|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: Time to call in the Iran chips |
 |
|
Maybe too related to the other topic but here goes..
| Quote: |
NEW YORK: If one country should have been happy with the post-9/11 upheaval the United States has engineered in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was Iran.
The Shiite mullahs in Tehran were delivered from their sworn enemy, the Taliban, against whom they had amassed 200,000 troops on the Afghan border in 1997, and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, against whom they had fought an inconclusive war in the 1980s that took one million lives.
Afghanistan came under the authority of President Hamid Karzai, who has called Iran a "close friend." Iraq's social revolution brought Shiite brothers to power. All this came thanks to the "Great Satan," at no cost in Iranian treasure (growing by the day with oil at $70 a barrel) or blood.
I know history has its ironies, not least the fact that the United States funded the creation of Muslim holy warriors, Osama bin Laden among them, as agents in the Afghan undoing of the Soviet Union, only to face these warriors reinvented as death-to-America jihadists once the Cold War ended.
This was harsh payback for Washington. But Iran's payback for the favorable power shift gifted upon it has been as bitter.
Today in Opinion
Meanwhile: The healing powers of grape seeds
Meanwhile: The six stages of e-mail
In contrast to Iran, the countries that ought to have been most unhappy with the regime changes were America's regional allies - Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - Sunni powers with scant sympathy for the governments installed in Kabul and Baghdad.
They are indeed displeased by the power shifts. Everyone is irked, Iran chief and most dangerous among them.
The failure to parlay two American military interventions that served Iran's objective strategic interest into substantive engagement between the two countries constitutes the Bush administration's most costly diplomatic failure. Such expenditure of U.S. treasure and blood merited more creative diplomacy.
This failure hurts U.S. interests in Iraq and Lebanon and in finding an Israeli-Palestinian peace. It has even begun to hurt U.S. interests in Afghanistan where, in a fantastic turnabout, Iran is arming its erstwhile mortal enemy, the Taliban.
If America is engaged in another Cold-War-like generational conflict, which is the way the administration has chosen to characterize the war on terror, then Tehran is the closest equivalent to Moscow.
Iran combines ideological fervor, military vigor, strategic agility, domestic repression, economic weakness (petrol shortages despite having the world's second largest oil reserves) and serious social fissures in ways suggestive of the former Soviet Union. It is, in the assessment of one seasoned American diplomat, "a worthy adversary."
That adversarial role is now channeled into a proxy war in Iraq. U.S. accounts this week of Iranian involvement, through agents of its elite Quds Force, in the killing of five American soldiers in January were the most specific of a series of persuasive U.S. and British charges against Tehran.
What is Iran up to in Iraq and Afghanistan? It wants to keep America bleeding. Looking down the barrel of a gun over its nuclear program, Iran likes the idea of American forces stretched as thin as possible. It wants its Shiite proxies armed in the event of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. And, angered by the notion that Pakistan can have nukes but not Persia rising, it is looking for respect.
"Iran and the United States were closest on Afghanistan and Iraq, and farthest apart on the nuclear issue, Hamas and Hezbollah," said Vali Nasr, the author of "The Shia Revival." "The conciliatory logic of Iraq might have dominated, but the reverse has happened and Iranian moderates were never cultivated."
Iran is an ugly regime. Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a foul-mouthed buffoon. But it is also a sophisticated country and the only one in the Middle East with a government far more anti-Western than its generally America-loving population. Placing Iran in the "axis of evil" and isolating it has served no constructive purpose.
It is time to put the onus on the mullahs. The United States should propose broad, high-level talks with Iran across the range of issues confronting the two countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine - while dropping its meaningless insistence that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment activities before talks begin.
That will test whether the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad feel they can survive without the "Great Satan" distraction from acute domestic woes.
If the answer to the invitation is no, and Iranian-orchestrated attacks in Iraq continue, America should play hardball. Iran, like Iraq, is a multiethnic country. Its Kurds, ethnic Baluchis and other minorities can find money and weapons flowing to them from a "worthy adversary" of the mullahs' regime. |
http://iht.nytimes.com/protected/articles/2007/07/04/opinion/edcohen.php
I think it nuts to attack them. But Cohen makes some good suggestions on how to play hardball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure I agree with that.
The US has a terrible track record when it comes to supporting insurgencies.
Latvia, Estonia
Poland
Tibet,
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Iraq
Just to name a few of the top of my head. They have been usually failures and the people have usually been screwed once the US threw in the towel. Look at the Hmong coming out of Cambodia for a recent example.
I am not sure I would trust the US to run an insurgency very well, maybe they could source it out to someone else who knows how to run one. The IRA, ETA, Vietnamese Government, Hizbelloh, Taliban etc.
Let someone who knows how to run one and just pay them to do it. But budget at least twenty years worth of supplies so that the people know they can rely on ongoing support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is time to put the onus on the mullahs. The United States should propose broad, high-level talks with Iran across the range of issues confronting the two countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine - while dropping its meaningless insistence that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment activities before talks begin |
what a great idea.......too bad it didn't happen earlier, because the U.S. government would have saved themselves a couple trillion bucks!
America has to stop being so stubborn and invite high-level Iranian officials to the Whitehouse to get some of these problems in the middle east ironed out...
Like it or not, the Persians play a big part in regional politics there! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgeezer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is time to put the onus on the mullahs. The United States should propose broad, high-level talks with Iran across the range of issues confronting the two countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine - while dropping its meaningless insistence that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment activities before talks begin |
what a great idea.......too bad it didn't happen earlier, because the U.S. government would have saved themselves a couple trillion bucks!
America has to stop being so stubborn and invite high-level Iranian officials to the Whitehouse to get some of these problems in the middle east ironed out...
Like it or not, the Persians play a big part in regional politics there! |
maybe cause Iran's supreme leader is against talks with the US
Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei: Our Policy Rejecting Negotiations with America Has Not Changed
Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei, which aired on Channel 2, Iranian TV, on May 16, 2007.
Ali Khamenei: These days, people are talking about negotiations with America. What happiness they express about it � both in their newspapers and in their statements. Those living in [Iran] and those living abroad talk about it. They think that the Islamic Republic has changed its firm and reasonable policy, which rejects negotiations with America and which is 100% defensible. They are wrong.
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1451 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran Chips?
Are they Pistachio flavored? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
Not sure I agree with that.
The US has a terrible track record when it comes to supporting insurgencies.
Latvia, Estonia
Poland
Tibet,
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Iraq
Just to name a few of the top of my head. They have been usually failures and the people have usually been screwed once the US threw in the towel. Look at the Hmong coming out of Cambodia for a recent example.
I am not sure I would trust the US to run an insurgency very well, maybe they could source it out to someone else who knows how to run one. The IRA, ETA, Vietnamese Government, Hizbelloh, Taliban etc.
Let someone who knows how to run one and just pay them to do it. But budget at least twenty years worth of supplies so that the people know they can rely on ongoing support. |
You are right the only ones who are really ruthless enough to scare Iran or Hizzbollah are the Jihadists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Cohen (again, for the umpteenth time) pointed out one of the great shortcomings of the Bush years. Outlined well.
Engagement only makes sense and it can't just be "i want my cake and to eat it too..."
I don't see where he offers any ways to play "hardball" other than mentioning it as an afterthought at the end. Maybe his column was chopped?
As for the allegations that Iran doesn't want to negotiate. I posted here full links previously to the very open and concilliatory letter from the highest level of the Iranian government offering talks. Open and forthright. Bush didn't even reply. I guess he was too busy relaxing at the ranch.
Joo, put another dime in your juke box baby....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
About the Iranian offer.
Some say Iran put an offer to the US. Ok then why do it through the Swiss Embassy? It has been widely reported that Iran and the US were already talking about Iraq . So why not put the offer to the Zalmay Khalilzad?
I mean weren't the US and Iran already talking?
| Quote: |
2 May 2003
U.S., Iran Discussing Afghanistan, Iraq, Other Issues of Mutual Interest
Reeker says establishment of diplomatic relations not being considered
The State Department's deputy spokesman, Philip Reeker, said the United States and Iran are communicating with each other through a variety of international channels on Afghanistan, Iraq and other issues of mutual interest, but the question of establishing diplomatic relations is not under consideration. |
more on this:
| Quote: |
USA Today Report Rejected
PARIS, Oct. 18--Iran�s Ambassador to France Sadeq Kharrazi refuted on Monday a news story in the American daily, USA Today, which said Iran has proposed direct, official talks with the US administration.
The widely-circulated daily on Monday quoted Kharrazi as claiming Iran is open to one-to-one talks with the United States and that Tehran is ready to hold negotiations with Washington in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
�The official policy of the government of the Islamic Republic is to have no direct and official talks with the US administration on nuclear issues,� Kharrazi told IRNA.
�Following the unsuccessful visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Asia and Europe last week, the US administration hopes to put the lid on the visit and focus on another issue affecting the Iranian government.�
Kharrazi stressed that the Islamic Republic sees no urgency in holding talks with the United States. |
http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2405/html/national.htm#top
Some offer.
The US denies it.
Iran denies it.
It was if it was done through indirect channels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
