Talk Isn't Cheap with Iran -Michael Oren & Seth RobinsonWhat would be the objective of U.S.-Iranian talks - to moderate Iranian behavior and renew Iranian-American relations or, more broadly, to recognize a new strategic order in the Middle East?
[A]ny American offer to dialogue with Iran is liable to be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and not only in Tehran. Public opinion throughout the area will conclude that America has at last surrendered to the reality of Iranian rule. The damage to America's regional, if not global, influence may prove irreversible.
Furthermore, dialoguing with Iran presents the even graver danger that Iran will use it as camouflage to complete its nuclear ambitions.
[A]ny American offer to dialogue with Iran is liable to be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and not only in Tehran. Public opinion throughout the area will conclude that America has at last surrendered to the reality of Iranian rule. The damage to America's regional, if not global, influence may prove irreversible.
Furthermore, dialoguing with Iran presents the even graver danger that Iran will use it as camouflage to complete its nuclear ambitions.
(Wall Street Journal)
5 comments:
Let us remember first that this sage advice comes to us from the Wall Street Journal, a fine bastion of business news but one that ahs always come with a silly ultra-right-wing editorial view that, now that is is owned by News Corp, is now in possession of a looney-tunes ultra-right-wing view. Talk is nothing more or less than talk, but just like in a failing marriage, without talk their is no progress. There is nothing to be feared from talking and nothing to lose. Many countries were talking with Saddam Hussein right up to the invasion when he panicked, days before the invasion and said he wold let the inspectors back in. America wouldn't talk and there were no WMD, it has empowered Iran and let Al-Qaeda in. W. Bush would not talk with North Korea or Iran, and now North Korea expanded its nuclear program, is selling to Syria and we know how busy Iran's been. Being afraid to deal with real issues and difficult leaders and sticking your head in the sand is never the right way. Instead of right-wing hawks let us call them what they really are--right wing Ostriches. Like it or not nasty people like in Iran, run the country, although are not the only power players there. Talking to them does not give them legitimacy, being the leader of a country does---to some degree. Talking to them doesn't give them cover--it allows them to look into our eyes and see the resolve of the greatest and strongest country on earth, as well as to see the strength of our allies, if we have any, on that particular situation. This is a failed tactic and honestly it is amazing to me that today in the 21st century that anyone is arguing for a purposeful, as they said in Cool Hand Luke "failure to communicate".
This is no right-wing diatribe...Michael Oren is a respected academic and Israeli soldier.
Talking with Tehran risks:
*disempowering real moderates in the MidEast
*aiding the mullahs who are stalling for time while building nuke capacity
*Tehran 'pocketing' the new 'diplomacy' and continuing exactly what they're doing...just like Syria is now doing
The Europeans have already been talking with Tehran without results.
Well, because he is respected does not mean it is not a right-wing diatribe. There are a few respected right-wingers. A few. Just as being a war hero who saves other soldiers does not necessarily qualify you to be President (John Kerry) or being a war hero who gets shot down, captured and imprisoned does not qualify you (McCain), being an Israeli soldier and academic does not necessarily qualify you to know how to tackle Iran. I am not seeing a lot of academics or diplomats who agree with this point of view. I do see a bunch of right-wingers who do, therefore my comments. The Europeans have only begun more serious talks for less than the last year, and for a while they appeared to get somewhere. We have seen some contradictory remarks in Iran though lately their resolve seems, unfortunately, more solid. Had we had a diplomat in charge and not a cowboy, we would have continued serious talks with Iraq, listened when they wanted to let inspectors back in, not invaded, and Iran would still be kept in check by Iraq and Al-Qaeda would never have gotten into Iraq. 4000 American soldiers would not be dead and countless Iraqi civilians as well. Because of all this, since it is indeed the right-wing incompetents who created this mess that espouse all of this, we may not be sure what will work with Iran, but we know what won't. Anything believed by W. Bush, Cheney, Lieberman or McCain---those who either championed these moves, or who have supported them all since. And should Iran develop nuclear arms (that's pronounced nu-clear, by the way Ms. Palin---only one U), they will all have themselves and those Americans that voted for them, to blame. Should Israel ever be in danger because of Iran, they will only have those politicians and those who voted for them to blame. Every American soldier who dies by Al-Qaeda's hands in Iraq have no one to blame but these guys and the people who voted them into office. Those are the facts. The last 8 years, facts have been the biggest enemies of those politicians noted above. I think the tide is changing. It would be nice if America voted in Obama because they think he is going to be a good President. Sadly, it is more likely he will win because America has finally woken up and said "enough is enough!"
As I avoid partisan material myself, I can only tell you that I did indeed notice that Governor Palin does mispronounce nuclear...I was unhappy to hear that as President Bush also mispronounces it.
I strongly suspect that much of the posturing around Iran is just that: posturing. The incalcitrant Ahmadinejad and the equally incalcitrant mullahs not move an inch whether we talk to 'em or not.
Thus, if both are to be believed [that a nuclear tipped Iran is unacceptable] they'll have some very tough choices to make.
I don't envy either man...
My hope is that while Russia and China are worried about the flow of oil and in the short term make the poor choice of calling for restraint around Iran, they realize that in the longer term the most destabilizing forces in these areas would be nuclear mideast radical states. Time will tell whether the world will unite or whether it will be western nations that will have to reign in Iran. Iran would be smart to take the carrots offered and avoid the stick. They do know that a nuclear nation is also thus a nuclear target as well. Israel and America will have them squarely trained on them, and they have little ways to hide. This is a complex situation that I think will unfold in ways we cannot yet predict.
Post a Comment