WMD, IED, Whatever...
[Iran, Iraq, whatever: edited]
So now Bush says that that our intelligence says that Iran is making IEDs that are being used against us in Iraq. Now, this of course sounds plausible...but, then, it sounded plausible that Saddam had WMDs. This time I think we should demand, you know, evidence. Call me a member of the reality-based community... The time for trusting Bush is, of course, long past.
Also: if this is true, then we're f*cked, right? I mean we can't attack Iran, too...but we can't not attack Iran either. Right?
See, this is one of the many reasons I try to avoid doing stupid things. Even if you manage to survive the stupid act itself, you end up in a bad position. And then all it takes is a bit of mischief or bad luck or another mistake to put you in a terrible position.
[Iran, Iraq, whatever: edited]
So now Bush says that that our intelligence says that Iran is making IEDs that are being used against us in Iraq. Now, this of course sounds plausible...but, then, it sounded plausible that Saddam had WMDs. This time I think we should demand, you know, evidence. Call me a member of the reality-based community... The time for trusting Bush is, of course, long past.
Also: if this is true, then we're f*cked, right? I mean we can't attack Iran, too...but we can't not attack Iran either. Right?
See, this is one of the many reasons I try to avoid doing stupid things. Even if you manage to survive the stupid act itself, you end up in a bad position. And then all it takes is a bit of mischief or bad luck or another mistake to put you in a terrible position.
posted by Winston Smith at
2:50 PM
7 Comments:
You mean Iran?
Yep, so the link says.
Winston,
I remembered reading something about how this might be a pretty much discredited story that might have been dug up to help further vilify Iran, and found it here:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2006/03/abc-and-ieds-from-iran-that-were-made.html
I don't know whether it was ever completely discredited, but it's worth investigating.
When damned if you do and damned if you don't, change the damn game you're playing.
Or get your lackeys to pass a Persian Gulf resolution.
Well, I wish there was another game to change to. I meself am definitely open to suggestions.
I just can't get behind this masochism that all bad things that happen in the world are the US' fault. Iran gave tacit approval to toppling Saddam (they could have sent thousands of unarmed "martyrs" across the border as human shields and stopped Bush and Blair in their tracks), funds and facilitates world terrorism, and blows up our (brave, needless to say) men and women who at this point are simply protecting the innocent from the murderous.
I mean when is it the bad guys' fault?
Top it off with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pursuing nukes and threatening the destruction of Israel while haranguing the UN that the End of Days is near, that the mahdi, the Twelfth Imam of Sh'ia apocolyptic legend, is at hand.
Makes the Gulf of Tonkin look like, I dunno, the Gulf of Tonkin, back when things were so simple and stupid.
I haven't heard a single idea about how to handle this, or how to even start. Even the PNAC is stumped, unless part of the Iraq thing was to have troops and aircraft in the neighborhood for the real problem, which was always Iran. But that would give them too much credit. The more likely explanation is that they are foolish idealistic fantasists, although that doesn't square with accounts of their Machiavellian brilliance.
Damn, I get so confused listening to you guys sometimes. Just tell me what to do about Iran. Maybe we do need to pass a resolution after all.
Tom,
Sometimes you're too fixated on false dichotomies. I just have to think there's at least one other option in these circumstances besides ignoring a problem or pulling your pants down and showing everybody how big it is.
The neocons act as if any solution that doesn't involve the use of force or the explicit public threat thereof is somehow a sign of weakness. It's as if they never learned the lesson that being the big bully doesn't pay in the long run. You know, Gulliver and all...
Anyway, I personally think it was a big mistake to so prominently call out Iran in the Axis of Evil speech. At a time when we had probably the best conditions in a long time to pull them into the community of nations (there have been rumors they even pledged help in tracking down the 9/11 perps soon after it went down), Bush just dismissed them as 'evildoers'. Are they doing some bad things? Yes, absolutely. But I'm not interested in just making judgments of virtue and vice about all the nations of the world, and I think the heaping of opprobrium Bush sent their way helped elect Ahmedijad in the first place. Do I have hard evidence of this? Well, I have heard it from some people who know Iran pretty well, Dilip Hiro among them, but no, I' I'm not privy to many internal Iranian polls.
Nevertheless, I'm more interested in what's going to be in the best interest of us and our allies overall, in the long run. So in that respect, what would have been wrong with actually talking with them? We negotiated Quaddafi down from the nuclear ledge, why would it be impossible with Iran? You don't have to give away the store or betray your principles just to have a dialogue. Where has the Bolton school of "I don't do carrots" diplomacy gotten us? Has it borne any fruit whatsoever? I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made in the past that might have contributed to the present conundrum, but it just seems like the results of the current strategy are, shall we say, less than stellar.
And of course Iran gave tacit approval to toppling Saddam. In fact, a good inductive case can be made that they orchestrated the whole thing via Chalabi and his team of grifters. And why not? We just took out their biggest headache! The only thing we forgot was the ribbon to wrap it with.
I think this guy knows what he's doing here, and his geostrategic batting average is way above the neocons':
"George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.
George Stephanopoulos: Directly.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way...
George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.
George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head."
http://securingamerica.com/node/692
This assumes Iran can be negotiated with in good faith. I don't believe that reflects reality. We have nothing they want to offer as a carrot, and precious little to use as a stick.
Sometimes a problem can't be talked away.
You may be right, Tom, but we have what to lose by trying, exactly? I think Clark is right that Iranian society, and possibly even its government, is not philosophically monolithic.
Ten years ago, would you have said Libya could be negotiated with in good faith? I know the situations are far from identical, since Libya didn't have quite the financial resources of Iran, but I don't see a downside to trying.
I also have hope that somehow the sympathy the young Iranian population has for western culture might somehow be utilized; although I admit that the powers that be, the Mullahs, will do everything they can to thwart rapprochement with the US and its allies. A manichean worldview serves them but not their population.
An expansion of connections and exchanges with the west would represent the death knell for their hold on power, as our ideas and principles win out over their repressive order. It was the Trojan Horse for the former SU, as many of its dissidents attested.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home