On Iran, posturing isn't policy

[BobcatJH]

So now we want to talk? The big news Wednesday, of course, was that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said the United States would be willing to join Europe at the table in talks with Iran if, and only if, Iran stops its nuclear activities. If they do, there's a healthy benefits package in it for them. If they don't, sanctions.

We've been here before, haven't we? More than three years and more than 2,400 American deaths ago, to be exact. The pledges of American diplomacy were hollow then. And they're hollow now, too.

The administration knows its demands won't be met. But that's exactly what they wanted. What President Bush lusts after more than diplomacy is an excuse to attack. An excuse to start the next war intended to keep Republicans in power and keep an American stranglehold on the region. But posturing isn't policy. Just as war isn't diplomacy.

Though the Bush administration is loathe to admit it, the "Iran problem" is about oil. And oil, as we know, is running out. Iran knows this, too. And despite what your average dim-witted right-winger would tell you, the short-term threat from Iran isn't so much that they could produce a bomb, it's that a more stable Iran would be harder for our oil-hungry administration to overthrow.

Only myopic thinkers like the Bush administration and its supporters would fail to recognize that, despite the rhetoric coming from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the likely Iranian endgame is long-term energy independence. A nuclear-powered Iran can export greater amounts of oil. When the oil runs out, which it will, they could simply begin exporting electricity - the fruits of their nuclear labor.

With this ability comes increased wealth. And stability. Two things good for Iran, but bad for the United States - the Bush administration in particular. Bad in that they present two massive roadblocks before the administration's stampeding democracy. The kind of exported freedom that rains down on a nation like a face-melting fire. Also the kind of exported freedom that depends on its recipient being a nation with a corrupt, wealthy ruling class and nothing whatsoever by way of resources for anyone else.

But that isn't Iran, and the Bush administration knows it. Or they don't and are panicking, which is a far more ominous possibility. But a nuclear Iran, whether the party in power realizes it or not, is likely to use its newfound wealth to help build itself from within. Sure, they may use the influx of wealth to help build an army, too, but the last time I checked, that wasn't illegal.

So on the one side, Iran's, you've got a nation seeking wealth and stability through nuclear power. And on the other side, ours, you've got a nation operating from an administration blueprint that can't have a stable, wealthy Iran. Theirs, to an extent, is a nationalistic people. Ours is, too. In the middle you've got two unpopular leaders in Ahmadinejad and Bush. Both known for using fear and electoral chicanery to take office. Both approaching this issue with increasing rhetoric: They won't back down, nor will we.

Said Bush, "Our message to the Iranians is that, one, you won't have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs, at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward." But why, I ask, would Iran willingly give up its nuclear ambitions simply to begin talks aimed at cajoling them into giving up their nuclear ambitions? Why, too, would the administration propose something they know isn't possible?

Because, on our end, it's not about negotiations. It never was. It never will be. It's about posturing, and nothing more. Wednesday's news was meant to give the United States a veneer of diplomatic credibility in dealing with Iran. That way, when Iran refuses to concede to our demands, which they already have, the Bush administration will have an excuse to impose sanctions or, as is more likely the case the closer we get to this fall's elections, attack.

Why else do you think the administration has been claiming, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Iran is poised to have the bomb? Those claims are not sound negotiating tactics. What they are, however, are fear tactics. Tactics intended to convince Americans that war, no matter what the administration says, is the only option. Well, it is the only option. The only option that stands a chance of keeping the Republican Party in power this fall. Bush knows this, and he's counting on Americans rallying behind the troops as he yet again sends the nation to war.

The New York Times story reports that the United States has agreed to remove the threat of force from the working document. The administration has also agreed that if sanctions are the course of action, none will be imposed without another Security Council vote. But Bush has acted in a pre-emptive manner before. Think he wouldn't again? After all, when you place a nation in the "Axis of Evil," do you really think the administration had diplomacy in mind?

[kentuck]

1. You are correct Bobcat - it's about posturing...

and continued bullshit from this incompetent Administration.

[BobcatJH]

2. You're right

Even if it weren't, would you trust this bunch to get the job done?

[SunDrop23]

3. Very good!

[welshTerrier2]

4. Kucinich: "no phony diplomacy; no diplomatic head fakes"

the following is a press release and therefore can be included in its entirety ... i wonder who the 70 co-signers of Kucinich's letter are? any Dems from the Senate?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0531-06.htm

At A Time When Iran Reaches Out To US; US Participates In Phony Diplomacy Setting The Course For War
Kucinich: US Should Listen To IAEA Head El Baradei Who Says Iran Not An Immediate Nuclear Threat

WASHINGTON - May 31 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, issued the following statement today on Iran:

“The US must not participate in phony diplomacy and diplomatic head fakes in order to force our nation, and the world, into war with Iran.

“Iran has reached out to the United States seeking negotiations to end the current stand-off peacefully. The United States should enter into direct, high-level, negotiations with Iran to peacefully end this stand off. This is exactly what over 70 Members of Congress stated last week when they signed onto a letter, I authored, to President Bush.

“Setting conditions on such talks appears to be an effort to ensure their failure and will only put this nation on the fast track to another unnecessary war.

“The US and the world community would be well served to listen to the words of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohamed El Baradei who stated yesterday that Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat.

“This Administration, once again assisted by a gullible media, seems determined to repeat the very mistakes that led this nation into, and keeps us in, the ill-advised war in Iraq.

“A peaceful solution to the stand-off with Iran must be the top domestic priority of our nation. The US must begin direct negotiations with Iran, at the highest level, and without predetermined conditions set to ensure failure.

“War with Iran can, and must be, avoided.”

Last week, Kucinich authored a letter, also signed by over 70 Members of Congress, urging President Bush to begin direct negotiations with Iran to end the current stand off.

[sbyte]

6. no phony diplomacy

I was so upset I put off saying anything, but did wright it
down for My 
satisfaction last week. 
  
              The Administration is  Dysfunctional.
 
"C. Rice" Secretary of State is not doing her job. 
She is in a diplomatic post, her job is to encourage good
relations. Instead She is playing into the hands of the
military wing of the administration by trying to polarize the
situation in Iran. As if it wasn't bad enough.  Her Job is to
respond to the situation's as they arise. If you have not had
direct contact with a country for twenty years, you are bound
to have grown apart.  Letter writing appears to be a positive
first step by Iran to establish some kind of relationship. 
The state departments reaction to a letter from Iran is a knee
jerk reaction caused by the vast difference in thinking
between two countries.  But now is the time for the real work
to begin. By replying the letter.  Is that Absurd? Why Not? Is
not letter writing the first step in real diplomacy?  If they
send you a letter, you should send back a volume of
information and refutation's of opposing policy and views. 
Sure there may be a lot of differences in thinking, but isn't
that what diplomacy is about?  Your job is to negotiate! The
only reason that I can think of not to communicate is that it
would give the county ("regime") some kind of
legitimacy. But aren't these openly elected officials?
Should you not try to avoid confrontation? Is that not your
job?  Aren't you suppose to try to come up with an ongoing
dialog, even though it may appear futile? That is Your job. 
That is your job, endless talks. Talks refutation,
polarization, concessions, demands, compromise, alignment,
deals, time tables.  And who is really responsible for the
development of a balanced and true understanding of the
differences? - the civil sector.
Can we talk about some similarities?  Don't both governments
want to develop a policy that is good for the welfare of the
constituents and businesses. And aren't the parties in power
prefer to stay in power.  We seem to agree that we dislike
each other to the point of resentment. Should you not not tell
them face to face or in this case letter to letter. Don't you
have a huge staff,  resources enough to formulate a response. 
Shouldn't you leave the fighting up to the military?  The
first step to anger management is to recognize that there is a
problem and to confront it by first making observation and not
judgments.  The first response is an emotional one. A Knee
jerk reaction.  I think the job is now to roll up you sleeves
and get to the hard work of figuring out how to enlighten them
to there errors from the U.S. point of view.  Again isn't the
job  of stating the USA position and the ethical goodness of
how the USA tolerates differences and persons of various 
ethnic backgrounds, religions and cultures in our country, and
how that makes the USA a melting pot of the worlds people.   
Differences between people's may cause ridicule and rejection
by some individuals, but as a whole the variety is the spice
that also keeps us entertained, surprised and curious. 
  There is always a push and pull between countries and people
and in families. Trying to hold it together, to let some
things pass and to give extra effort at times to hold it
together.   To do our jobs is to fulfill the needs of our
community for and ourselves in terms of the money we make, but
also for the self-esteem we realize by doing a good job.

[twaddler01]

5. K & R

RIGHT ON THE DOT! :thumbsup:

This is exactly the kind of position that I think the administration is taking every time a new story comes out. Deceive the people into thinking your way, and then we "justify" an attack on Iran. This is the kind of thing I HATE believing....to think that they have the nerve...