplomacy, backed up by all the tools at our disposal and as much leverage as we and our partners can muster, is also an essential ingredient. As Secretary Rice said earlier this year, 'America has no permanent enemies, we harbor no permanent hatreds. Diplomacy, if properly practiced, is not just talking for the sake of talking. It requires incentives and disincentives to make the choice clear to those with whom you are dealing that you will change your behavior if they are willing to change theirs.'
That is the kind of approach that helped produce significant breakthroughs with Libya several years ago, including its abandonment of terrorism and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is the kind of approach that is beginning to produce results in our multilateral diplomacy with North Korea. It may or may not produce results on Iran, with whom we have had a relationship burdened by deep-seated grievances and suspicions, and a long history of missed opportunities and crossed signals. But it is important for us to try, bearing in mind that our audience is not only the Iranian regime, but also the Iranian people and the wider international coalition we are seeking to reinforce. At a minimum, it seems to me, it is important to create in this Administration as strong an international diplomatic mechanism as we possibly can to constrain Iranian behavior, on which the next Administration can build. Our choices are not going to get any easier in the months and years ahead, but they will be even more difficult if we don't use all our diplomatic tools wisely now."
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
John in Greece writes:
@ Zharkov,
I hope so too. We all hope they are not so crazy. The Bush Administration and Secretary Rice have also already proved that they hope too!
-- and U.S. keeps on trying, no matter the difficulties concerning the diplomatic chaos of the other side they have faced for so many years.
According to my instinct -- I agree with Eric in New Mexico that we should follow our instincts -- neither U.S.A., or Israel, nor the rest of the Western World would like a "hot" conflict. Especially, when we talk about "nuclears".
The "Day after" is a "bad" movie!
The Secretary of State made -- it's not the first time -- an extremely humanitarian, positive, peaceful, creative "statement-invitation" that the two countries can collaborate in various levels and can have extremely good relations and of course pure, healthy, perfect results for all sides. As I understood her words, she said (the meaning):
LET'S GO GUYS, in Iran, LET'S MAKE THINGS BETTER, LET'S CREATE! LET'S ALL LIVE TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR LIVES HAPPIER AND BETTER!
What the "priests" say?
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
@ Zharkov,
I hope so too. We all hope they are not so crazy. The Bush Administration and Secretary Rice have also already proved that they hope too!
-- and U.S. keeps on trying, no matter the difficulties concerning the diplomatic chaos of the other side they have faced for so many years.
According to my instinct -- I agree with Eric in New Mexico that we should follow our instincts -- neither U.S.A., or Israel, nor the rest of the Western World would like a "hot" conflict. Especially, when we talk about "nuclears".
The "Day after" is a "bad" movie!
The Secretary of State made -- it's not the first time -- an extremely humanitarian, positive, peaceful, creative "statement-invitation" that the two countries can collaborate in various levels and can have extremely good relations and of course pure, healthy, perfect results for all sides. As I understood her words, she said (the meaning):
LET'S GO GUYS, in Iran, LET'S MAKE THINGS BETTER, LET'S CREATE! LET'S ALL LIVE TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR LIVES HAPPIER AND BETTER!
What the "priests" say?
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
Two days ago I read an article that said Iran's leader was willing to concede a few points, though he didn't specify which, and continue negotiations. His tone was conciliatory. (though I'll be darned if I can find that article now)
This was a surprise to many people and I can't help but wonder what his motivations are. Especially when they reported to their people that they had "won" the negotiation by refusing to bend and that we had lost. My speculations:
1. They're playing for time.
or
2. They are baiting the US so if we refuse they cannot be held accountable for the further breakdown in relations.
or
3. They are attempting a balancing act. The middle east has always been in the precarious position of having to play to many powers, Russia, EU, neighboring countries, and the US. Though they have the support of Russia and are partnered in several organizations, they may be trying to court the US a little to reduce soviet influence. (or, in a deeper feint, they have been advised by Russia or neighbors to open relations and reduce tensions so as to not upset another larger strategy).
or
4. They've had a strategy shift. Either the terms were very enticing, they are buckling under internal or international pressure, they've reconsidered the ramifications of having our army at two sides, un-named saboteurs are inflicting heavy damage, Israel's itchy trigger finger, or some combination of these factors has caused them to change direction.
Personally, I think it's a combination of 1 and 2. Iran is a proud country, with a long long history. I doubt they would do anything that would cause them to lose face, to back track on such strong anti-American rhetoric and refusal to change course might cause that loss of face they fear. So I suspect there is something else going on. Despite what others say, I do not think Iran wants a confrontation- with anyone. They have a sizable plot of land, oil, and now all they want is to have the power to defend themselves and play at a larger table. It could be, wilder guess, that they already accepted the terms (or are going to) but now need, with cooperation from the US, a measure of time and posturing to save face and not to look weak in accepting the proposition.
Those are my thoughts, limited though they may be. Any one else see something in all this?
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
Two days ago I read an article that said Iran's leader was willing to concede a few points, though he didn't specify which, and continue negotiations. His tone was conciliatory. (though I'll be darned if I can find that article now)
This was a surprise to many people and I can't help but wonder what his motivations are. Especially when they reported to their people that they had "won" the negotiation by refusing to bend and that we had lost. My speculations:
1. They're playing for time.
or
2. They are baiting the US so if we refuse they cannot be held accountable for the further breakdown in relations.
or
3. They are attempting a balancing act. The middle east has always been in the precarious position of having to play to many powers, Russia, EU, neighboring countries, and the US. Though they have the support of Russia and are partnered in several organizations, they may be trying to court the US a little to reduce soviet influence. (or, in a deeper feint, they have been advised by Russia or neighbors to open relations and reduce tensions so as to not upset another larger strategy).
or
4. They've had a strategy shift. Either the terms were very enticing, they are buckling under internal or international pressure, they've reconsidered the ramifications of having our army at two sides, un-named saboteurs are inflicting heavy damage, Israel's itchy trigger finger, or some combination of these factors has caused them to change direction.
Personally, I think it's a combination of 1 and 2. Iran is a proud country, with a long long history. I doubt they would do anything that would cause them to lose face, to back track on such strong anti-American rhetoric and refusal to change course might cause that loss of face they fear. So I suspect there is something else going on. Despite what others say, I do not think Iran wants a confrontation- with anyone. They have a sizable plot of land, oil, and now all they want is to have the power to defend themselves and play at a larger table. It could be, wilder guess, that they already accepted the terms (or are going to) but now need, with cooperation from the US, a measure of time and posturing to save face and not to look weak in accepting the proposition.
Those are my thoughts, limited though they may be. Any one else see something in all this?
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ John in Greece, if you are correct, then diplomacy is useless and invasion and occupation of Iran is inevitable. I don't believe Iran's leaders are quite as crazy as you think.
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
@ John in Greece, if you are correct, then diplomacy is useless and invasion and occupation of Iran is inevitable. I don't believe Iran's leaders are quite as crazy as you think.
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
John in Greece writes:
@ Zharkov
Your comparison of U.S.A. and Israel to Iran is unrealistic. U.S.A. and Israel are organized, healthy Democracies full of "safety parliamentary valves", while Iran is a theocratic regime ruled by a small religious fanatic minority.
Nuclear weapons are a serious danger in the hands of fanatic "priests".
Besides, I don't understand your question "why do you think Iran attack Israel or America?". I do not say they will for sure, but from time to time we have heard plenty of "official" Iranian threats.
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
@ Zharkov
Your comparison of U.S.A. and Israel to Iran is unrealistic. U.S.A. and Israel are organized, healthy Democracies full of "safety parliamentary valves", while Iran is a theocratic regime ruled by a small religious fanatic minority.
Nuclear weapons are a serious danger in the hands of fanatic "priests".
Besides, I don't understand your question "why do you think Iran attack Israel or America?". I do not say they will for sure, but from time to time we have heard plenty of "official" Iranian threats.
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
For those who think Iran is a threat, Israel has an extimated 200 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver all of them - more than enough to finish off the Islamic Republic, and America has thousands of nukes ready for Mecca and Tehran.
The ayatollahs know this -- and they do appreciate their oil revenue, so tell us again -- in the absence of a first strike by Israel, why do you think Iran attack Israel or America? How can we justify under international law military aggression against Iran without proof of an NPT treaty violation?
Yes, we can violate our own principles and pull it off, but what will that blowback mean for us in the future? Will America later suffer a nuclear first strike because of some other nation's suspicions and guesswork about our secret intentions?
In case we fail to notice, the precedent cuts both ways. If we create new law by our actions, we will be subject to it later on.
Posted on Wed Jul 30, 2008
For those who think Iran is a threat, Israel has an extimated 200 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver all of them - more than enough to finish off the Islamic Republic, and America has thousands of nukes ready for Mecca and Tehran.
The ayatollahs know this -- and they do appreciate their oil revenue, so tell us again -- in the absence of a first strike by Israel, why do you think Iran attack Israel or America? How can we justify under international law military aggression against Iran without proof of an NPT treaty violation?
Yes, we can violate our own principles and pull it off, but what will that blowback mean for us in the future? Will America later suffer a nuclear first strike because of some other nation's suspicions and guesswork about our secret intentions?
In case we fail to notice, the precedent cuts both ways. If we create new law by our actions, we will be subject to it later on.
Posted on Wed Jul 30, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Kirk,
Anytime.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
@ Kirk,
Anytime.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Tehran, Iran, Jul. 28 -- Residents of the central Iranian city of Arak, famous as the site of a heavy-water reactor the authorities are building, held a protest last week against the government's suspected nuclear weapons projects, Iran Focus has learnt.
The Iranian opposition satellite station Simaye Azadi aired footage of the rally on Sunday following an apparent explosion at a petro-chemical factory in Arak.
The television station said it had received the footage from supporters of the main opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq.
"Nuclear energy = money in the pocket of the leader", the demonstrators chanted, in a reference to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Nuclear energy = killer of the people", they added.
Click here to watch to the video footage
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/
--end article--
I'm not one to support the MEK, being they are on Dept. of State's terrorist org list. But these folks did expose Iran's nuclear program to the world in 2002, and occasionally come up with some interesting intel.
If the above report is true, then public opinion in Iran is not as unified as Aminidijad claims, obviously.
Where's Greenpeace when you need them? Their environmental silence is deafening.
Iran's people are subject to radiation exposure through the same mechanisms of industrial exposure as are anyone else near a nuclear facility or uranium mining opperation, but the standards for safety in Iran are not comparable with nations who have learned the hard way about nuclear power and its health ramifications.
When one considers a statement made by Aminidijad to the effect that those who a going hungry in his country should choose Martyrdom as a solution to their hunger, it gives one pause for thought as to just how much concern for their people's welfare the leadership actually has.
Less than zero in my estimation.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Tehran, Iran, Jul. 28 -- Residents of the central Iranian city of Arak, famous as the site of a heavy-water reactor the authorities are building, held a protest last week against the government's suspected nuclear weapons projects, Iran Focus has learnt.
The Iranian opposition satellite station Simaye Azadi aired footage of the rally on Sunday following an apparent explosion at a petro-chemical factory in Arak.
The television station said it had received the footage from supporters of the main opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq.
"Nuclear energy = money in the pocket of the leader", the demonstrators chanted, in a reference to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Nuclear energy = killer of the people", they added.
Click here to watch to the video footage
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/
--end article--
I'm not one to support the MEK, being they are on Dept. of State's terrorist org list. But these folks did expose Iran's nuclear program to the world in 2002, and occasionally come up with some interesting intel.
If the above report is true, then public opinion in Iran is not as unified as Aminidijad claims, obviously.
Where's Greenpeace when you need them? Their environmental silence is deafening.
Iran's people are subject to radiation exposure through the same mechanisms of industrial exposure as are anyone else near a nuclear facility or uranium mining opperation, but the standards for safety in Iran are not comparable with nations who have learned the hard way about nuclear power and its health ramifications.
When one considers a statement made by Aminidijad to the effect that those who a going hungry in his country should choose Martyrdom as a solution to their hunger, it gives one pause for thought as to just how much concern for their people's welfare the leadership actually has.
Less than zero in my estimation.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Well Joe, as you seem to be coming from another planet...(seeing is believing, but I suppose anything is possible) LOL!
Is what it is, part of the archived record that was declassified about a decade ago.
Simply lends some context to US thinking in that era. If you can't appreciate it, it's not my problem...only your's.
Much less of a cartoon fantasy than most of your posts I might add, but you arn't here to have a reasonable discussion with me about this or any other subject, are you?
You get what you give brother....ain't no respect deserving for your "imput" if it's given with disrespect for other's.
Suggest you read up on the policies of discussion here, because I'm telling you "no mas" joe...no more. Next time get's my formal complaint to Dipnote, so I suggest you either not engage in little children's games with me, or simply grow up and get real.
Ultimatums come from being fed up to the eyeballs with the status quo. Not from weak diplomacy or strategic position....because the US doesn't "bluff". And neither do I.
So try patronizing someone else Joe, I'm not buying what your selling....
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Well Joe, as you seem to be coming from another planet...(seeing is believing, but I suppose anything is possible) LOL!
Is what it is, part of the archived record that was declassified about a decade ago.
Simply lends some context to US thinking in that era. If you can't appreciate it, it's not my problem...only your's.
Much less of a cartoon fantasy than most of your posts I might add, but you arn't here to have a reasonable discussion with me about this or any other subject, are you?
You get what you give brother....ain't no respect deserving for your "imput" if it's given with disrespect for other's.
Suggest you read up on the policies of discussion here, because I'm telling you "no mas" joe...no more. Next time get's my formal complaint to Dipnote, so I suggest you either not engage in little children's games with me, or simply grow up and get real.
Ultimatums come from being fed up to the eyeballs with the status quo. Not from weak diplomacy or strategic position....because the US doesn't "bluff". And neither do I.
So try patronizing someone else Joe, I'm not buying what your selling....
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
You guys believe in UFOs too?
Plenty of research on them too, maybe they left some new WMD in Iran -- or perhaps the Ruskies did!
Everyone wants to live, survival and prevailing is the end game, not elimination on a grand scale.
Ultimatums come from weak political or military positions.
Collect comic books? CIA reading room -- get realistic, do you actually think they would let the general public have actual knowledge that is nonbiased or could warp our overall objectives? One of the major functions of CIA and NSA is to protect that information-long and short term.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
You guys believe in UFOs too?
Plenty of research on them too, maybe they left some new WMD in Iran -- or perhaps the Ruskies did!
Everyone wants to live, survival and prevailing is the end game, not elimination on a grand scale.
Ultimatums come from weak political or military positions.
Collect comic books? CIA reading room -- get realistic, do you actually think they would let the general public have actual knowledge that is nonbiased or could warp our overall objectives? One of the major functions of CIA and NSA is to protect that information-long and short term.
Posted on Mon Jul 28, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico
Thank you very much! I am looking forward to what appears to be some illuminating reading. Thanks again.
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico
Thank you very much! I am looking forward to what appears to be some illuminating reading. Thanks again.
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Try these links Kirk,
http://www.iranian.com/History/Nov97/WWII/index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran521120.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran530320.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran530810.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran980600.pdf
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
Try these links Kirk,
http://www.iranian.com/History/Nov97/WWII/index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran521120.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran530320.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran530810.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran980600.pdf
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Kirk, It's been awhile, but let me do some digging through my email, and perhaps I can dig up the link to the information I found, then passed on.
You might try a site search on CIA's website, and see what comes up.
And then for background, try reading up on US lend lease aid to the Soviets, because Iran was the southern route the aid went through.
What will happen next? Anything's possible with a government on the brink of economic collapse, including pushing the US into a war to desperately try and solidify public support for the regime.
Let us hope they don't already have a device, because I think the Iranian government fully capable of martyring its own citizens by nuking Nantez themselves, just to make it look like a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US or Isreal.
May sound a little far fetched, but then I've put a lot of research into the regime, and if they thought they could get away with it, they would.
I leave it to your imagination to consider the hypothetical results of such an act.
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
@ Kirk, It's been awhile, but let me do some digging through my email, and perhaps I can dig up the link to the information I found, then passed on.
You might try a site search on CIA's website, and see what comes up.
And then for background, try reading up on US lend lease aid to the Soviets, because Iran was the southern route the aid went through.
What will happen next? Anything's possible with a government on the brink of economic collapse, including pushing the US into a war to desperately try and solidify public support for the regime.
Let us hope they don't already have a device, because I think the Iranian government fully capable of martyring its own citizens by nuking Nantez themselves, just to make it look like a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US or Isreal.
May sound a little far fetched, but then I've put a lot of research into the regime, and if they thought they could get away with it, they would.
I leave it to your imagination to consider the hypothetical results of such an act.
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico
Well, that does put the situation in an entirely different perspective. That's the problem with learning through things like wikipedia articles- you may get a good general history, some of it is even pretty in-depth, but it lacks the nuance that is require to really understand a situation, so I'm going to follow your lead and try to navigate past the topical information to get as close as I can to original statements, first hand observations, and the intel that doesn't make into the "polished" versions of the truth. In other areas of study, I usually get much better grasp of the subtleties after breezing past the top layer of info and start buying books by scholars (since I bought some of the books on the Foreign Affairs Professional Reading List, it looks like the next few weeks are going to be hip-deep in study. I'd be interested if you have any books you would recommend?). I've always had an interest in diplomacy and world affairs but it wasn't until very recently that I started following events closely and tried to use history to put it in context. It wasn't until a few months ago that I signed up for the automatic State Dept. emails, which has helped quite a bit, but with all of the issues going on and all the information one needs to read and digest to accurately understand them, I feel like I'm playing catch-up to all the folks who've had years, decades even, of study and reflection. Whew! Reading your assessments, as well as some of the other bloggers, has also really helped.
I followed those links you provided earlier in this thread and gave them a cursory glance, but I haven't had the chance to pour over the content as well as I'd like. But as it seems now, it looks like Iran is on the verge of collapse. I wonder what the next step the government is going to take...?
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico
Well, that does put the situation in an entirely different perspective. That's the problem with learning through things like wikipedia articles- you may get a good general history, some of it is even pretty in-depth, but it lacks the nuance that is require to really understand a situation, so I'm going to follow your lead and try to navigate past the topical information to get as close as I can to original statements, first hand observations, and the intel that doesn't make into the "polished" versions of the truth. In other areas of study, I usually get much better grasp of the subtleties after breezing past the top layer of info and start buying books by scholars (since I bought some of the books on the Foreign Affairs Professional Reading List, it looks like the next few weeks are going to be hip-deep in study. I'd be interested if you have any books you would recommend?). I've always had an interest in diplomacy and world affairs but it wasn't until very recently that I started following events closely and tried to use history to put it in context. It wasn't until a few months ago that I signed up for the automatic State Dept. emails, which has helped quite a bit, but with all of the issues going on and all the information one needs to read and digest to accurately understand them, I feel like I'm playing catch-up to all the folks who've had years, decades even, of study and reflection. Whew! Reading your assessments, as well as some of the other bloggers, has also really helped.
I followed those links you provided earlier in this thread and gave them a cursory glance, but I haven't had the chance to pour over the content as well as I'd like. But as it seems now, it looks like Iran is on the verge of collapse. I wonder what the next step the government is going to take...?
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Kirk,
In my reading of declassified CIA and Brit intel files regarding the removal of Mosaddeq, there are a number of factors that you may not be aware of that put more light on the context.
After ww2, both the UK and the US forced the Soviets to honor their wartime agreements to fully withdraw forces from Iranian territory. The Soviets were not happy about this.
The Soviets desired a warm water port and was looking to Iran to provide one. But the only way that would happen is if they were able to kick the UK out of Iran starting with its interests in oil fields the Brits had helped Iran develop. As for stealing the wealth, the Brits actually enabled Iran to become a major energy supplier through their investment in the physical infrastructure, and they were certainly entitled to a return on the investment. But the Iranians profited as well from this, and still are.
So I think that's the wrong way to describe UK or US intent, and the history.
The Soviets were using Mosaddeq for thier own strategic purpose, and what would have followed had he not been removed would have been a Soviet led campaign to assimilate Iran into the Soviet empire through political manipulation, not unlike what happened in Afghanistan in the early years just after the Taraki regime came into power..(post Zahir Shah, post Doud-Zahir Shah's cousin who was removed by Taraki with the help of Russia.
Instead of some Machivellian plan Kirk, what removing Mosaddeq actually accomplished was a fairly stable Iran, instead of one that may very well have ended up looking like the later years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, with a protracted civil war as a result. What has been described as "democratic" in Mosaddeq's rise was actually a concerted effort on the part of the Soviets to gain influence in Iranian affairs. As they did under Khomeni to a fair degree.
So, I have a slightly different take on the history than most, simply because I've read the source documentation.
People can be fooled and I agree that Iranians themselves had been on a number of occasions, especially in 79. Look at how the Taleban came into power in Afghanistan...carried photos of Zahir Shah with them promising to bring the King back to his people.
Iranians still have the problem of being caught in the middle between dysfunctional internal political agendas, and the national interests of world powers.
As I said in a previous post, the regurgitated talking point surrounding past history are a little boring to me.
Been over this particular subject many times with many people, and I encorage research as a means to seeing the truth.
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008
@ Kirk,
In my reading of declassified CIA and Brit intel files regarding the removal of Mosaddeq, there are a number of factors that you may not be aware of that put more light on the context.
After ww2, both the UK and the US forced the Soviets to honor their wartime agreements to fully withdraw forces from Iranian territory. The Soviets were not happy about this.
The Soviets desired a warm water port and was looking to Iran to provide one. But the only way that would happen is if they were able to kick the UK out of Iran starting with its interests in oil fields the Brits had helped Iran develop. As for stealing the wealth, the Brits actually enabled Iran to become a major energy supplier through their investment in the physical infrastructure, and they were certainly entitled to a return on the investment. But the Iranians profited as well from this, and still are.
So I think that's the wrong way to describe UK or US intent, and the history.
The Soviets were using Mosaddeq for thier own strategic purpose, and what would have followed had he not been removed would have been a Soviet led campaign to assimilate Iran into the Soviet empire through political manipulation, not unlike what happened in Afghanistan in the early years just after the Taraki regime came into power..(post Zahir Shah, post Doud-Zahir Shah's cousin who was removed by Taraki with the help of Russia.
Instead of some Machivellian plan Kirk, what removing Mosaddeq actually accomplished was a fairly stable Iran, instead of one that may very well have ended up looking like the later years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, with a protracted civil war as a result. What has been described as "democratic" in Mosaddeq's rise was actually a concerted effort on the part of the Soviets to gain influence in Iranian affairs. As they did under Khomeni to a fair degree.
So, I have a slightly different take on the history than most, simply because I've read the source documentation.
People can be fooled and I agree that Iranians themselves had been on a number of occasions, especially in 79. Look at how the Taleban came into power in Afghanistan...carried photos of Zahir Shah with them promising to bring the King back to his people.
Iranians still have the problem of being caught in the middle between dysfunctional internal political agendas, and the national interests of world powers.
As I said in a previous post, the regurgitated talking point surrounding past history are a little boring to me.
Been over this particular subject many times with many people, and I encorage research as a means to seeing the truth.
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Well, some Iranians may think Brzezinski had some influence, but if they wish to hold anyone responsible they need only to look to themselves. They supported Khomeni and ushered him into power. It's unfortunate the Islamic Revival coincided with a step backwards to people's individual freedoms, economic development, secular education, and tech advancement. As most moderate Muslims would say, progressive thought and Islamic faith are not mutually exclusive.
I have sympathy for the Iranian people, though, because (1) It's easy to trick a hungry person with food. And (2) The Shah, Pahlavi, laid the groundwork himself for a populist leader to take over. Khomeni was a wolf in sheep's clothing, who used the sentiments of the time to ride the crest to power under the false guise of liberal progression and then instituted a conservative state over the people. He was an adept political maneuverer, a well learned scholar who had excellent public persona, image cultivation, and presence. Unfortunately he was also a cunning devious religious fanatic who had ambitions to seize power all for himself.
On the opposite side, you've got the Shah, who was a progressive thinker himself, but suffered from a lack of the "delicate touch" in administration. For one, he was "installed" and did not go through the years of training under the tutelage of a more capable leader like his father that a lot of princes did. His royalty probably also hindered him, they have a tendency to be separated from the concerns of the people. While he had grand ambitions to modernize, he did not tend to the needs of his people first. The people are fickle and resistant to change, more so if that change results in a loss of economic opportunity, cultural heritage, and property. So when the Shah allowed the British to run roughshod over the country, taking most of the wealth, he made a fatal error- without the money to support the welfare of the people, the people would never consent to change. His heavy handed attempts to suppress the people, push through his modern reforms, and remain in power made the ground fertile for an opportunist like Khomeni to sweep in.
Ironically, the person who would have helped Pahlavi the most was Mohammed Mosaddeq himself. If the Shah would have protected Mosaddeq then he would have garnered the wealth of the oil reserves needed to push through his reforms without resistance. But when Mosaddeq tried to nationalize the oil, British and US governments collaborated on his removal. Truman would have never agreed to such an act. But Eisenhower was a general, who never served in congress, and "to a Hammer everything looks like a Nail." When he saw the opportunity to use tactics that work against a wartime enemy, he did. Eisenhower did a lot of great things in his presidency, but this wasn't one of them.
When Secretary Rice said that between the US and Iran there had been an unfortunate "...history of misunderstandings, suspicion, and mixed messages..." she wasn't kidding. If another country utilized a covert black-ops intelligence agency to infiltrate my country to topple our democratically elected representative solely for their economic gain and security, I'd be pretty distrustful of them, too. Not only was that despicable act a black stain on our history and honor of the US but it has directly affected the situation in Iran we have now.
As for the British, the played a part in it, as well, by not using fair negotiating practices when they used their military presence to pressure Iran into the Anglo-Iranian Oil deal. I don't know much about negotiating, but I do know this, if you have the upper hand and can set the terms, whether it's the surrender of the enemy or a business deal, if you make the concessions too high, even if they agree, inside they will be filled with resentment. Sooner or later that will manifest itself in a different form (the embassy hostage crisis). The US Government is a good utilizer of the Machiavellian strategies, of (sometimes but often not)covert influence, and power bargaining, but they lack the finesse to A. do it smoothly without detection and B. at home and abroad, to stroke the people, seduce them, and reassure them persuasively that their way is the best. We're getting better, the State Dept. is doing things in this area to work on people's hearts and minds, but our history of it has been poor. In the case of Iran, our lack of grace and ease in international affairs with a proclivity for using strong arm and covet tactics has bit us in the ass now that Iran is trying to acquire the nuclear power which will enable them to effectively deter foreign meddling in their affairs. If we hadn't helped the British and tried to manipulate the natural democratic process which ultimately caused it to collapse, they may have become an ally of ours by now, prosperous and free, and inclined to promote our mutual interests through out the region.
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Well, some Iranians may think Brzezinski had some influence, but if they wish to hold anyone responsible they need only to look to themselves. They supported Khomeni and ushered him into power. It's unfortunate the Islamic Revival coincided with a step backwards to people's individual freedoms, economic development, secular education, and tech advancement. As most moderate Muslims would say, progressive thought and Islamic faith are not mutually exclusive.
I have sympathy for the Iranian people, though, because (1) It's easy to trick a hungry person with food. And (2) The Shah, Pahlavi, laid the groundwork himself for a populist leader to take over. Khomeni was a wolf in sheep's clothing, who used the sentiments of the time to ride the crest to power under the false guise of liberal progression and then instituted a conservative state over the people. He was an adept political maneuverer, a well learned scholar who had excellent public persona, image cultivation, and presence. Unfortunately he was also a cunning devious religious fanatic who had ambitions to seize power all for himself.
On the opposite side, you've got the Shah, who was a progressive thinker himself, but suffered from a lack of the "delicate touch" in administration. For one, he was "installed" and did not go through the years of training under the tutelage of a more capable leader like his father that a lot of princes did. His royalty probably also hindered him, they have a tendency to be separated from the concerns of the people. While he had grand ambitions to modernize, he did not tend to the needs of his people first. The people are fickle and resistant to change, more so if that change results in a loss of economic opportunity, cultural heritage, and property. So when the Shah allowed the British to run roughshod over the country, taking most of the wealth, he made a fatal error- without the money to support the welfare of the people, the people would never consent to change. His heavy handed attempts to suppress the people, push through his modern reforms, and remain in power made the ground fertile for an opportunist like Khomeni to sweep in.
Ironically, the person who would have helped Pahlavi the most was Mohammed Mosaddeq himself. If the Shah would have protected Mosaddeq then he would have garnered the wealth of the oil reserves needed to push through his reforms without resistance. But when Mosaddeq tried to nationalize the oil, British and US governments collaborated on his removal. Truman would have never agreed to such an act. But Eisenhower was a general, who never served in congress, and "to a Hammer everything looks like a Nail." When he saw the opportunity to use tactics that work against a wartime enemy, he did. Eisenhower did a lot of great things in his presidency, but this wasn't one of them.
When Secretary Rice said that between the US and Iran there had been an unfortunate "...history of misunderstandings, suspicion, and mixed messages..." she wasn't kidding. If another country utilized a covert black-ops intelligence agency to infiltrate my country to topple our democratically elected representative solely for their economic gain and security, I'd be pretty distrustful of them, too. Not only was that despicable act a black stain on our history and honor of the US but it has directly affected the situation in Iran we have now.
As for the British, the played a part in it, as well, by not using fair negotiating practices when they used their military presence to pressure Iran into the Anglo-Iranian Oil deal. I don't know much about negotiating, but I do know this, if you have the upper hand and can set the terms, whether it's the surrender of the enemy or a business deal, if you make the concessions too high, even if they agree, inside they will be filled with resentment. Sooner or later that will manifest itself in a different form (the embassy hostage crisis). The US Government is a good utilizer of the Machiavellian strategies, of (sometimes but often not)covert influence, and power bargaining, but they lack the finesse to A. do it smoothly without detection and B. at home and abroad, to stroke the people, seduce them, and reassure them persuasively that their way is the best. We're getting better, the State Dept. is doing things in this area to work on people's hearts and minds, but our history of it has been poor. In the case of Iran, our lack of grace and ease in international affairs with a proclivity for using strong arm and covet tactics has bit us in the ass now that Iran is trying to acquire the nuclear power which will enable them to effectively deter foreign meddling in their affairs. If we hadn't helped the British and tried to manipulate the natural democratic process which ultimately caused it to collapse, they may have become an ally of ours by now, prosperous and free, and inclined to promote our mutual interests through out the region.
Posted on Thu Jul 24, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Kirk in Kentucky -- Kirk, A lot of Iranians hold Mr. B more than a little responsible for Khomeni coming to power in 79. As for far sightedness, the Carter admin. either never saw it coming, or if they did, never tried to stop it in any effective manner.
20/20 hindsight being what it is, makes me wonder if folks in Europe regret having let Khomeni even board the plane to return to Iran.
Things would be a lot different today had different decisions been made. So I take any insights Mr. B may have had with a grain of salt, because when it mattered, he struck out on a wild pitch.
Posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008
@ Kirk in Kentucky -- Kirk, A lot of Iranians hold Mr. B more than a little responsible for Khomeni coming to power in 79. As for far sightedness, the Carter admin. either never saw it coming, or if they did, never tried to stop it in any effective manner.
20/20 hindsight being what it is, makes me wonder if folks in Europe regret having let Khomeni even board the plane to return to Iran.
Things would be a lot different today had different decisions been made. So I take any insights Mr. B may have had with a grain of salt, because when it mattered, he struck out on a wild pitch.
Posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
I'm not sure who will read this question since this topic is now on the second page.
I just read the report "Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran" which Scowcroft and Brzezinski both voiced their concern about using threats of force against Iran. Reading this article prompted me to wonder "Who shapes the State Dept. policy?" Who are the varies factions that get to put in their say over our foreign affairs and the like? I don't know about Scowcroft, but I read a short bio on Brzezinski and this guy has amazed me. Time and time again in his long career he's made startlingly accurate predictions about things that were going to happen 5, 10, even 15 years in the future. When I look around and see the so called experts on TV and in print voicing their opinions on what will unfold in the future, most of them are wrong -- usually often and by a wide margin. Judging the vagaries of world events and the consequential effects is notoriously difficult, heck, a lot of learned scholars didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming and I couldn't even tell you what's coming on TV tomorrow. So when you've got a guy who is batting much higher than average, I wonder if his voice still has any sway over current policies? How much influence do think tanks and foreign analyst consortia have in our government? Or does it depend on the current administration? Answering some of these questions would be a great way for the DipNote to pull back the curtain on the sometimes (read: often) mysterious workings behind the State Dept. and give us common joes a glimpse into the vast machinery of our oldest institution.
As far as Iran goes, continued united pressure with incentives may break down the resistance to change over time, that sounds like a good way to go, but threatening people with violence of the worst sort, backing them into a corner, will make those people fight all the harder. I know if I, (and probably most people) feel my life threatened with no way to escape, I'll lash out in desperation, make a last stand and go out guns blazing so to speak. People are geared to fight to the death when their very existence is in peril so I don't see how creating fear and thus clouded reactionary thinking in the minds of those we want to persuade could have any beneficial effect. Intimidation is an important part of diplomacy, it is he iron hand inside the velvet glove, it has it's place and every once in a while it's time to take the gloves off. This does not seem like the context to use it. Even Sun Tzu wrote that when you have your enemy cornered, do not fight -- but instead allow them an escape route but hedge them in so that they wear themselves out fleeing and submit after exhaustion rather than fighting to the death. It may take longer but great plans like what we're trying to accomplish in Iran require patience and nuance. Going by Sun Tzu's advice, instead of being reckless and using brute force at the cost of lives to get what we want, if we consider the welfare of our men and women, as well as those we are currently arranged against, then we are on the true righteous path of the Warrior-Diplomat-Scholar. Which is what our President should be.
But I'm still curious, who pulls the levers at the State Department and determines our policy?
Posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008
I'm not sure who will read this question since this topic is now on the second page.
I just read the report "Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran" which Scowcroft and Brzezinski both voiced their concern about using threats of force against Iran. Reading this article prompted me to wonder "Who shapes the State Dept. policy?" Who are the varies factions that get to put in their say over our foreign affairs and the like? I don't know about Scowcroft, but I read a short bio on Brzezinski and this guy has amazed me. Time and time again in his long career he's made startlingly accurate predictions about things that were going to happen 5, 10, even 15 years in the future. When I look around and see the so called experts on TV and in print voicing their opinions on what will unfold in the future, most of them are wrong -- usually often and by a wide margin. Judging the vagaries of world events and the consequential effects is notoriously difficult, heck, a lot of learned scholars didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming and I couldn't even tell you what's coming on TV tomorrow. So when you've got a guy who is batting much higher than average, I wonder if his voice still has any sway over current policies? How much influence do think tanks and foreign analyst consortia have in our government? Or does it depend on the current administration? Answering some of these questions would be a great way for the DipNote to pull back the curtain on the sometimes (read: often) mysterious workings behind the State Dept. and give us common joes a glimpse into the vast machinery of our oldest institution.
As far as Iran goes, continued united pressure with incentives may break down the resistance to change over time, that sounds like a good way to go, but threatening people with violence of the worst sort, backing them into a corner, will make those people fight all the harder. I know if I, (and probably most people) feel my life threatened with no way to escape, I'll lash out in desperation, make a last stand and go out guns blazing so to speak. People are geared to fight to the death when their very existence is in peril so I don't see how creating fear and thus clouded reactionary thinking in the minds of those we want to persuade could have any beneficial effect. Intimidation is an important part of diplomacy, it is he iron hand inside the velvet glove, it has it's place and every once in a while it's time to take the gloves off. This does not seem like the context to use it. Even Sun Tzu wrote that when you have your enemy cornered, do not fight -- but instead allow them an escape route but hedge them in so that they wear themselves out fleeing and submit after exhaustion rather than fighting to the death. It may take longer but great plans like what we're trying to accomplish in Iran require patience and nuance. Going by Sun Tzu's advice, instead of being reckless and using brute force at the cost of lives to get what we want, if we consider the welfare of our men and women, as well as those we are currently arranged against, then we are on the true righteous path of the Warrior-Diplomat-Scholar. Which is what our President should be.
But I'm still curious, who pulls the levers at the State Department and determines our policy?
Posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Actually Joe, I think as important as what we do for our own citizens lends validity to our policies abroad, it is far more important to people in other nations what our actions are within those nations that lend the most validity (or lack of) with that audience.
This is not to say that other governments are separate from either the problem or solution, their presence in the context is a given. Just as history supplies context to "the now".
Here's an example:
Wedding Parties in Afghanistan involve the firing of guns in celebration, and is tradition among the people. Unfortunately, this creates the appearance of a gun battle, and on several occasions whole wedding parties have virtually been wiped out...by US airstrikes.
There's a very simple solution to this, and it need not be further tragedy for Afghans, if only President Karzai would speak to his people and ask them to inform the NATO forces of wedding plans so that the commander can send rice and salt with a personal representitive as gifts to the happy couple instead of possibly mistaking the event for lack of that info as being Taleban activity.
I don't think you understand what leverage is all about Joe, because it isn't allways about arm twisting.
It's all about trust.
Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008
Actually Joe, I think as important as what we do for our own citizens lends validity to our policies abroad, it is far more important to people in other nations what our actions are within those nations that lend the most validity (or lack of) with that audience.
This is not to say that other governments are separate from either the problem or solution, their presence in the context is a given. Just as history supplies context to "the now".
Here's an example:
Wedding Parties in Afghanistan involve the firing of guns in celebration, and is tradition among the people. Unfortunately, this creates the appearance of a gun battle, and on several occasions whole wedding parties have virtually been wiped out...by US airstrikes.
There's a very simple solution to this, and it need not be further tragedy for Afghans, if only President Karzai would speak to his people and ask them to inform the NATO forces of wedding plans so that the commander can send rice and salt with a personal representitive as gifts to the happy couple instead of possibly mistaking the event for lack of that info as being Taleban activity.
I don't think you understand what leverage is all about Joe, because it isn't allways about arm twisting.
It's all about trust.
Posted on Mon Jul 21, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Our own actions at home affect the validity of our representation abroad. That is a truth Statement on which all is premised...
The views of governing are always political and the historical valuation, which you like to use so much, is not one sided politically at all. In fact the overall reading would encompass both political parties, so there is no divining rod or line drawn...the point is simple:
How can America be a power with no real base to work from beyond corporate leverage, which is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the LOGAN ACT. We have moved to a corporate America and the citizen is last, not first. This has been going on since 1978...so, yes it is political, but again:
Without America, where would the world be? If we put our people last, we will give up our power vested in the Constitution which is the basis for our Democracy. It is about America, not politics and what we stand for. Hypocrisy doesn't hold value with money for everyone....
Our own actions at home affect the validity of our representation abroad. That is a truth Statement on which all is premised...
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008
Our own actions at home affect the validity of our representation abroad. That is a truth Statement on which all is premised...
The views of governing are always political and the historical valuation, which you like to use so much, is not one sided politically at all. In fact the overall reading would encompass both political parties, so there is no divining rod or line drawn...the point is simple:
How can America be a power with no real base to work from beyond corporate leverage, which is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the LOGAN ACT. We have moved to a corporate America and the citizen is last, not first. This has been going on since 1978...so, yes it is political, but again:
Without America, where would the world be? If we put our people last, we will give up our power vested in the Constitution which is the basis for our Democracy. It is about America, not politics and what we stand for. Hypocrisy doesn't hold value with money for everyone....
Our own actions at home affect the validity of our representation abroad. That is a truth Statement on which all is premised...
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Having just watched the press briefing in Geneva, the Iranian representitive talked of woven Iranian carpets, and his country being a "beacon of Democracy" in the region.
There was no answer, other than more nonsense spoken than I've heard in any 10 minute time span in my entire lifetime from any single Iranian I've heard talk on this issue, save possibly Amanidijad himself.
The man was sitting on a gaping hole in the carpet of his rhetoric. Hope Mr. Burns pointed that out to folks.
From what I heard from Solana, the Iranians have been given 2 weeks to come up with a firm yes or no.
In my opinion, the P5+1 is being taken for a magic carpet ride.
As it ever was. Same old thing, different day.
When and if the P5+1 withdraw the offer made and get down to serious efforts to end the problem, then you might get a strait answer if the Iranians are looking at only sticks and no carrots anymore, because they had no coherant response to give to the carrots. No response , no carrots.
Withdraw the offer and the P5+1 will get the Iranians to finally take it seriously, but it has to be taken off the table for them to realize they are on the losing end of their failed "diplomacy". One may offer it again if they say they are now willing to accept its terms and conditions, but they need to know it is a limited time offer.
Not an open ended one....because that only serves their "strategic" motives for stringing out the process.
Otherwise, in two weeks we will have another non-answer.
Count on it.
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008
Having just watched the press briefing in Geneva, the Iranian representitive talked of woven Iranian carpets, and his country being a "beacon of Democracy" in the region.
There was no answer, other than more nonsense spoken than I've heard in any 10 minute time span in my entire lifetime from any single Iranian I've heard talk on this issue, save possibly Amanidijad himself.
The man was sitting on a gaping hole in the carpet of his rhetoric. Hope Mr. Burns pointed that out to folks.
From what I heard from Solana, the Iranians have been given 2 weeks to come up with a firm yes or no.
In my opinion, the P5+1 is being taken for a magic carpet ride.
As it ever was. Same old thing, different day.
When and if the P5+1 withdraw the offer made and get down to serious efforts to end the problem, then you might get a strait answer if the Iranians are looking at only sticks and no carrots anymore, because they had no coherant response to give to the carrots. No response , no carrots.
Withdraw the offer and the P5+1 will get the Iranians to finally take it seriously, but it has to be taken off the table for them to realize they are on the losing end of their failed "diplomacy". One may offer it again if they say they are now willing to accept its terms and conditions, but they need to know it is a limited time offer.
Not an open ended one....because that only serves their "strategic" motives for stringing out the process.
Otherwise, in two weeks we will have another non-answer.
Count on it.
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
That's the real photo Patrick. The fake photoshopped one erased the unlaunched missile in the foreground and replaced it with a composite of the three others launching to make it look like they all launched as planned.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
That's the real photo Patrick. The fake photoshopped one erased the unlaunched missile in the foreground and replaced it with a composite of the three others launching to make it look like they all launched as planned.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Jim, Ironic that the Iranian revolution was all about ending the Shah's overbering state security policies (SAVIK) and now you have MOIS, Bassij all conducting brutal crackdowns for many years since on the population. Including religious minorities, ethnic minorities, any and all political opposition, and factory workers and unions looking for a timely paycheck and better working conditions.
I have no doubt that were the regime to be removed, that more mass graves will be found than in Iraq. Filled by the one's who claimed to be bringing an Islamic Utopia to fruition.
----------
P.S. Joe, a lot of things surrounding your point happens to be major campaign issues in this election. Because Dipnote policy states: "The blog is not open to commentspromoting or opposing any person campaigning for election to a political office or promoting or opposing any ballot proposition."
It becomes a little problematic in fully adressing your domestic issues here. In respect to where things are headed.
Too bad in a way...it would be a real treat to see the candidates themselves conduct an impromtu "town hall" on Dipnote, on foreign policy.
If the following quote from a separate topic currently up is relevent:
"It may not be quite clear yet as to what impact social media will have exactly on foreign policymaking. What is evident, though, is that foreign policy does not operate in a vacuum, and it must incorporate or respond to changes in communications."
I appreciate the goal of this not becoming a battleground between political parties, but I was thinking their personal participation could be restricted as well to the above policy, so that ideas alone are discussed, rather than the merits of the individuals.
And that would require a lot of dicipline from both, but it could put the blog itself front and center in the public's awareness and that might be a real good thing given that the public would have a greater understanding of how US foreign policy is actually being conducted. As well as promting greater awarenesss of the role the Dept. of State plays in all of it.
Which is as I understand it, the "onus" of State's delving into social media in the first place.
Iran being a top issue in this election, and the public's understanding being critical to long term solutions...the question of where the future policy may differ from present is an essential element of the debate.
I hope the pro's and con's will be duly considered by the Dipnote staff.
Dipnote-"the art of the possible", as such, should hold it's own in think-tank town.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
@ Jim, Ironic that the Iranian revolution was all about ending the Shah's overbering state security policies (SAVIK) and now you have MOIS, Bassij all conducting brutal crackdowns for many years since on the population. Including religious minorities, ethnic minorities, any and all political opposition, and factory workers and unions looking for a timely paycheck and better working conditions.
I have no doubt that were the regime to be removed, that more mass graves will be found than in Iraq. Filled by the one's who claimed to be bringing an Islamic Utopia to fruition.
----------
P.S. Joe, a lot of things surrounding your point happens to be major campaign issues in this election. Because Dipnote policy states: "The blog is not open to commentspromoting or opposing any person campaigning for election to a political office or promoting or opposing any ballot proposition."
It becomes a little problematic in fully adressing your domestic issues here. In respect to where things are headed.
Too bad in a way...it would be a real treat to see the candidates themselves conduct an impromtu "town hall" on Dipnote, on foreign policy.
If the following quote from a separate topic currently up is relevent:
"It may not be quite clear yet as to what impact social media will have exactly on foreign policymaking. What is evident, though, is that foreign policy does not operate in a vacuum, and it must incorporate or respond to changes in communications."
I appreciate the goal of this not becoming a battleground between political parties, but I was thinking their personal participation could be restricted as well to the above policy, so that ideas alone are discussed, rather than the merits of the individuals.
And that would require a lot of dicipline from both, but it could put the blog itself front and center in the public's awareness and that might be a real good thing given that the public would have a greater understanding of how US foreign policy is actually being conducted. As well as promting greater awarenesss of the role the Dept. of State plays in all of it.
Which is as I understand it, the "onus" of State's delving into social media in the first place.
Iran being a top issue in this election, and the public's understanding being critical to long term solutions...the question of where the future policy may differ from present is an essential element of the debate.
I hope the pro's and con's will be duly considered by the Dipnote staff.
Dipnote-"the art of the possible", as such, should hold it's own in think-tank town.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Patrick in Maryland writes:
I thought it was proven the photo ia a hoax. Why is it still up there??
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
I thought it was proven the photo ia a hoax. Why is it still up there??
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Jim, it's called exhausting diplomacy, which is going to be neccessary if any kinetic action is to be justifiable upon that becoming the last option.
I wouldn't read too much into a one time meeting.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Jim, it's called exhausting diplomacy, which is going to be neccessary if any kinetic action is to be justifiable upon that becoming the last option.
I wouldn't read too much into a one time meeting.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Joe in Tennessee -- I wasn't targeting your point Joe. Just expanding on something you said in passing, along the way to making your point.
But hey, I always take someone who's claiming "the sky's falling" on our nation with a grain of salt.
I just don't buy it Joe, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on your point. Which by the way I've commented on many times before on other threads here.
"Iran is not the real problem here..."
Funny, I thought Iran was the topic of this thread for some reason... Seems to be the problem at hand...no?
We need a suggestion box for topics I think, that way the staff at Dipnote can devote one regarding the economic impact of foreign policy in general, pro and con.
Then you can let 'r rip....and I'll gladly debate you.
But on the assertion you made regarding Iran being Russia's tool...that's interesting. Unless you have your own intel, I'd say Iran was never told to by Russia, because they were more than happy to launch some fireworks all by themselves.
Besides, the "Frankenstien" Russia has helped to create is likely to turn on its master.
And the Russians know this.
Better factor this fact into your theory.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
@ Joe in Tennessee -- I wasn't targeting your point Joe. Just expanding on something you said in passing, along the way to making your point.
But hey, I always take someone who's claiming "the sky's falling" on our nation with a grain of salt.
I just don't buy it Joe, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on your point. Which by the way I've commented on many times before on other threads here.
"Iran is not the real problem here..."
Funny, I thought Iran was the topic of this thread for some reason... Seems to be the problem at hand...no?
We need a suggestion box for topics I think, that way the staff at Dipnote can devote one regarding the economic impact of foreign policy in general, pro and con.
Then you can let 'r rip....and I'll gladly debate you.
But on the assertion you made regarding Iran being Russia's tool...that's interesting. Unless you have your own intel, I'd say Iran was never told to by Russia, because they were more than happy to launch some fireworks all by themselves.
Besides, the "Frankenstien" Russia has helped to create is likely to turn on its master.
And the Russians know this.
Better factor this fact into your theory.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
Jim in Texas writes:
And again we yield.
I have been around long enough to remember the day the embassy was taken. Do you remember the outrage? I still am!
Fifteen years later, I was fortunate to speak with an Iranian who was on that front line that day. What started as a "can I share your table" at lunch turned into a 4 hour conversation. What I thought "I knew" was from the television and reading the news papers. It did not match what he said.
I was upset about the "taking over the embassy." He was upset about the "Shah." It was the first time I was informed about the Shah and found out how much I really didn't know. Since that time, research and history has proven him correct.
Now, Under Secretary Burns stated "...with whom we have had a relationship burdened by deep-seated grievances and suspicions, and a long history of missed opportunities and crossed signals." I think he got this backwards.
After talking tough, the Carter Administration yielded and showed the world American's weakness. The current administration has for years talked tough and now America yields again.
This administration continues to send mixed signals to the world and the American people. This is not Diplomacy but Propaganda.
And right before an election... Does this administration have no shame?
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
And again we yield.
I have been around long enough to remember the day the embassy was taken. Do you remember the outrage? I still am!
Fifteen years later, I was fortunate to speak with an Iranian who was on that front line that day. What started as a "can I share your table" at lunch turned into a 4 hour conversation. What I thought "I knew" was from the television and reading the news papers. It did not match what he said.
I was upset about the "taking over the embassy." He was upset about the "Shah." It was the first time I was informed about the Shah and found out how much I really didn't know. Since that time, research and history has proven him correct.
Now, Under Secretary Burns stated "...with whom we have had a relationship burdened by deep-seated grievances and suspicions, and a long history of missed opportunities and crossed signals." I think he got this backwards.
After talking tough, the Carter Administration yielded and showed the world American's weakness. The current administration has for years talked tough and now America yields again.
This administration continues to send mixed signals to the world and the American people. This is not Diplomacy but Propaganda.
And right before an election... Does this administration have no shame?
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Eric, you missed the point completely.
My position has always been: Without the good America and Americans do, where would the world be? In chaos is the answer, which makes the preservation of all aspects of America the goal, centered from HOME BASE first, not last.
We had the economic advantage and now do not. A capitalist system is premised on money and use, protection and control of that money...no more and no less. It should flourish well, and does, in a true democracy who's leadership does not lose sight of impute functions related to the People of whom they represent, not the extended interest of corporations first. This is what got us into this mess. It is not very complicated.
They tried to use economic History to blame ALAN GREENSPAN, but he was most elementary on more than one occasion with the simplicity of: You cannot keep sending work and money out of a business or country and keep printing money to compensate for it with some belief that it will all level out somehow. Greenspan is not the problem, Congress was. Not the President, not Military intelligence, not our intelligence network, not the DOS, but Congress. If there has been any abuse of power in this Great Society, it is in the representation of the people. Politics, Greed and predictability were the compensation factors that gave the power of a simple event to lead to a record oil price, which devalued our overall economy here in the US and internationally with the drop in currency price. So we get Mexico to honor us and lower the price, etc. Who is going to replace the funds lost at the bank? The taxpayer, not Russia or Iran, who is going to replace the jobs lost? ...you get the drift.
Our leadership made America's economic stance weak and this was duly noted by the Russians in the extended talks back in the 90's?the point being WHAT DOES AMERICA HAVE TO OFFER ITS ALLIES beyond military might if our economy fails or is controlled externally. Inside of five years, they were on top of the game -- and where were where? -- going downhill quickly, selling out and giving away our jobs, money, food, military hardware (not really selling them), our lives -- to what end? Russia and China both fired more than a warning shot, and no one listened. Now where do we stand?
Iran is simply a pawn of Russia. Russia has moved into a Major Power with our help and with great ease, yet no one seen it coming?
Russia is more than an impressive world power at this junction, belittling them is blissful ignorance -- even with our safeguards. We need to get back in the game and sometimes that means to admit you failings and regroup at home, not sporadically as needed or after a problem.
You will not do anything with Iran until you open talks with Russia on the nuclear umbrella, pure and simple. They will continue to use their pawns..and by the way, on July 14, 2008 America was referred to as pawns and not major pieces on the board by their new President..in open statement to the press. They also intend to hold economic talks which will be more exacting than G8 with world leaders and are not including the US. We have some serious problems NOT BEING addressed.
Iran is not the real problem here and even I was just pulled into the tangential deferment so often used.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Eric, you missed the point completely.
My position has always been: Without the good America and Americans do, where would the world be? In chaos is the answer, which makes the preservation of all aspects of America the goal, centered from HOME BASE first, not last.
We had the economic advantage and now do not. A capitalist system is premised on money and use, protection and control of that money...no more and no less. It should flourish well, and does, in a true democracy who's leadership does not lose sight of impute functions related to the People of whom they represent, not the extended interest of corporations first. This is what got us into this mess. It is not very complicated.
They tried to use economic History to blame ALAN GREENSPAN, but he was most elementary on more than one occasion with the simplicity of: You cannot keep sending work and money out of a business or country and keep printing money to compensate for it with some belief that it will all level out somehow. Greenspan is not the problem, Congress was. Not the President, not Military intelligence, not our intelligence network, not the DOS, but Congress. If there has been any abuse of power in this Great Society, it is in the representation of the people. Politics, Greed and predictability were the compensation factors that gave the power of a simple event to lead to a record oil price, which devalued our overall economy here in the US and internationally with the drop in currency price. So we get Mexico to honor us and lower the price, etc. Who is going to replace the funds lost at the bank? The taxpayer, not Russia or Iran, who is going to replace the jobs lost? ...you get the drift.
Our leadership made America's economic stance weak and this was duly noted by the Russians in the extended talks back in the 90's?the point being WHAT DOES AMERICA HAVE TO OFFER ITS ALLIES beyond military might if our economy fails or is controlled externally. Inside of five years, they were on top of the game -- and where were where? -- going downhill quickly, selling out and giving away our jobs, money, food, military hardware (not really selling them), our lives -- to what end? Russia and China both fired more than a warning shot, and no one listened. Now where do we stand?
Iran is simply a pawn of Russia. Russia has moved into a Major Power with our help and with great ease, yet no one seen it coming?
Russia is more than an impressive world power at this junction, belittling them is blissful ignorance -- even with our safeguards. We need to get back in the game and sometimes that means to admit you failings and regroup at home, not sporadically as needed or after a problem.
You will not do anything with Iran until you open talks with Russia on the nuclear umbrella, pure and simple. They will continue to use their pawns..and by the way, on July 14, 2008 America was referred to as pawns and not major pieces on the board by their new President..in open statement to the press. They also intend to hold economic talks which will be more exacting than G8 with world leaders and are not including the US. We have some serious problems NOT BEING addressed.
Iran is not the real problem here and even I was just pulled into the tangential deferment so often used.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Joe in Tennessee -- Well Joe, my best advice to the Russians on how to be a super power by definition is that the definition is not simply the projection of military power.
To be a true super power, one must feed the world for it generates the good will neccessary to have lasting influence upon nations.
That's another reason why the Soviet Union no longer exists, beyond the failed socio/economic model of Communism.
To get back to Amadinijad's conundrum ...you wrote: "My end was that President Ahmadinejad of Iran will not be as easily moved as Kim was due to the countries natural resources."
You can be as rich as you want to be, but if you have nowhere to spend it, what good is it?
Which would also prompt me to remind Russian arms dealers that when there's no one left to buy the weapons, there will be no place to spend the profits....not because of sanction, but because there will be no one left to take your money.
Kind of self defeating to have Russian biologists helping Iranian WMD efforts over the years, with or without the Russian government's knowledge.
And Joe, the thing about "the now" is that its context surrounding "the now" is filled with the echos of the past.
We're witness to that in the form of comments herein, as well in the world at large.
It's not that the past doesn't matter, or even relevent to "the now" so much as it colors the events of "the now". Time being a constant state of flux, between the past and the future. The perception of that "color" ...well....how do you convince a blind man the sky is blue if he has always been taught to believe it is brown?
I think, in order to learn....any individual must first acknowledge one's ignorance of knowing everything, for there's simply too much imput available for any one brain to absorb in a lifetime.
And that is a humbling realization when it is truly achieved.
The Russians made a mistake at that meeting, for they failed to recognise that in learning their history, it was also possible for their history to earn our scholarly respect, and respects to it were being paid.
I think that the mindset of having "lost" the cold war prevented them from seeing this as anything but grandstanding and crowing over the West's "victory". And I put these adjectives in quotes because they are not correct decription of reality as humanity itself has won. Only perceptions of national pride have lost.
As I said to Zharkov, "We arn't out of the woods yet."
Precicely because of the echos that surround the context of our "now".
I used to be an audio engineer, studied the physics of sound, accoustics...
If one thinks of an echo as a wave form that is a secondary reflection of a sound source, there can exist in the same volume of space wherein echos collide and waveforms intersect, two phenomena existing simultaneously in "the now" where one may experience a frequency cancellation or a mutually reinforced node of amplitude called a harmonic, depending on point of reference in the room.
The trick for any live sound engineer (or diplomat) is to create a "room" or "context" that has niether phenomena occuring out of proportion with a correct and accurate representation of the original sound source over the entire frequency spectrum, as well as the correct amount of reverb (or echos) for the environment, as an enhancement to the "space" created. (or reality, if you will).
So it is with US/Russian bilateral relations that diplomatic harmonics and frequency drop-outs occur, and are tamed by the leadership to create a more balanced "now".
And so I look at greater assertion of military presence in part as taking their responsibilities to things like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) seriously.
And in that respect these efforts are eliminating drop-outs in international security coverage in real time.
At the same time, some policies the Russians take on serve to undermine long term security, including their own.
Their relations with Iran are a good example of this duality.
The UN can create a harmonic with a resolution...mutually reinforcing the will of nations, but the goal is not to have to impose that will in the first place.
Rather, it would be best if the Iranians really understood that they can choose another path that won't involve howling feedback from the main speakers.
But, unlike Communism which in essence was an economic ideology to begin with, a theocratic ideology is not as able to adapt a better model when the old one no longer serves the people's interests.
And this is I think far more of a factor in producing fixated negotiating postures than anything else when seen in isolation as a "source". But all factors including resources must be factored into "the mix".
Perhaps the metaphor is not as clear as I'd like, but it's the best I can articulate it at the moment. Hope folks grasp what I'm saying.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
@ Joe in Tennessee -- Well Joe, my best advice to the Russians on how to be a super power by definition is that the definition is not simply the projection of military power.
To be a true super power, one must feed the world for it generates the good will neccessary to have lasting influence upon nations.
That's another reason why the Soviet Union no longer exists, beyond the failed socio/economic model of Communism.
To get back to Amadinijad's conundrum ...you wrote: "My end was that President Ahmadinejad of Iran will not be as easily moved as Kim was due to the countries natural resources."
You can be as rich as you want to be, but if you have nowhere to spend it, what good is it?
Which would also prompt me to remind Russian arms dealers that when there's no one left to buy the weapons, there will be no place to spend the profits....not because of sanction, but because there will be no one left to take your money.
Kind of self defeating to have Russian biologists helping Iranian WMD efforts over the years, with or without the Russian government's knowledge.
And Joe, the thing about "the now" is that its context surrounding "the now" is filled with the echos of the past.
We're witness to that in the form of comments herein, as well in the world at large.
It's not that the past doesn't matter, or even relevent to "the now" so much as it colors the events of "the now". Time being a constant state of flux, between the past and the future. The perception of that "color" ...well....how do you convince a blind man the sky is blue if he has always been taught to believe it is brown?
I think, in order to learn....any individual must first acknowledge one's ignorance of knowing everything, for there's simply too much imput available for any one brain to absorb in a lifetime.
And that is a humbling realization when it is truly achieved.
The Russians made a mistake at that meeting, for they failed to recognise that in learning their history, it was also possible for their history to earn our scholarly respect, and respects to it were being paid.
I think that the mindset of having "lost" the cold war prevented them from seeing this as anything but grandstanding and crowing over the West's "victory". And I put these adjectives in quotes because they are not correct decription of reality as humanity itself has won. Only perceptions of national pride have lost.
As I said to Zharkov, "We arn't out of the woods yet."
Precicely because of the echos that surround the context of our "now".
I used to be an audio engineer, studied the physics of sound, accoustics...
If one thinks of an echo as a wave form that is a secondary reflection of a sound source, there can exist in the same volume of space wherein echos collide and waveforms intersect, two phenomena existing simultaneously in "the now" where one may experience a frequency cancellation or a mutually reinforced node of amplitude called a harmonic, depending on point of reference in the room.
The trick for any live sound engineer (or diplomat) is to create a "room" or "context" that has niether phenomena occuring out of proportion with a correct and accurate representation of the original sound source over the entire frequency spectrum, as well as the correct amount of reverb (or echos) for the environment, as an enhancement to the "space" created. (or reality, if you will).
So it is with US/Russian bilateral relations that diplomatic harmonics and frequency drop-outs occur, and are tamed by the leadership to create a more balanced "now".
And so I look at greater assertion of military presence in part as taking their responsibilities to things like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) seriously.
And in that respect these efforts are eliminating drop-outs in international security coverage in real time.
At the same time, some policies the Russians take on serve to undermine long term security, including their own.
Their relations with Iran are a good example of this duality.
The UN can create a harmonic with a resolution...mutually reinforcing the will of nations, but the goal is not to have to impose that will in the first place.
Rather, it would be best if the Iranians really understood that they can choose another path that won't involve howling feedback from the main speakers.
But, unlike Communism which in essence was an economic ideology to begin with, a theocratic ideology is not as able to adapt a better model when the old one no longer serves the people's interests.
And this is I think far more of a factor in producing fixated negotiating postures than anything else when seen in isolation as a "source". But all factors including resources must be factored into "the mix".
Perhaps the metaphor is not as clear as I'd like, but it's the best I can articulate it at the moment. Hope folks grasp what I'm saying.
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
Did Mr. Burn take a baseball bat with him? or cake and Bible on Mcfarland advise.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Did Mr. Burn take a baseball bat with him? or cake and Bible on Mcfarland advise.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Seems the perception of How we got here, etc. is the deferment strategy of standard logistics used in Politics since the Roman Empire in argumentation. The US Congress has mastered that theology to accomplish nothing while looking like your doing something. The old, lets show everyone what we know by looking at it from all angles; which is fine if you remember what your objective is as being first, not last in decision making.
The objective is to know where you are going and how to get there. Yesterday is gone forever. It is irrelevant, it is an excuse hanger and imitator, not a solution. A myth application used by pseudo intellects to show what they think they know.
In the late 90s there was a symposium with past Russian dignitaries and representative from the Communist era in DC. The US dazzled everyone with their historical knowledge of Russia and the people. The Russians responded with: That is the problem with the United States; you think you know everything and everyone because you know their history. You think you are so much better than everyone else. The United States is over, on the decline and we will be a world Power again and you will not beyond your military?
Now explain to me how they knew then and we did not? After all, we knew how they got there?.we are smart folks now aren't we.
The United States has predictable thinking patterns in all its bureaucratic branches of government. It is a weakness.
What will pay our bullies this time?
We would be best suited to approach the business sector directly and eliminate the Iranian leadership...or it will be like Stalone said: ....if you aint bringing guns, your not going to change anything.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Seems the perception of How we got here, etc. is the deferment strategy of standard logistics used in Politics since the Roman Empire in argumentation. The US Congress has mastered that theology to accomplish nothing while looking like your doing something. The old, lets show everyone what we know by looking at it from all angles; which is fine if you remember what your objective is as being first, not last in decision making.
The objective is to know where you are going and how to get there. Yesterday is gone forever. It is irrelevant, it is an excuse hanger and imitator, not a solution. A myth application used by pseudo intellects to show what they think they know.
In the late 90s there was a symposium with past Russian dignitaries and representative from the Communist era in DC. The US dazzled everyone with their historical knowledge of Russia and the people. The Russians responded with: That is the problem with the United States; you think you know everything and everyone because you know their history. You think you are so much better than everyone else. The United States is over, on the decline and we will be a world Power again and you will not beyond your military?
Now explain to me how they knew then and we did not? After all, we knew how they got there?.we are smart folks now aren't we.
The United States has predictable thinking patterns in all its bureaucratic branches of government. It is a weakness.
What will pay our bullies this time?
We would be best suited to approach the business sector directly and eliminate the Iranian leadership...or it will be like Stalone said: ....if you aint bringing guns, your not going to change anything.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Good luck Mr. Burns, and safe journey. "Press the advantage" hard, will you? One may anticipate miracles.
"William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the AP on Tuesday."
-CNN
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Good luck Mr. Burns, and safe journey. "Press the advantage" hard, will you? One may anticipate miracles.
"William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the AP on Tuesday."
-CNN
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
If Diplomacy is to succeed, peace can only be won by a word and a pen, so some believe...
It occurs to me that half measures are about as welcome in war as they would be in love.
All being fair in both. Yet no one is satisfied.
You have your "limited" option creating conditions whereby this nation has had to go back a decade later to get the job done right, and some find that debatable if we have or not.
So? Totay 55 million have a chance, a little hope, with a little help from their friends, to create a completely different reality for themselves from what is, and what was...to what can be.
The US educated over 200,000 Iranian exchange students per year in the 70's.
Is it any wonder the population of Iran is western oriented and generally pro American, in diametric opposition to the policies of their current government?
The "great Satan"?? The people know it's a myth, a theatrical device used by the regime to demonize the West, the US in particular, and especially the influence America has on the world.
Haven't we seen this before? Been down this road? Been there, done that, lest we never forget?
"History never repeats itself, but sometimes it rhymes." -MTwain
The key to sucess is creating the conditions of total inconfidence within the revolutionary guard. One may need to arrange a bit of a demonstration in order to achieve a state of mind that would lead to diplomatic results.
If you convince the rev. guard they have no chance, either of surviving a war or retaliation in any form. Then folks might get somewhere diplomaticly.
Someone is going to have to convince them, and that's all there is to it.
And that won't be with words.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
If Diplomacy is to succeed, peace can only be won by a word and a pen, so some believe...
It occurs to me that half measures are about as welcome in war as they would be in love.
All being fair in both. Yet no one is satisfied.
You have your "limited" option creating conditions whereby this nation has had to go back a decade later to get the job done right, and some find that debatable if we have or not.
So? Totay 55 million have a chance, a little hope, with a little help from their friends, to create a completely different reality for themselves from what is, and what was...to what can be.
The US educated over 200,000 Iranian exchange students per year in the 70's.
Is it any wonder the population of Iran is western oriented and generally pro American, in diametric opposition to the policies of their current government?
The "great Satan"?? The people know it's a myth, a theatrical device used by the regime to demonize the West, the US in particular, and especially the influence America has on the world.
Haven't we seen this before? Been down this road? Been there, done that, lest we never forget?
"History never repeats itself, but sometimes it rhymes." -MTwain
The key to sucess is creating the conditions of total inconfidence within the revolutionary guard. One may need to arrange a bit of a demonstration in order to achieve a state of mind that would lead to diplomatic results.
If you convince the rev. guard they have no chance, either of surviving a war or retaliation in any form. Then folks might get somewhere diplomaticly.
Someone is going to have to convince them, and that's all there is to it.
And that won't be with words.
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Well you got the 'how did we get here's?' And the "Where do we go from here's?' and those that question reality itself in the quantum mechanics of the observer changing events of diplomatic history.
Frankly there's no reason to apologize, and I'm certainly not going to do so on behalf of my government because they are already fully capable of that without my help.
Arnold, I don't know what you think of the fact that our fellow citizens are geting killed by Iranian "special groups" in Iraq, but don't ask me to sing "Sympathy for the devil" as an ode to good relations.
But, I'm a fair guy, I think Zharkov will attest to that since I "outed" his history of blogging on Pravda, I thought it might amuse him to no end that I would "out" myself on an Iranian opposition websight....(chuckle).
The door's ajar, if the curious use the link into a different perspective one just might find a first person account of how to get a Crown Prince to use the word "please".
Goes way beyond "Simmian Diplomacy"...Lol!
(The things I've done on 24ft extention ladders....Que vida loca!)
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Well you got the 'how did we get here's?' And the "Where do we go from here's?' and those that question reality itself in the quantum mechanics of the observer changing events of diplomatic history.
Frankly there's no reason to apologize, and I'm certainly not going to do so on behalf of my government because they are already fully capable of that without my help.
Arnold, I don't know what you think of the fact that our fellow citizens are geting killed by Iranian "special groups" in Iraq, but don't ask me to sing "Sympathy for the devil" as an ode to good relations.
But, I'm a fair guy, I think Zharkov will attest to that since I "outed" his history of blogging on Pravda, I thought it might amuse him to no end that I would "out" myself on an Iranian opposition websight....(chuckle).
The door's ajar, if the curious use the link into a different perspective one just might find a first person account of how to get a Crown Prince to use the word "please".
Goes way beyond "Simmian Diplomacy"...Lol!
(The things I've done on 24ft extention ladders....Que vida loca!)
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
You are muddled down in details and irrelevant History. Everything is about now and tomorrow...not yesterday.
To think on that level is to fall into placidity of the hoi poi, which is being used at that end of the ladder.
Its the same old chess game...but this time Anti Democratic States have an economic edge.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
You are muddled down in details and irrelevant History. Everything is about now and tomorrow...not yesterday.
To think on that level is to fall into placidity of the hoi poi, which is being used at that end of the ladder.
Its the same old chess game...but this time Anti Democratic States have an economic edge.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Iran's ayatollahs gave us a dilemma of our own making.
The NPT should have provided for international inspection of all uranium processing facilities, verification of treaty violations, required disclosure of the locations of all facilities, provided a penalty for deceit, and authorization for entry, removal or destruction of covert facilities.
If uranium enrichment was supposed to be prohibited under the Non-proliferation Treaty, the treaty should have said so, and if it does not, then it should be renegotiated.
Of course, this would end nuclear power as we know it, so it will not happen, but it reveals how an ethnocentric view of the middle east can get us into trouble. Apparently, it never entered our minds that third world nations would begin uranium enrichment for fueling nuclear power stations. Now that we know they can and will, we must revisit the NPT to see how it might be redrawn.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Iran's ayatollahs gave us a dilemma of our own making.
The NPT should have provided for international inspection of all uranium processing facilities, verification of treaty violations, required disclosure of the locations of all facilities, provided a penalty for deceit, and authorization for entry, removal or destruction of covert facilities.
If uranium enrichment was supposed to be prohibited under the Non-proliferation Treaty, the treaty should have said so, and if it does not, then it should be renegotiated.
Of course, this would end nuclear power as we know it, so it will not happen, but it reveals how an ethnocentric view of the middle east can get us into trouble. Apparently, it never entered our minds that third world nations would begin uranium enrichment for fueling nuclear power stations. Now that we know they can and will, we must revisit the NPT to see how it might be redrawn.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Arnold in New Jersey wrote:
Zharkov wrote...
"Arnold in New Jersey raised good points regarding past US policy, but we cannot give Iran a free pass on nuclear weapons merely because we had meddled in Iran's politics in a past era - that is ancient history and not a license to kill."
Zharkoz....Thanks for the positive comment. Just to clarify.....
1-I am not suggesting that anyone give anyone else a free pass on doing anything potentially destructive.
2-We didn't just "meddle" in Iran's politics. Our actions put a dictator in power who negated the rights of millions. The Shah and the CIA set up their secret police Savak which imprisoned people and tortured them. A friend was there and had first hand knowledge of what they were doing in their prison.
3-US behavior in Iran caused tremendous hatred. That and other events contributed to the taking of the hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. Note: I am not defending the taking of our hostages. That was a criminal act. But, our actions were also.
During that time neither "Nightline" and any other major TV show said anything about all the things that preceded that event just as they say nothing now about the events from 1953 to 1988. They say nothing about our actions in supporting Saddam Hussein in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War.
Its pretty naive to believe you can write off 55 years of abuse. People are not that magnanimous.
A nuclear strike on Israel does not compensate anyone for the conspiracy deposing Mossadegh. It is not equivalent at all. Allowing Iran a nuclear first strike on Tel Aviv is not the way to even the score.
Iran must be judged for what it is today, not for what it should have been."
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Zharkov wrote...
"Arnold in New Jersey raised good points regarding past US policy, but we cannot give Iran a free pass on nuclear weapons merely because we had meddled in Iran's politics in a past era - that is ancient history and not a license to kill."
Zharkoz....Thanks for the positive comment. Just to clarify.....
1-I am not suggesting that anyone give anyone else a free pass on doing anything potentially destructive.
2-We didn't just "meddle" in Iran's politics. Our actions put a dictator in power who negated the rights of millions. The Shah and the CIA set up their secret police Savak which imprisoned people and tortured them. A friend was there and had first hand knowledge of what they were doing in their prison.
3-US behavior in Iran caused tremendous hatred. That and other events contributed to the taking of the hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. Note: I am not defending the taking of our hostages. That was a criminal act. But, our actions were also.
During that time neither "Nightline" and any other major TV show said anything about all the things that preceded that event just as they say nothing now about the events from 1953 to 1988. They say nothing about our actions in supporting Saddam Hussein in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War.
Its pretty naive to believe you can write off 55 years of abuse. People are not that magnanimous.
A nuclear strike on Israel does not compensate anyone for the conspiracy deposing Mossadegh. It is not equivalent at all. Allowing Iran a nuclear first strike on Tel Aviv is not the way to even the score.
Iran must be judged for what it is today, not for what it should have been."
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Arnold in New Jersey writes:
Eric wrote....
"Arnold, I suggest you talk to some Iranians about the history, and let them provide you with some perspective.
You're new 'round here, and I've had plenty to say on this over the years. I don't feel like repeating myself in rebuttle. There's too much "in the now" that has more relevance."
Eric... Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not committed to defending Iranian misconduct in any way. But human nature is such that people are known to hold grudges.
When they feel extremely abused or were extremely abused and do not recognize their own culpability, the rage and resentment can continue indefinitely.
There are no limits to this. Without some serious slate cleaning, current issues will not be resolved. No one wants to submit to demands.
As much as we would all like to put the past in the past, that is not likely given human nature. You cannot discount this.
Two wrongs have never made a right. We could at least take responsibility for what "we" did.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Eric wrote....
"Arnold, I suggest you talk to some Iranians about the history, and let them provide you with some perspective.
You're new 'round here, and I've had plenty to say on this over the years. I don't feel like repeating myself in rebuttle. There's too much "in the now" that has more relevance."
Eric... Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not committed to defending Iranian misconduct in any way. But human nature is such that people are known to hold grudges.
When they feel extremely abused or were extremely abused and do not recognize their own culpability, the rage and resentment can continue indefinitely.
There are no limits to this. Without some serious slate cleaning, current issues will not be resolved. No one wants to submit to demands.
As much as we would all like to put the past in the past, that is not likely given human nature. You cannot discount this.
Two wrongs have never made a right. We could at least take responsibility for what "we" did.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico --
Iran either violated the NPT or it did not. There is no "assume". The NPT is a treaty and became our law when our president signed it. Evidence is required before we accuse a treaty signatory of violating the treaty. Otherwise we are negating the treaty by de facto abandonment. If we act as if evidence of treaty violation is irrelevant and attack Iran on mere suspicions because we want to, the Non-proliferation Treaty is dead.
America has no "Department of Pre-Crime" and we do not accuse nations of treaty violations until we have conclusive proof. Israel may have different standards, but America must respect the law or lose credibility.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico --
Iran either violated the NPT or it did not. There is no "assume". The NPT is a treaty and became our law when our president signed it. Evidence is required before we accuse a treaty signatory of violating the treaty. Otherwise we are negating the treaty by de facto abandonment. If we act as if evidence of treaty violation is irrelevant and attack Iran on mere suspicions because we want to, the Non-proliferation Treaty is dead.
America has no "Department of Pre-Crime" and we do not accuse nations of treaty violations until we have conclusive proof. Israel may have different standards, but America must respect the law or lose credibility.
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Here's a peek inside the asylum...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=10622C9E-1364-4C87-9F27-5C5638B7E176
(excerpt)
Daioleslam: There are two distinct views about the Iranian choices and the path it will eventually take. There are those who believe that the regime is in such a weak position that it will finally surrender to the international pressure. Ibrahim Yazdi for example said:
"At the end of the war with Iraq, Iran was in such a bad position that finally accepted the UN resolution. We are in the same position now because the catastrophic political and economic situation will force the regime to surrender to internal exigencies in much worst conditions. Briefly, if we take into account the two experiences of war with Iraq and the US embassy hostage taking, we should be concerned that the regime would eventually surrender to the UN resolutions in such bad terms that the national interests would be jeopardized."
There is also another view which I personally believe will dominate. This point of view is that the regime cannot or should not retreat. Any retreat is like a breach in a dam and will only stop with the regime's total surrender. This is the dominant belief among the Iranian leadership. As Rafsanjani has recently declared: "if we retreat on this issue, we will allow our enemy to interfere with all the issues of our country."
FP: Ok, so some critics argue that, because of this situation, there may be some flexibility from the Iranians on the nuclear impasse. The deal that the West is offering Tehran is very sweet and might be hard for them to turn down.
Daioleslam: Let me explain this further. In order to understand the Iranian regime's dilemma, we should go back to 2002-2003 when the regime passed a fundamental turning point. The result was the emergence of the Revolutionary Guards as the dominant force in Iran, symbolized later by Ahmadinejad's ascendance to power. That turning point is the root cause of the actual gloomy conditions in Iran and the mullahs' incapacity to accommodate the demands of the international pressure.
FP: Elaborate on this please.
Daioleslam: Ok, I will try. Let's start with a question. Why in 2005, did the Iranian leadership replace Mohammad Khatami, a smiling and internationally greeted president with a radical and repelling personality as Ahmadinejad? Note that in Iran, despite the masquerade of elections, presidents are selected rather than elected. It is naive to believe that Ahmadinejad's triumph was the result of a popular democratic process. The 2005 elections were particularly rigged. For the first time in the three decade history of the Clerical rule, all the candidates (except the lucky winner) publicly talked about massive intervention of the Guards and organized cheating.
So, the question is why the Iranian regime underwent such a radical transformation. Why was there a need to unify the power under the Guards' control?
FP: Are you suggesting that Ahmadinejad was Tehran's answer to a challenge?
Daioleslam: Exactly. In 2002- 2003, the Iranian clandestine nuclear program was uncovered and the regime was under immense pressure. At the same time, Iraq was invaded by the coalition forces and Tehran was faced with US massive presence. These two new elements were on top of the most important threat that regime was facing: the internal unrests and a growing social and political dissent movement.
To face these three challenges, regime had two choices: First choice was to come clean in nuclear dossier, get along with new regional geopolitics and finally liberalize the political atmosphere inside the country. We know that Tehran did not follow this path. The Ayatollahs opted for the second choice:
---end---
All the research I've done over the years would fully support the conclusion that we've been winess to a soft-sell military coup, and that indeed the regime has dug such a deep political hole for itself that it is incapable of taking the exit option offered by the p5+1.
The leadership is faced with the choice between losing face and internal power base if it "surrenders" its position, and the internal destabilization of the government would result.
With the alternative being that it may be removed from power by externally applied force if it fails to. And will certainly face further economic strangulation via international isolation and sanction.
So when folks say that we have a lousy choice to make between war and letting the regime have nuclear weapons, you have a real good idea why that is the case when the Iranian's self made political dillema is examined objectively.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Here's a peek inside the asylum...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=10622C9E-1364-4C87-9F27-5C5638B7E176
(excerpt)
Daioleslam: There are two distinct views about the Iranian choices and the path it will eventually take. There are those who believe that the regime is in such a weak position that it will finally surrender to the international pressure. Ibrahim Yazdi for example said:
"At the end of the war with Iraq, Iran was in such a bad position that finally accepted the UN resolution. We are in the same position now because the catastrophic political and economic situation will force the regime to surrender to internal exigencies in much worst conditions. Briefly, if we take into account the two experiences of war with Iraq and the US embassy hostage taking, we should be concerned that the regime would eventually surrender to the UN resolutions in such bad terms that the national interests would be jeopardized."
There is also another view which I personally believe will dominate. This point of view is that the regime cannot or should not retreat. Any retreat is like a breach in a dam and will only stop with the regime's total surrender. This is the dominant belief among the Iranian leadership. As Rafsanjani has recently declared: "if we retreat on this issue, we will allow our enemy to interfere with all the issues of our country."
FP: Ok, so some critics argue that, because of this situation, there may be some flexibility from the Iranians on the nuclear impasse. The deal that the West is offering Tehran is very sweet and might be hard for them to turn down.
Daioleslam: Let me explain this further. In order to understand the Iranian regime's dilemma, we should go back to 2002-2003 when the regime passed a fundamental turning point. The result was the emergence of the Revolutionary Guards as the dominant force in Iran, symbolized later by Ahmadinejad's ascendance to power. That turning point is the root cause of the actual gloomy conditions in Iran and the mullahs' incapacity to accommodate the demands of the international pressure.
FP: Elaborate on this please.
Daioleslam: Ok, I will try. Let's start with a question. Why in 2005, did the Iranian leadership replace Mohammad Khatami, a smiling and internationally greeted president with a radical and repelling personality as Ahmadinejad? Note that in Iran, despite the masquerade of elections, presidents are selected rather than elected. It is naive to believe that Ahmadinejad's triumph was the result of a popular democratic process. The 2005 elections were particularly rigged. For the first time in the three decade history of the Clerical rule, all the candidates (except the lucky winner) publicly talked about massive intervention of the Guards and organized cheating.
So, the question is why the Iranian regime underwent such a radical transformation. Why was there a need to unify the power under the Guards' control?
FP: Are you suggesting that Ahmadinejad was Tehran's answer to a challenge?
Daioleslam: Exactly. In 2002- 2003, the Iranian clandestine nuclear program was uncovered and the regime was under immense pressure. At the same time, Iraq was invaded by the coalition forces and Tehran was faced with US massive presence. These two new elements were on top of the most important threat that regime was facing: the internal unrests and a growing social and political dissent movement.
To face these three challenges, regime had two choices: First choice was to come clean in nuclear dossier, get along with new regional geopolitics and finally liberalize the political atmosphere inside the country. We know that Tehran did not follow this path. The Ayatollahs opted for the second choice:
---end---
All the research I've done over the years would fully support the conclusion that we've been winess to a soft-sell military coup, and that indeed the regime has dug such a deep political hole for itself that it is incapable of taking the exit option offered by the p5+1.
The leadership is faced with the choice between losing face and internal power base if it "surrenders" its position, and the internal destabilization of the government would result.
With the alternative being that it may be removed from power by externally applied force if it fails to. And will certainly face further economic strangulation via international isolation and sanction.
So when folks say that we have a lousy choice to make between war and letting the regime have nuclear weapons, you have a real good idea why that is the case when the Iranian's self made political dillema is examined objectively.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Doesn't make any sense to spend billions on enrichment for reactors that don't exist, arn't being built, and when you already have Russia completing the fuel delivery and recycling for the one that has been built.
How do you explain that Zharkov?
The Iranians certainly have not.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Doesn't make any sense to spend billions on enrichment for reactors that don't exist, arn't being built, and when you already have Russia completing the fuel delivery and recycling for the one that has been built.
How do you explain that Zharkov?
The Iranians certainly have not.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Zharkov, with 70% of Iran's population under 30 years old, most wern't even born when the shah was alive, let alone old enough to remember cold-war influence in Iran by the major powers...or the Soviet puppet you referred to.
Fact is, most could care less...25% inflation, heavy restrictions on personal freedoms, dress, speech, they will tell you in no uncertain terms that the revolution has failed them.
So use the link Zharkov, you might discover something new.
If the US took a policy position of engaging in diplomacy based on not whether the Iranians have WMD yet, but based on the probability that thay do. It would simplify the equasion and be able to remain consistant in the face of "red-lines" like a nuclear test.
What would such a policy look like implemented? Very much like what we see today actually, and does not involve knee-jerk military action as an automatic response to "red lines". Leaving all options still on the table.
If war is to be, it will be because the Iranian government wanted it to happen. Thinking it might cause the people to rally behind them in support. I think that to be dangerously wishful thinking on their part.
Stay tuned for more excelent adventures of Ali and Mahmood, and their commander Hakim, "the Three Missilleers" as they bust out of Evin Prison....(chuckle).
I'm getting bored with all the regurgitated talking points that contribute nothing new to the equasion, and a little satire might make this topic a little more "readable" and entertaining.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Zharkov, with 70% of Iran's population under 30 years old, most wern't even born when the shah was alive, let alone old enough to remember cold-war influence in Iran by the major powers...or the Soviet puppet you referred to.
Fact is, most could care less...25% inflation, heavy restrictions on personal freedoms, dress, speech, they will tell you in no uncertain terms that the revolution has failed them.
So use the link Zharkov, you might discover something new.
If the US took a policy position of engaging in diplomacy based on not whether the Iranians have WMD yet, but based on the probability that thay do. It would simplify the equasion and be able to remain consistant in the face of "red-lines" like a nuclear test.
What would such a policy look like implemented? Very much like what we see today actually, and does not involve knee-jerk military action as an automatic response to "red lines". Leaving all options still on the table.
If war is to be, it will be because the Iranian government wanted it to happen. Thinking it might cause the people to rally behind them in support. I think that to be dangerously wishful thinking on their part.
Stay tuned for more excelent adventures of Ali and Mahmood, and their commander Hakim, "the Three Missilleers" as they bust out of Evin Prison....(chuckle).
I'm getting bored with all the regurgitated talking points that contribute nothing new to the equasion, and a little satire might make this topic a little more "readable" and entertaining.
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
@ Arnold in New Jersey -- Arnold in New Jersey raised good points regarding past US policy, but we cannot give Iran a free pass on nuclear weapons merely because we had meddled in Iran's politics in a past era - that is ancient history and not a license to kill.
A nuclear strike on Israel does not compensate anyone for the conspiracy deposing Mossadegh. It is not equivalent at all. Allowing Iran a nuclear first strike on Tel Aviv is not the way to even the score.
Iran must be judged for what it is today, not for what it should have been. My view is that we need proof of an actual attack before declaring war. A "Gulf of Tonkin" guessing game does not meet the standard we should require.
If "preventative war" is to be our doctrine, then we need proof of a clear and present danger - a real threat not an imagined one.
So far, we have nothing. Uranium enrichment is ambiguous and could mean civilian use or mere research rather than a weapons program.
Israel can attack Iran with only a moment's notice, so by waiting until Iran proves it has lied about a weapons program with hostile intent, an Israeli attack will not appear to be unnecessary aggression against a peaceful neighbor.
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008
@ Arnold in New Jersey -- Arnold in New Jersey raised good points regarding past US policy, but we cannot give Iran a free pass on nuclear weapons merely because we had meddled in Iran's politics in a past era - that is ancient history and not a license to kill.
A nuclear strike on Israel does not compensate anyone for the conspiracy deposing Mossadegh. It is not equivalent at all. Allowing Iran a nuclear first strike on Tel Aviv is not the way to even the score.
Iran must be judged for what it is today, not for what it should have been. My view is that we need proof of an actual attack before declaring war. A "Gulf of Tonkin" guessing game does not meet the standard we should require.
If "preventative war" is to be our doctrine, then we need proof of a clear and present danger - a real threat not an imagined one.
So far, we have nothing. Uranium enrichment is ambiguous and could mean civilian use or mere research rather than a weapons program.
Israel can attack Iran with only a moment's notice, so by waiting until Iran proves it has lied about a weapons program with hostile intent, an Israeli attack will not appear to be unnecessary aggression against a peaceful neighbor.
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Arnold in New Jersey -- Arnold, I suggest you talk to some Iranians about the history, and let them provide you with some perspective.
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php
You're new 'round here, and I've had plenty to say on this over the years. I don't feel like repeating myself in rebuttle. There's too much "in the now" that has more relevance.
"oppie"
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008
@ Arnold in New Jersey -- Arnold, I suggest you talk to some Iranians about the history, and let them provide you with some perspective.
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php
You're new 'round here, and I've had plenty to say on this over the years. I don't feel like repeating myself in rebuttle. There's too much "in the now" that has more relevance.
"oppie"
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
Why it is that no one can see the extended implications here?
1. Russia ordered the launch, not Iran. This can be supported by the timeline response mechanisms of the Russian proletariat.
2. Not only did Russia make a clear pronounced position stance they showed their ability to strike an indirect economic threat against the US.
3. This launch indirectly and directly caused the fall of a major bank and devaluation of the U.S. dollar due to speculation.
The only history needed is:
Putin was the initiator of the think tank behind the Wheat Futures deal in the 70s which put the US off the Gold Standard and is an Economic major...
If you extend your thought to a world platform, the only common denominator is money and business to alter allies. Business does much better in a democracy, Putins weak hand is how he rained in the money from free enterprise in Russia. This is our leverage for peacefully dismantling the present regime in Iran and elsewhere.
Its not about Iran. Iran is only a piece on the Game board.
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008
Why it is that no one can see the extended implications here?
1. Russia ordered the launch, not Iran. This can be supported by the timeline response mechanisms of the Russian proletariat.
2. Not only did Russia make a clear pronounced position stance they showed their ability to strike an indirect economic threat against the US.
3. This launch indirectly and directly caused the fall of a major bank and devaluation of the U.S. dollar due to speculation.
The only history needed is:
Putin was the initiator of the think tank behind the Wheat Futures deal in the 70s which put the US off the Gold Standard and is an Economic major...
If you extend your thought to a world platform, the only common denominator is money and business to alter allies. Business does much better in a democracy, Putins weak hand is how he rained in the money from free enterprise in Russia. This is our leverage for peacefully dismantling the present regime in Iran and elsewhere.
Its not about Iran. Iran is only a piece on the Game board.
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008
Arnold in New Jersey writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Eric in New Mexico wrote the following...
Eric, I appreciate your conventional comments. I am sure you will get lots of agreement. Many people see the world as you do. But it is conventional thinking that has gotten us into chronic conflicts over the last 230 years.
We, as individuals and nations, are plagued by minimal levels of self-awareness. Thus, we do not recognize the "cause and effect" between our thinking and actions and the way people respond to us.
In psychological circles, they call it playing "victim". Individuals and groups of individuals called nations or governments are not free of this human failing. It is inherited when we are born.
Have you forgotten about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in his invasion and 8 war with Iran? A million people died!
If you were an Iranian whose son died on the battlefield by Saddam's chemical weapons and knew that Saddam attained serious support from the U.S. how excited would you be to cooperate on anything with the U.S.?
Have you forgotten that the U.S. was responsible for the Shah being put in power and being kept in power while his opposition was jailed in Savak prisons and tortured? I had a friend who heard people being tortured there while he was in their custody.
In the last 55 years our government has never taken serious responsibility for these things and many more. It is insane to think we can do such things to others and then expect cooperation, love and respect!
I am sure you have a lot more compassion for people than you are expressing.
Eric, you also wrote...
As long as we see everything in terms of "good-guys" and "bad guys" and refuse to see how we source our own troubles like we have for 230 years, then we will continue getting into endless conflicts, with the "blame-game" still intact.
Eric... You also spoke of the need to "change" Iranian behavior. Why do you think it is anyone else's job to change their behavior?
We can't seem to change our own. Our government be they Democratic or Republican have gotten us into many armed conflicts because we chose to change others versus ourselves.
How would feel if I tried to change you? No one wants to be changed by others. We all have to change ourselves for the better. Then, maybe then will others respond positively to us.
@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- Zharkov... You wrote on this blog the other day a long condemnation list of Iranian misdeeds. I won't dispute the accuracy of your comments one way or another. But, I would suggest that you put together a list of the misconduct of our government and our allies. Then compare.
But even this is secondary to the fact that no one will cooperate with people whose only way of relating seems to be through condemnation, demonizing, coercion and threats.
This is why we are where we are.
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008
@ Eric in New Mexico -- Eric in New Mexico wrote the following...
"Arnold, before you toss a pity-party for the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and try to justify Iran's actions over the past 30 years....The numerous Coalition deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan sustained from Iranian supplied weapons to Iranian trained "special groups" could be in and of itself considered "casus belli" to take more than simply diplomatic action..."Eric: You seem to forget that the U.S. invaded both of Iran's neighbors. What would our government do if Iran was able to invade Mexico and Canada and did so unprovoked? We wouldn't just send some weapons across the border.
Eric, I appreciate your conventional comments. I am sure you will get lots of agreement. Many people see the world as you do. But it is conventional thinking that has gotten us into chronic conflicts over the last 230 years.
We, as individuals and nations, are plagued by minimal levels of self-awareness. Thus, we do not recognize the "cause and effect" between our thinking and actions and the way people respond to us.
In psychological circles, they call it playing "victim". Individuals and groups of individuals called nations or governments are not free of this human failing. It is inherited when we are born.
Have you forgotten about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in his invasion and 8 war with Iran? A million people died!
If you were an Iranian whose son died on the battlefield by Saddam's chemical weapons and knew that Saddam attained serious support from the U.S. how excited would you be to cooperate on anything with the U.S.?
Have you forgotten that the U.S. was responsible for the Shah being put in power and being kept in power while his opposition was jailed in Savak prisons and tortured? I had a friend who heard people being tortured there while he was in their custody.
In the last 55 years our government has never taken serious responsibility for these things and many more. It is insane to think we can do such things to others and then expect cooperation, love and respect!
I am sure you have a lot more compassion for people than you are expressing.
Eric, you also wrote...
"Well, one thing's for sure, this is not due to as lack of diplomatic effort and good will on America's part in coordination with the UN and member nations. Nor is it lack of communication. If diplomacy has failed to produce results, and more importantly if it fails to bring the Iranians to the table at the place they left it originally when they declared their enrichment operation would no longer be suspended, then one has to realize that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar. The failure is not in the diplomacy among nations, it is in that we aren't speaking in a language understandable by radical extremists and religious tyrants.Eric... Let's get this straight. Once again, Webster defines diplomacy as, "A skill in solving problems without arousing hostility." Webster further defines coercion as, "To achieve by force or threat." Diplomacy doesn't fail because one side is good and the other bad. It fails because neither party is communicating on the same channel. Without effective and true communication diplomacy will always fail as it frequently has. We are rarely ever diplomatic with adversaries. Its mostly coercion.
They flat don't understand "reasonable," and look upon it mistakenly as weakness."
As long as we see everything in terms of "good-guys" and "bad guys" and refuse to see how we source our own troubles like we have for 230 years, then we will continue getting into endless conflicts, with the "blame-game" still intact.
Eric... You also spoke of the need to "change" Iranian behavior. Why do you think it is anyone else's job to change their behavior?
We can't seem to change our own. Our government be they Democratic or Republican have gotten us into many armed conflicts because we chose to change others versus ourselves.
How would feel if I tried to change you? No one wants to be changed by others. We all have to change ourselves for the better. Then, maybe then will others respond positively to us.
@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- Zharkov... You wrote on this blog the other day a long condemnation list of Iranian misdeeds. I won't dispute the accuracy of your comments one way or another. But, I would suggest that you put together a list of the misconduct of our government and our allies. Then compare.
But even this is secondary to the fact that no one will cooperate with people whose only way of relating seems to be through condemnation, demonizing, coercion and threats.
This is why we are where we are.
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008
Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:
Iran's revolutionary government began war against the US in 1979 by taking hostages and it still proclaims that America is the enemy, so a bombing run is long overdue.
The attitude of the ayatollahs who will make the final decision to end nuclear enrichment, and their beliefs and doctrines, are more hostile than any previous enemy. Iran's revolutionary government has a vile, evil reputation:
1. They held our diplomats and embassy employees hostage;
2. They allow ayatollahs to execute people for trivial offenses;
3. Their religious oppression is without conscience;
4. Their propaganda against America advocates murder;
5. They have assassinated Iranian citizens living abroad;
6. They confirmed on many occasions that nuclear enrichment is non-negotiable;
Regardless, if we are to justify an attack on Iran's alleged covert nuke program we need to negotiate with Iran to the point of exhaustion but take no military action until Iran tests an A-bomb, because war is no internationally-acceptable alternative in the absence of proof. Citizens of other nations feel insecure when US forces attack on faulty information and that makes our version of democracy appear questionable at best, or a sham at worst.
Once Iran has tested an atomic weapon, their government will have violated the Non-proliferation Treaty and we can drop our objection to Israeli military action. As long as the US military can neutralize retaliation and terminate ayatollah control of Iran's government, there is no reason to object to Israeli attack when negotiations fail to end enrichment.
Our agreement with North Korea occurred after their nuclear test proved that their A-bomb existed. If there is irrefutable evidence that a nuclear weapons program exists, international consensus will arise for a solution. Iran is not quite there yet, so there is no real consensus.
Russia and China do not believe Iran is a threat and much of Europe agrees with them. When they see for themselves that Iranian government denials have been lies, their objections become unsustainable.
The outstanding success in Libya was possible because of Khaddaffi's personality, eccentric at times but quite intelligent and introspective. Contrast that personality with Iran's ayatollahs spouting crazy slogans and death fatwas against anyone they dislike, including cartoonists and book authors. What worked with Libya will not likely work with Iran. After extensive negotiations, we may conclude that nothing except bombing Iran's Ruling Council into paradise could change their minds but it takes considerable diplomatic effort to ultimately reach that conclusion. We are not there yet and we have not proven to UN members that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that we have exhausted all diplomatic effort. A logical military decision is to do nothing until Iran provides a rope with which to hang itself, in the form of a prohibited act under the NPT.
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
Iran's revolutionary government began war against the US in 1979 by taking hostages and it still proclaims that America is the enemy, so a bombing run is long overdue.
The attitude of the ayatollahs who will make the final decision to end nuclear enrichment, and their beliefs and doctrines, are more hostile than any previous enemy. Iran's revolutionary government has a vile, evil reputation:
1. They held our diplomats and embassy employees hostage;
2. They allow ayatollahs to execute people for trivial offenses;
3. Their religious oppression is without conscience;
4. Their propaganda against America advocates murder;
5. They have assassinated Iranian citizens living abroad;
6. They confirmed on many occasions that nuclear enrichment is non-negotiable;
Regardless, if we are to justify an attack on Iran's alleged covert nuke program we need to negotiate with Iran to the point of exhaustion but take no military action until Iran tests an A-bomb, because war is no internationally-acceptable alternative in the absence of proof. Citizens of other nations feel insecure when US forces attack on faulty information and that makes our version of democracy appear questionable at best, or a sham at worst.
Once Iran has tested an atomic weapon, their government will have violated the Non-proliferation Treaty and we can drop our objection to Israeli military action. As long as the US military can neutralize retaliation and terminate ayatollah control of Iran's government, there is no reason to object to Israeli attack when negotiations fail to end enrichment.
Our agreement with North Korea occurred after their nuclear test proved that their A-bomb existed. If there is irrefutable evidence that a nuclear weapons program exists, international consensus will arise for a solution. Iran is not quite there yet, so there is no real consensus.
Russia and China do not believe Iran is a threat and much of Europe agrees with them. When they see for themselves that Iranian government denials have been lies, their objections become unsustainable.
The outstanding success in Libya was possible because of Khaddaffi's personality, eccentric at times but quite intelligent and introspective. Contrast that personality with Iran's ayatollahs spouting crazy slogans and death fatwas against anyone they dislike, including cartoonists and book authors. What worked with Libya will not likely work with Iran. After extensive negotiations, we may conclude that nothing except bombing Iran's Ruling Council into paradise could change their minds but it takes considerable diplomatic effort to ultimately reach that conclusion. We are not there yet and we have not proven to UN members that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that we have exhausted all diplomatic effort. A logical military decision is to do nothing until Iran provides a rope with which to hang itself, in the form of a prohibited act under the NPT.
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
I will quote Thomas E.... The best way to never solve a problem is to overcomplicate it...
The answers that worked then, may well work now.
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
I will quote Thomas E.... The best way to never solve a problem is to overcomplicate it...
The answers that worked then, may well work now.
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
My end was that President Ahmadinejad of Iran will not be as easily moved as Kim was due to the countries natural resources. While Kim is benefiting from the new Industry in the South, Iran is not as desperate and has a lot of allies surrounding them, so the same sanctions and international leverage will not be as effective. Combine that with todays Russian announcement that they will match all US efforts of missile installations, giving Iran a solid major power to really on. This anouncement on the heels of the US-Checz agreement and Irans launching is standard Political retoric of the old Cold War era. This time more chess pieces are on the board.
What leverage can be used beyond inducing a business agreement with the business leaders of the country and work for displacement of a non productive leadership?
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
My end was that President Ahmadinejad of Iran will not be as easily moved as Kim was due to the countries natural resources. While Kim is benefiting from the new Industry in the South, Iran is not as desperate and has a lot of allies surrounding them, so the same sanctions and international leverage will not be as effective. Combine that with todays Russian announcement that they will match all US efforts of missile installations, giving Iran a solid major power to really on. This anouncement on the heels of the US-Checz agreement and Irans launching is standard Political retoric of the old Cold War era. This time more chess pieces are on the board.
What leverage can be used beyond inducing a business agreement with the business leaders of the country and work for displacement of a non productive leadership?
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Lewis in Japan -- Here's the audio...(unofficial transcript)
"Anybody got a light?"
"I haven't seen anybody sir, there's too much dust."
"I need a light!"
"Would you like one of my tailor-made American cigarettes along with that sir?"
"Maybe later Ali, when our commander has us before a firing squad for becoming an embarasment to the revolution. Now go get me a light! The fuse went out."
"All my matches are wet, sir."
"We're doomed."
"Perhaps not sir, see that photographer over there? He's been bugging me for smokes all day."
"I see you were never cut out for Martyrdom, Ali."
"Indeed not sir, I must confess that I believe the infidel Robin Williams to be correct sir."
"Don't tell me about the Virginians again Ali! I might as well have that cigarette now... after all this you're going to get me hanged from a crane for blasphemy."
"Would you like a 'picture perfect launch' to give to the commander? I'm sure he'll pardon the both of us."
"You think that will work, Ali?"
"You can do anything with photoshop sir."
---
And the rest is Dipnote history....(chuckle).
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
@ Lewis in Japan -- Here's the audio...(unofficial transcript)
"Anybody got a light?"
"I haven't seen anybody sir, there's too much dust."
"I need a light!"
"Would you like one of my tailor-made American cigarettes along with that sir?"
"Maybe later Ali, when our commander has us before a firing squad for becoming an embarasment to the revolution. Now go get me a light! The fuse went out."
"All my matches are wet, sir."
"We're doomed."
"Perhaps not sir, see that photographer over there? He's been bugging me for smokes all day."
"I see you were never cut out for Martyrdom, Ali."
"Indeed not sir, I must confess that I believe the infidel Robin Williams to be correct sir."
"Don't tell me about the Virginians again Ali! I might as well have that cigarette now... after all this you're going to get me hanged from a crane for blasphemy."
"Would you like a 'picture perfect launch' to give to the commander? I'm sure he'll pardon the both of us."
"You think that will work, Ali?"
"You can do anything with photoshop sir."
---
And the rest is Dipnote history....(chuckle).
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
SNP has no authority to speak or comment on Behalf of the Syrian Government. The shift in SNP strategy is not correlated to President Assad reported readiness to distance Syria from Iran, rather it is independent and SNP interests related. At the start of the Iraq war we promoted and supported the President in seeking Iran's strategic alliance as part of a strategy to help defend Syria and Lebanon achieve a -Balance of Power- in the Levant region. It was very effective strategy and has fully succeeded in the prescribed goal. Syria and Lebanon today, even Iraq, has maintained territorial and State integrity, Clean Break stratum defeated. The Status Quo is maintained.
The goals were and still are the same as SNP defined them from the start, Peace, Prosperity, Progress. The United States were deceptively promoting slogans while conspiring to bring about Iraqizaton of the entire Middle East. Israel as well, was still looking for Greater Israel fantasy. The alliance proved effective in halting the Machiavellian design for the region.
Not much hoped for, in term of accomplishment or were expected from Syria, they are ruled by Arab Baathist Socialists Party, what combination of ideologies? huh. We thought by strengthening Iran militarily and economically (since America's slogans proven scams and unreliable ally) we can benefit from the alliance in Syria and Lebanon in terms of economic and modernization benefits, in addition to improving security and defense of the region by helping Iran balance out with Israel. That can be accomplished by helping Iran to prove publicly, for real, its ability to defend the alliance and the region by demonstrating ultra high tech defense technologies and taking certain strategic steps. The end game is that Israel has no choice but to sit on the negotiating table and resolve all outstanding issues with not just Syria, but Iran and the rest of the Arab/Moslem world, if it wants to be incorporated into the greater regional development.
After 4 years, neither economic, nor defense and neither the strategic options matirliazed despite incredible efforts by SNP to impel Iranians to do so. Although, to some extent it was effective strategy, it has become very evident that the end goals could not ever be reached by relaying on Iran. In fact it has become evident that the strategy reached -a point of diminishing returns-. Syria should go it alone and Lebanon should follow in its footsteps, if they can forget the atrocity and war crimes committed by the Israeli in 06. We simply can not spend another 60 years waiting for Iran when we have already spent 60 years waiting for Arab leaders to resolve the serious problems facing the region. Granted, that In Syria, the Baath policies are to blame, those problems are extreme and intolerable to the millions of Syrians. We think President Assad as well views these problems with concerns and he is maybe eloping in a bid to resolve them. SNP do not believe without the President sincere effort to modernize Syria, the Baath administration will manage these serious issues no matter what the World helps in this effort. The change has to come from President Assad first and foremost.
Palestinians / Hezbollah. The Palestine issue has been resolved and I think a Palestinian President is installed, there is a government as well, so let them deal with it, we have helped them for 60 years, now we have to help ourselves in Syria and Lebanon.
Hezbollah is no longer needed for defense and security of Lebanon, its arms stockpile simply stands no chance if the Israeli wanted to fight for real with modern weapons rather than limits the conflict. Hezbollah, is responsible for atrocious carnage on Lebanon in 06, and of approving and installing U.N. mandate back in Lebanon, after this country won it's independence from this evil agency. It is biggest offence, is permitting the installation of U.N. forces and monitors along the boarder with Syria and of permitting the establishment and exchange of Embassies between Syria and Lebanon. Basically, accomplishing the Clean Break goals willfully, after SNP spend 4 years defeating it. The only resistance now for Hezbollah is showing is the one against Sunni Moslems in Lebanon and Syria, to usurp power from them, and to degrade Lebanon to that of a SOFA-SHIA / MOU-SHIA. If you do not want Sunnis of Lebanon to arms themselves with much more effective weapons than what Iran supplied Hezbollah, and the parties start waging a Civil War (a profound interest of US/Israel) then better off that Hezbollah hands it guns to the Lebanese Army and go back into the Shia Charitable business. Sunni Moslems in Lebanon are not going to tolerate the Shia forces pointing arms at them at street corners.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
SNP has no authority to speak or comment on Behalf of the Syrian Government. The shift in SNP strategy is not correlated to President Assad reported readiness to distance Syria from Iran, rather it is independent and SNP interests related. At the start of the Iraq war we promoted and supported the President in seeking Iran's strategic alliance as part of a strategy to help defend Syria and Lebanon achieve a -Balance of Power- in the Levant region. It was very effective strategy and has fully succeeded in the prescribed goal. Syria and Lebanon today, even Iraq, has maintained territorial and State integrity, Clean Break stratum defeated. The Status Quo is maintained.
The goals were and still are the same as SNP defined them from the start, Peace, Prosperity, Progress. The United States were deceptively promoting slogans while conspiring to bring about Iraqizaton of the entire Middle East. Israel as well, was still looking for Greater Israel fantasy. The alliance proved effective in halting the Machiavellian design for the region.
Not much hoped for, in term of accomplishment or were expected from Syria, they are ruled by Arab Baathist Socialists Party, what combination of ideologies? huh. We thought by strengthening Iran militarily and economically (since America's slogans proven scams and unreliable ally) we can benefit from the alliance in Syria and Lebanon in terms of economic and modernization benefits, in addition to improving security and defense of the region by helping Iran balance out with Israel. That can be accomplished by helping Iran to prove publicly, for real, its ability to defend the alliance and the region by demonstrating ultra high tech defense technologies and taking certain strategic steps. The end game is that Israel has no choice but to sit on the negotiating table and resolve all outstanding issues with not just Syria, but Iran and the rest of the Arab/Moslem world, if it wants to be incorporated into the greater regional development.
After 4 years, neither economic, nor defense and neither the strategic options matirliazed despite incredible efforts by SNP to impel Iranians to do so. Although, to some extent it was effective strategy, it has become very evident that the end goals could not ever be reached by relaying on Iran. In fact it has become evident that the strategy reached -a point of diminishing returns-. Syria should go it alone and Lebanon should follow in its footsteps, if they can forget the atrocity and war crimes committed by the Israeli in 06. We simply can not spend another 60 years waiting for Iran when we have already spent 60 years waiting for Arab leaders to resolve the serious problems facing the region. Granted, that In Syria, the Baath policies are to blame, those problems are extreme and intolerable to the millions of Syrians. We think President Assad as well views these problems with concerns and he is maybe eloping in a bid to resolve them. SNP do not believe without the President sincere effort to modernize Syria, the Baath administration will manage these serious issues no matter what the World helps in this effort. The change has to come from President Assad first and foremost.
Palestinians / Hezbollah. The Palestine issue has been resolved and I think a Palestinian President is installed, there is a government as well, so let them deal with it, we have helped them for 60 years, now we have to help ourselves in Syria and Lebanon.
Hezbollah is no longer needed for defense and security of Lebanon, its arms stockpile simply stands no chance if the Israeli wanted to fight for real with modern weapons rather than limits the conflict. Hezbollah, is responsible for atrocious carnage on Lebanon in 06, and of approving and installing U.N. mandate back in Lebanon, after this country won it's independence from this evil agency. It is biggest offence, is permitting the installation of U.N. forces and monitors along the boarder with Syria and of permitting the establishment and exchange of Embassies between Syria and Lebanon. Basically, accomplishing the Clean Break goals willfully, after SNP spend 4 years defeating it. The only resistance now for Hezbollah is showing is the one against Sunni Moslems in Lebanon and Syria, to usurp power from them, and to degrade Lebanon to that of a SOFA-SHIA / MOU-SHIA. If you do not want Sunnis of Lebanon to arms themselves with much more effective weapons than what Iran supplied Hezbollah, and the parties start waging a Civil War (a profound interest of US/Israel) then better off that Hezbollah hands it guns to the Lebanese Army and go back into the Shia Charitable business. Sunni Moslems in Lebanon are not going to tolerate the Shia forces pointing arms at them at street corners.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
Sen. Biden expressed the opinion in his opening remarks that freedom was not on the rise in Iraq, but that Iran was as a result of our actions.
Interesting perspective. If that's the case, we're not talking about a "village square test" for democracy, but a "rabid dog running around the village square-test."
Seems a fitting description for the "special groups" Iran has sent into Iraq.
I see DOD is dealing with them in an appropriate manner, and rightfully so. Time to put those puppies to sleep.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Sen. Biden expressed the opinion in his opening remarks that freedom was not on the rise in Iraq, but that Iran was as a result of our actions.
Interesting perspective. If that's the case, we're not talking about a "village square test" for democracy, but a "rabid dog running around the village square-test."
Seems a fitting description for the "special groups" Iran has sent into Iraq.
I see DOD is dealing with them in an appropriate manner, and rightfully so. Time to put those puppies to sleep.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Eric in New Mexico:
@ SNP, if what you say is accurate, then your statement regarding Iran ties in with this, if the report linked below is also accurate.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/signs-pointing-to-damascus-break-with-iran/
An interesting development if it has stong diplomatic legs.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
@ SNP, if what you say is accurate, then your statement regarding Iran ties in with this, if the report linked below is also accurate.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/signs-pointing-to-damascus-break-with-iran/
An interesting development if it has stong diplomatic legs.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
John in New York writes:
Can Audrey Hepburn tell us something about Iran? In Wait Until Dark she was a young stay-behind wife, spunky though blind, and calm and mannerly even when a burglar broke in. When he threatened rape, however, she slung kerosene everywhere and retreated behind the refrigerator with a box of matches. Had she gone crazy? Yes, crazy like a fox. Bravo, we cheered. Iran's enemies announce (and have demonstrated) that they may attack without warning or explanation. As Malcolm Gladwell hinted in other contexts, we don't need better information here, we need better sense. The blind Audrey Hepburn could light what we can't see. Wait until dark.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Can Audrey Hepburn tell us something about Iran? In Wait Until Dark she was a young stay-behind wife, spunky though blind, and calm and mannerly even when a burglar broke in. When he threatened rape, however, she slung kerosene everywhere and retreated behind the refrigerator with a box of matches. Had she gone crazy? Yes, crazy like a fox. Bravo, we cheered. Iran's enemies announce (and have demonstrated) that they may attack without warning or explanation. As Malcolm Gladwell hinted in other contexts, we don't need better information here, we need better sense. The blind Audrey Hepburn could light what we can't see. Wait until dark.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Joe in Tennessee writes:
1. Civility is generally needed for compromise. Civility leads to flexibility for a greater purpose. You cannot have an open discussion with a bully or a Hitler. If you believe this, then let me remind you of Benito Mussolini, who trusted Hitler. Even between two bullies, there can be no trust. No trust, no diplomatic solution. Mussolini called Hitler the biggest liar of all time. He reaped the diplomacy rewards of the same type of personality as President Ahmadinejad. Want to base deplomacy on history and personality profiles?
2. It is NOT the US who has damaged their citizens, it started with Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He separated a growing business partnership with the US, seeing the new involvement as evil. It was not evil, but would limit his religious power and those of the cleric base. In 1977 they formed the Combatant Clerics Association, which became the foundation for the Islamic Republic Party. At the same time, a business group in Iran even built a structure to provide a US embassy just off shore to show its sincerity with ties to the US. A magnificent structure with marble floors, etc. It is the Leadership and Government who restrained open free trade then and even today. It is and has always been about POWER there. If the people have money, they have freedom, which is power the Clerics did not and still do not want to share.
3. Power is now a shared commodity there by State and Religious leaders, neither of which have the actual concern of the citizen in mind. They only fear personal loss of control. The psychological profiles of the leadership cannot be disputed. 1997, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a high-ranking cleric and scholar once designated successor of Ayatollah Khomeini, criticized Khamenei's rule, calling the supreme leader incompetent. Khamenei immediately placed the cleric under house arrest for five years. So, there is a history of dictatorship in leadership within even the Religious community. How do you feel this is the result of US policy?
4. Alteration of such personality decisions can only be altered externally. As the power is already in hand, why should they change? This is what leads to the Pavlovian approach to diplomacy...or what you refer to as a carrot. You have leaders in power who simply do not have the capacity to be leaders.
5. This leads to implementation of imputes...policies... which cause the citizenship to push for change. What more can the US and International community do, I do not know at this juncture beyond working with the Business community in Iran.
6. I honestly believe that if the last measure were to be implemented, the business base of Iran would not care, if done in a minimalistic manner. The money factor in Iran would not involve itself. It was Iranian businessmen who wanted to install a refinery in America, it is their government who is restraining them.
7. Perhaps it is time for a last measure given the history, personalities and the continued threat Iran leadership poses. This is not to imply the People of Iran who are simply pawns. I personally still feel that GH Bush was correct lonnnngggg ago. We would not have this problem today...in fact perhaps this is the War that should have been fought which was not due to a Congress who wanted diplomacy. Just think of Iran as a democracy today and what it would have lead to.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
1. Civility is generally needed for compromise. Civility leads to flexibility for a greater purpose. You cannot have an open discussion with a bully or a Hitler. If you believe this, then let me remind you of Benito Mussolini, who trusted Hitler. Even between two bullies, there can be no trust. No trust, no diplomatic solution. Mussolini called Hitler the biggest liar of all time. He reaped the diplomacy rewards of the same type of personality as President Ahmadinejad. Want to base deplomacy on history and personality profiles?
2. It is NOT the US who has damaged their citizens, it started with Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He separated a growing business partnership with the US, seeing the new involvement as evil. It was not evil, but would limit his religious power and those of the cleric base. In 1977 they formed the Combatant Clerics Association, which became the foundation for the Islamic Republic Party. At the same time, a business group in Iran even built a structure to provide a US embassy just off shore to show its sincerity with ties to the US. A magnificent structure with marble floors, etc. It is the Leadership and Government who restrained open free trade then and even today. It is and has always been about POWER there. If the people have money, they have freedom, which is power the Clerics did not and still do not want to share.
3. Power is now a shared commodity there by State and Religious leaders, neither of which have the actual concern of the citizen in mind. They only fear personal loss of control. The psychological profiles of the leadership cannot be disputed. 1997, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a high-ranking cleric and scholar once designated successor of Ayatollah Khomeini, criticized Khamenei's rule, calling the supreme leader incompetent. Khamenei immediately placed the cleric under house arrest for five years. So, there is a history of dictatorship in leadership within even the Religious community. How do you feel this is the result of US policy?
4. Alteration of such personality decisions can only be altered externally. As the power is already in hand, why should they change? This is what leads to the Pavlovian approach to diplomacy...or what you refer to as a carrot. You have leaders in power who simply do not have the capacity to be leaders.
5. This leads to implementation of imputes...policies... which cause the citizenship to push for change. What more can the US and International community do, I do not know at this juncture beyond working with the Business community in Iran.
6. I honestly believe that if the last measure were to be implemented, the business base of Iran would not care, if done in a minimalistic manner. The money factor in Iran would not involve itself. It was Iranian businessmen who wanted to install a refinery in America, it is their government who is restraining them.
7. Perhaps it is time for a last measure given the history, personalities and the continued threat Iran leadership poses. This is not to imply the People of Iran who are simply pawns. I personally still feel that GH Bush was correct lonnnngggg ago. We would not have this problem today...in fact perhaps this is the War that should have been fought which was not due to a Congress who wanted diplomacy. Just think of Iran as a democracy today and what it would have lead to.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Arnold, before you toss a pity-party for the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and try to justify Iran's actions over the past 30 years....
The numerous Coalition deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan sustained from Iranian supplied weapons to Iranian trained "special groups" could be in and of itself considered "casus belli" to take more than simply diplomatic action targeting the financial sector in what Sen Lugar was not quite willing to define as "economic warfare", but suggested a close definition of that was in effect.
In fact we are in a declared conflict with Iran in the sense that Ambassador Crocker made very clear that no Iranian agent opperating in Iraq would be safe, as our military is in process of assuring the Iranians this to be the case.
In the hearing testimony it was asked of Mr. Burns what the nature of the relationship between al quaida and the Iranian government was like. "Wariness" does not preclude cooperation among them, and I found Sen. Biden's "unholy" commentary to be rather enlightening, as he obviously alluded to aspects of that relationship not covered in open session.
One can look at the timing of these missile launches like an Iranian diplomatic hissy-fit in response to the p5+1's offer, which really doesn't suprise me or anyone else apparently. As Sec. Gates put it, "There's a lot of signalling going on."
Well, one thing's for sure, this is not due to as lack of diplomatic effort and good will on America's part in coordination with the UN and member nations.
Nor is it lack of communication.
If diplomacy has failed to produce results, and more importantly if it fails to bring the Iranians to the table at the place they left it originally when they declared their enrichment opperation would no longer be suspended, then one has to realize that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar.
The failure is not in the diplomacy among nations, it is in that we arn't speaking in a language understandable by radical extremists and religious tyrants.
They flat don't understand "reasonable", and look upon it mistakenly as weakness.
So, If the answer is ultimately "No, we will not comply."
Then the offer should be withdrawn and a firm international commitment to ensuring peace and security should be put in no uncertain terms.
"Comply or die." Because therin the language of stark choices lies the only possibility of achieving "behavior change" with a government that has proven over time to have never entered negotiations with any sincerety, save to prolong their ability to develop WMD programs and delivery systems.
My idea of a "diplomatic effort" would be to offer the Mullahs the chance to go back to the mosque and abhor politics forevermore, to preach peace so they could live in peace, or suffer serious concequences.
And so Sen Biden's eloquent argument for "unconditional" bilateral negotiations between the US and Iran is problematic from the standpoint that even if we were willing to, entertaining any illusion that this approach may somehow bring non-existant "moderates" out of the closet in Iran is not sound premis for a change in US policy, with nothing to be gained in terms of changing Iranian behavior.
Any approach carries with it an element of calculated risk, as time is not on diplomacy's side in this case. A lot of patience has been invested, to no avail as yet.
If the final tally of pro's and con's are summed up in decision making by the intent to save lives; as to whether the international community can afford to allow this abysmal excuse for a government to continue to exist...period..as a continued threat to global peace and security....Then let us hope we have the common sense and purpose to ensure the quickest, most effective regime change ever executed via force of arms and diplomacy.
I mean everybody. Russia, China, NATO....be the first time in 60+ years we've stood on the same side against terror and tyrany. Funny how things can come full circle sometimes, naturally, and of necessity.
And in this I fully agree with Sen Biden that "We can't do this alone."
Yeah, "Iran isn't ten feet tall", but regarding the known uncertainty whether they have working WMD (including biological) deliverable today, obtained by hook or crook by any method over the years...that's the key issue. There's no way the intelligence community can assure me (or the American public)they don't have that capability to deliver them at a time of their choosing.
And we must proceed as if they did, for it would be exeedingly unwise to discount the level of probability that exists.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
@ Arnold, before you toss a pity-party for the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and try to justify Iran's actions over the past 30 years....
The numerous Coalition deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan sustained from Iranian supplied weapons to Iranian trained "special groups" could be in and of itself considered "casus belli" to take more than simply diplomatic action targeting the financial sector in what Sen Lugar was not quite willing to define as "economic warfare", but suggested a close definition of that was in effect.
In fact we are in a declared conflict with Iran in the sense that Ambassador Crocker made very clear that no Iranian agent opperating in Iraq would be safe, as our military is in process of assuring the Iranians this to be the case.
In the hearing testimony it was asked of Mr. Burns what the nature of the relationship between al quaida and the Iranian government was like. "Wariness" does not preclude cooperation among them, and I found Sen. Biden's "unholy" commentary to be rather enlightening, as he obviously alluded to aspects of that relationship not covered in open session.
One can look at the timing of these missile launches like an Iranian diplomatic hissy-fit in response to the p5+1's offer, which really doesn't suprise me or anyone else apparently. As Sec. Gates put it, "There's a lot of signalling going on."
Well, one thing's for sure, this is not due to as lack of diplomatic effort and good will on America's part in coordination with the UN and member nations.
Nor is it lack of communication.
If diplomacy has failed to produce results, and more importantly if it fails to bring the Iranians to the table at the place they left it originally when they declared their enrichment opperation would no longer be suspended, then one has to realize that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar.
The failure is not in the diplomacy among nations, it is in that we arn't speaking in a language understandable by radical extremists and religious tyrants.
They flat don't understand "reasonable", and look upon it mistakenly as weakness.
So, If the answer is ultimately "No, we will not comply."
Then the offer should be withdrawn and a firm international commitment to ensuring peace and security should be put in no uncertain terms.
"Comply or die." Because therin the language of stark choices lies the only possibility of achieving "behavior change" with a government that has proven over time to have never entered negotiations with any sincerety, save to prolong their ability to develop WMD programs and delivery systems.
My idea of a "diplomatic effort" would be to offer the Mullahs the chance to go back to the mosque and abhor politics forevermore, to preach peace so they could live in peace, or suffer serious concequences.
And so Sen Biden's eloquent argument for "unconditional" bilateral negotiations between the US and Iran is problematic from the standpoint that even if we were willing to, entertaining any illusion that this approach may somehow bring non-existant "moderates" out of the closet in Iran is not sound premis for a change in US policy, with nothing to be gained in terms of changing Iranian behavior.
Any approach carries with it an element of calculated risk, as time is not on diplomacy's side in this case. A lot of patience has been invested, to no avail as yet.
If the final tally of pro's and con's are summed up in decision making by the intent to save lives; as to whether the international community can afford to allow this abysmal excuse for a government to continue to exist...period..as a continued threat to global peace and security....Then let us hope we have the common sense and purpose to ensure the quickest, most effective regime change ever executed via force of arms and diplomacy.
I mean everybody. Russia, China, NATO....be the first time in 60+ years we've stood on the same side against terror and tyrany. Funny how things can come full circle sometimes, naturally, and of necessity.
And in this I fully agree with Sen Biden that "We can't do this alone."
Yeah, "Iran isn't ten feet tall", but regarding the known uncertainty whether they have working WMD (including biological) deliverable today, obtained by hook or crook by any method over the years...that's the key issue. There's no way the intelligence community can assure me (or the American public)they don't have that capability to deliver them at a time of their choosing.
And we must proceed as if they did, for it would be exeedingly unwise to discount the level of probability that exists.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
SNP in Syria writes:
We told Mohammad Najjar where he can shove these flying tree trunks. Anyone afraid of these worthless trinkets is either acting it up for a strategy or in needs of a technically better informed Defense establishment. Saddam was producing similar flying poles for decades, by the hundreds, the damage he inflicted with it, including the 39 he sent west in 91, is negligible from strategic term. This is hardly a deterrent no an offensive capability worthy of note.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
We told Mohammad Najjar where he can shove these flying tree trunks. Anyone afraid of these worthless trinkets is either acting it up for a strategy or in needs of a technically better informed Defense establishment. Saddam was producing similar flying poles for decades, by the hundreds, the damage he inflicted with it, including the 39 he sent west in 91, is negligible from strategic term. This is hardly a deterrent no an offensive capability worthy of note.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Lewis in Japan writes:
Interesting article about the photo used for this article- apparently, many news reports used a version that was digitally-altered (via a lousy photoshop job) to add a fourth missile. Good to see the DoS was not similarly duped!
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Interesting article about the photo used for this article- apparently, many news reports used a version that was digitally-altered (via a lousy photoshop job) to add a fourth missile. Good to see the DoS was not similarly duped!
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Arnold in New Jersey writes:
The comments of Under Secretary Burns are indicative of decades of the "Carrot & Stick" approach in dealing with our adversaries.
I have the deepest respect for Ambassador Burns who has a distinguished record of service to our nation. He articulates US policy very clearly. He is an asset to the US.
I would just like to point out the fact that our policy towards Iran has many problems built in. First, we will never gain serious long term cooperation with Iran because our policies are based on coercion, interfernce in their internal affairs, judgmentalness, self-righteousness, demonizing, hypocrisy, bullying and denial.
Does the government actually believe that anyone friend or foe would warm up to these policies? This behavior looks like the parent trying to control their child by offering them lollipops or a beating. It is a major form of controlling behavior.
We can't run around doing this with any government whether we like them or not. It expands hostility and resentment which there is already too much of.
What is needed is respect, magnanimity and the willingness to take responsibility for our 55 years of US mistreatment towards Iran. We seem unable to face the fact that we did things that harmed many people in Iran.
Just like today we are seeking to impose our will on them. We hear little about this. We are condemning them. It is provocative and counter-productive.
They have serious greivances but no one seems to want to own up to that fact.
Some will say that we will do X if they will do Y. Why should people who have been harmed in so many ways have to do anything other than accept apologies and amends?
Webster defines diplomacy as, "A skill to solve problems without arousing hostility." Our policies reflect the opposite.
We wonder why people hate us so much. This is one key reason why they do and why we find it so hard to gain the cooperation we need.
The risk of eventually gaining cooperation through bribery "carrots" or threats and coercion "sticks" is that people sooner or later want to retaliate or break agreements. To avoid that you have to either keep threateniing them or keep bribing them.
We need to respect people and communicate with sincerity without hostility or hypocrisy to gain their cooperation.
There are specialized programs today that support breakthrough behavioral change. We need this today more than ever.
We are always our own worst enemy.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
The comments of Under Secretary Burns are indicative of decades of the "Carrot & Stick" approach in dealing with our adversaries.
I have the deepest respect for Ambassador Burns who has a distinguished record of service to our nation. He articulates US policy very clearly. He is an asset to the US.
I would just like to point out the fact that our policy towards Iran has many problems built in. First, we will never gain serious long term cooperation with Iran because our policies are based on coercion, interfernce in their internal affairs, judgmentalness, self-righteousness, demonizing, hypocrisy, bullying and denial.
Does the government actually believe that anyone friend or foe would warm up to these policies? This behavior looks like the parent trying to control their child by offering them lollipops or a beating. It is a major form of controlling behavior.
We can't run around doing this with any government whether we like them or not. It expands hostility and resentment which there is already too much of.
What is needed is respect, magnanimity and the willingness to take responsibility for our 55 years of US mistreatment towards Iran. We seem unable to face the fact that we did things that harmed many people in Iran.
Just like today we are seeking to impose our will on them. We hear little about this. We are condemning them. It is provocative and counter-productive.
They have serious greivances but no one seems to want to own up to that fact.
Some will say that we will do X if they will do Y. Why should people who have been harmed in so many ways have to do anything other than accept apologies and amends?
Webster defines diplomacy as, "A skill to solve problems without arousing hostility." Our policies reflect the opposite.
We wonder why people hate us so much. This is one key reason why they do and why we find it so hard to gain the cooperation we need.
The risk of eventually gaining cooperation through bribery "carrots" or threats and coercion "sticks" is that people sooner or later want to retaliate or break agreements. To avoid that you have to either keep threateniing them or keep bribing them.
We need to respect people and communicate with sincerity without hostility or hypocrisy to gain their cooperation.
There are specialized programs today that support breakthrough behavioral change. We need this today more than ever.
We are always our own worst enemy.
Posted on Thu Jul 10, 2008
Page 1 of 1 pages