No No

Obama and McCain made it clear that the U.S. could not tolerate a nuclear Iran


Share/Save/Bookmark

No No
by Patrick Clawson & David Makovsky
02-Oct-2008
 

The Washington Institute's Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research, and David Makovsky, director of the Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process, participated in a Washington Post forum to evaluate the U.S. presidential candidates:

Patrick Clawson

Pre-Debate. Russia and China are on a different page from us about Iran (and are not that well disposed toward us in general). For all the fine words from our European allies, they have done little to step up the pressure on Iran outside the U.N. framework. The only way to get help from Europe and Russia may be to put Iran at the top of our agenda. Is Iran that important? Put another way: How important is the risk that an Iranian nuclear breakout will lead to many more nuclear states, not least in the Middle East?

Should the United States state clearly that if necessary it will use force to preempt Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or is deterrence a better policy than preemption?

What are U.S. priorities with Russia? Should we be willing to accommodate Moscow on issues like Georgia if the Kremlin agrees to be helpful on issues such as Iran?

How can we structure talks with Iran in such a way as to serve U.S. interests, rather than strengthening the hard-line regime?

Post-Debate. The candidates emphasized their differences on Iran when actually they have much in common. Both agreed "we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran." Both supported reinforced diplomacy as the solution, with strengthened sanctions as the central instrument.

Even regarding the issue on which they exchanged testy words -- namely, engaging Iran -- their differences were more about how to engage rather than whether to talk. For all his pounding McCain about direct talks, Obama agreed that meetings required preparation and would not start with a presidential summit. And for all his hammering Obama about meeting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, McCain agreed that Iran and the United States should be talking even while profound differences are unresolved.

Each made the same goof, mistaking Iran's Revolutionary Guards for Saddam's Republican Guards. More important, though, each ignored the fact that the policies they propose offer poor prospects of success. Only the true optimists, like me, still believe that sanctions and engagement can persuade Iran to postpone its nuclear ambitions, much less to abandon them. More likely, the day will come when a president will have to decide just how unacceptable is a nuclear Iran: is preemption the wiser option, or deterrence? For all the tough words, neither candidate even hinted that force was an option on the table. Until we convince Iran's leaders that America will act if need be, they will continue to believe that we will eventually tolerate the nuclear Iran we now declare to be unacceptable. That gives them little reason to change course.

David Makovsky

Pre-Debate. Israeli and Palestinian leaders have spent more time discussing the final contours of a peace plan since last November's Annapolis conference than ever before. Key territorial differences have been narrowed. Yet important gaps remain. How high of a priority is it to keep Annapolis alive? Is there a better approach? How could the United States persuade the Israeli and Palestinian publics not to be deterred by past setbacks and to believe again that diplomacy can produce results?

More broadly, how should the United States reach out to Arab states to support peace? The Arab states usually say that they endorsed an Arab initiative in 2002 that offers Israel diplomatic recognition once Israel yields all the territories it won in the 1967 war; many Israelis insist that is insufficient, as they are more vulnerable to rocket fire having already withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon. How can we approach the Arab states to use their unique position to delegitimize the radicals who seek to torpedo peace?

Some say the Bush effort on Middle East democratization was futile because elections only bring into office Islamists who are hostile to the United States. Others say that the program should not be shelved but, perhaps, modified to focus more on establishing the foundation of liberal institutions. What's the best way to proceed?

Post-Debate. Both made clear that the United States could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Both made clear that Iran was a rogue state, yet both said they would engage Tehran. (McCain on talks with Iran: "there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them.") This is at odds with the policy that characterized much of the Bush administration.

With Obama seemingly backing off his interest in meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to"), this focus on engagement requires clarification by both candidates before Election Day. What leverage would the United States bring to the table to secure American interests? Both candidates mentioned prospects of heightened sanctions -- what would those be? Halting imports on refined gasoline to Iran, which is dependent on the world for more than 40 percent of its needs? What would be the relationship between sanctions and engagement? What would be the timetable for such engagement? In other words, how does one structure engagement so it would not be like a basketball game where Tehran plays out the clock until it possesses nuclear weapons?


Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Private Pilot

So who will lose Europe??

by Private Pilot on

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?" Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem (which I hope to be attending). The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25. Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me. It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done. I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality. My short lecture consists of 4 parts. First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem. The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city. There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule. Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century. Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks. Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey. Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries. Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself. Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent. The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs. The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side. Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies. This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. Which brings me to my movie, Fitna. I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes. Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out. A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna. Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense. Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming. Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel. It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam. This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.” If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment. Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries. Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time. Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance. This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic. This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support. This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed. These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942: “Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

default

No to Nuclear; Yes to Solar

by Shamse Vazir (not verified) on

Folks, Iran does have a right to peaceful nuclear power according to the NPT as a legal matter. I do not question that.

I do question the wisdom of it. Many western nations have been weary of nuclear power for good reasons including operational safety and radioactive waste. An example of safety problems was shown by the Chernobyl disaster. Another was the Three Mile Island accident. Nuclear technology is over half century old and has little research value. It is dirty and environmentally unwise.

On the other hand, Solar energy is up and coming. There is great research potential, no waste and much lower danger. Iran has plenty of deserts with a ton of sunlight that makes it ideal for Solar energy generation. This is not a joke, it is happening in California; New Mexico; UAE and many other places.
Why not pass on nuclear and focus on Solar? With it Iran will be able to generate all the energy it needs as well as for export. Unlike oil it won't run out anytime soon.


Jaleho

Mr. Clawson informs us that

by Jaleho on

"More likely, the day will come when a president will have to decide
just how unacceptable is a nuclear Iran
: is preemption the wiser
option, or deterrence"

 

Sorry Mr. Clawson,  but that did come in 2003. The president and all of the neo-cons DID decide that a nuclear Iran is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Many red lines were drawn since then.

But, pretty much the president was FORCED TO ADMIT that he can not do shit about Iran. It is time for neocons to stop looking funnier by constantly re-defining THE red line, threatening and all the empty threats they do without having either the stomach militarily, the financial capability, or an iatoa of American people's support.

Here's the real thing Mr. Clawson should remember about his tough guy:

 

pre-debate: bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

post-debate: Sorry for being a wishful thinking dolt. I'll talk to Iran.

 


default

Mr. Clawson double Standards and bullying others does not work!

by Ari (not verified) on

Mr. Clawson:

The U.S. and Israel cannot maintain double standards. Israel a non-signatory to the NPT, with 200 to 500 nuclear war heads, a country who is currently occupying Palestine and continues to invade the countries of the region, and claims it only wants the "BOMB" as a deterrant while at the same time deny the same right for other countries in the region. This is never going to work - the days of bullism are over!

No one cannot eliminate Iran's inalienable right by continusouly pointing fingers that such and such is unacceptable to Israel and the U.S. Put aside your double standards, if Israel does not want a nuclear Iran, which Iran does not yet possess unless both Israel and the U.S. continue to threaten it with an invasion, then why not accept a non-nuclear Middle East. This has been offered by Iran, why is Israel and the U.S. not accepting this? I also wonder if either the U.S. or Israel will allow any agency to inspect their military faciities? I am 100% sure no way!! But then Israel, the U.S., neocons, including yourself demand this from Iran.

It is very easy to solve any threat that you may feel that Iran posses to Israel, have Israel and any other country in the region dismantle their nuclear armaments an set this as a precondition for Iran.
Furthermore, ensure that the U.S. a nuclear weapons state not go around the NPT by assisting non-NPT signatories in their nuclear program.

So long as there are double standards, so long as the U.S. is the greatest violator of the NPT, I don't believe any country, any agency, nor the UNSC has a right to dictate anything to Iran.

We also know that Iran's entire peaceful nuclear program has been politicized, Iran is neither a threat to Israel who already possesses the most lethal weapons of mass destruction, 400 to 500 nuclear warheads, and the 4th largest army in the world nor to the U.S. who already has enough nuclear bombs to destroy Iran 100+ times over, plus the largest and most sophisticated military in the world.

So, let's stop repeating the same old, same old, these type of talks may fool the idiots but not the rest.


default

مهدی جنايات

Son (not verified)


مهدی
جنايات ملاها در يران ربطی به رابطه اوليا با فرزند ندارد بلکه رابطه جانی با قربای بی دفاع خود ا ست. شما همان نظر تعزيه امثال خلخالی, خمينی و لاجوردی را تبليغ ميکنيد که با خون و شکنجه و زندانی هزاران فرزند ايرانی توجيه شده است. امثال شما قادريد مليونها ايرانی را به اتهام هميشگی" جاسوس, کافر، منافق و سيونيست" مجازات کنيد و نام انرا رابطه پدر و فرزندی ميگذاريد...إ


default

....[we need to] remind

by ... (not verified) on

....[we need to] remind ourselves that Americans don't think
like us. Their cognitive framework...informs their sense of 1)obeying the rule of law and not to set a percedent for the violaters of the law to go unpunished 2)their hatred of bullies who have not earned her respect.

This false equivalencey is maddening and laughable; tragically, it stems from the regime's severe congenital sense of insecurity. The US will never look at the Islamic Republic as an equal...

The nuclear issue in this fight is just an excuse and the hardliners know that better than anyone else.


default

Iran's program started under Shahanshah & should not be stopped

by Anonymous in the USA (not verified) on

The mollahs have no right to halt Iran's nuclear program, which was started by Shahanshah Aryamehr Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Under Khatami, the IRI was foolish enough to believe the lies of Uncle Sam's European puppets, and Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. After that, Iran only received more threats and more sanctions from the U.S. and Europe (i.e. the same states which helped Saddam invade Iran and use chemical weapons against Iranians). Iranian patriots should not allow the mollahs to stop Iran's nuclear program.


fiorangela

Clawson's schtick is getting ooooollllldd

by fiorangela on

Get a job, Pat. Really. Find some honest line of work--MacDonald's may
be hiring.
You haven't had an original thought since you were in Pittsburgh and
threatened a deaf old man who presented facts that challenged your
rancid assertions.
A fancy PhD from New School and the best you can manage is high school
level report that McCain and Obama read from the same script? sheeesh.
Besides, Robert Baer's new book, "The Devil We Know, Dealing with the
New Iranian Superpower" will very soon eclipse your crabbed carping
about Iran. Baer starts out sounding like he's drunk Klawson KoolAid,
but his conclusions are doozies, and he ultimately displays an
understanding of the Iranian character that eluded your 30 year old
Marxian analysis. After devoting 200 pages, more or less, to
demonstrating how much Iran had learned about asymmetrical warfare as
well as Iran's abilities to win the hearts and minds of broad Middle
Eastern populations and government, mostly by pointing to Iran's
successes in Lebanon, particularly by vanquishing Israel, Baer wrote
(Obama, are you out there?):
If the United States were to go by the standard of what the Iranians do rather what they say,
there's no evidence they'll start World War III. With all the weapons
Iran has brought into Lebanon, it could have done that a long time ago.
What America needs to do is ask for a truce with Iran, deal with it as
an equal, reach a settlement one issue at a time, and continue along
the same course until Iran is ready for detente -- and maybe more.

With this introductory thought: There
is one more essential Iranian characteristic we need to
understand....[we need to] remind ourselves that Iranians don't think
like us. Their cognitive framework...informs their sense of justice and
fairness.

Baer then writes a lengthy explanation of how Zoroastrianism
ineluctibly shapes Iran's inner dynamics and entwines Iran's history
around that spiritual and ethical core. Clawson and his neocon coterie
chortle that both Obama and McCain slip into the same AIPAC-induced
trance and refer to Iran as a "rogue state." In his Epilogue, Baer
writes, "For too long now, the West has
looked at Iran through a prism that distorts the country beyond
recognition.... It's time we finally recognize Iran for what it is
today... It doesn't matter what we call Iran--a regional power a
hegemon, or a superpower--we have to do something about it."

Did you notice, Pat m'boy, Baer didn't say, "Let's call Iran a rogue
state?" Baer's book is stunning -- and welcome -- reading, an essential
for Americans who have been subjected to at least a dozen years of
propaganda and demonizing and mischaracterization of Iran and Iranians.
Take a look, Patrick; it might soften you up sufficiently to be able to
engage in conversation, rather than threats, the next time an old man
challenges your flawed assertions.


Mehdi

Parents and kids

by Mehdi on

The standoff between Iran and their opponents in some ways reminds me of the dilemma parents have with their kids. On the one hand they want to protect the kid from danger as well as the family, etc, and on the other hand they have to give some freedom to the kid otherwise the kid never grows up. It's a delicate balance. Of course this is not the only thing that is happening - there are other "individuals" involved who want something completely different (to sell weapons, etc).


Niki

won't tolerate Washington Institute

by Niki on

And I hope that Iranians make it clear that they cannot tolerate the Washington Institute!