Vice President Dick Cheney gave a saber-rattling talk this week before a pro-Israel group, threatening Iran if it didn’t abandon its nuclear aspirations. Predictably, the Iranians responded with their own veiled threats.
Will ratcheting up the rhetoric move the sides any closer to a diplomatic solution to this crisis? Doubtful. Former general and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark (in photo) has been bravely advocating a different, smarter tact: Direct high-level U.S. talks with Iran, by President Bush himself.
“The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather than 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?” Clark said recently on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”
Considering how terrible the nondiplomatic options are, let’s hope Clark is right that “it’s not too late” to avoid a showdown.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
35 Comments
Travel to Iran should NOT be banned! It should be limited to ONLY B-52s, B1B’s, and B2 bombers loaded with nuclear ordinace! We can help them with all their problems …… including their desire to acquire nukes!
Dubya
Hopefully, shrub would nuke israel, by mistake.
V.L.R.B!!
Yes.
Alone.
I’d rather seem him go to Falluja Iraq. Maybe he could get that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner as a backdrop in all the rubble.
Yeah that’s it!!Nuke millions of innocent people and start WW3.That’s some brilliant strategy.Right up there with the Phelps clan on that plan.
Of course diplomatic options should be pursued. Those that frame this situation as a US vs. Iran issue are not following the remarkable unanimity on the diplomatic front with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the US supporting the referral to the Security Council.
They differ in the level of initial U.N. response they support, but not on the basic issue. Wesley Clark has not demonstrated alot of geo-political smarts, or he would understand that back channel overtures have been made along the way, and Iran has not been “responsive”. Russia has bent over backward to cut a deal with Iran.
Here is why a clear bottom line approach may be the best path to a peaceful resolution:
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-playing-deadly-game.html
For some additional background on the situation and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, try this:
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/halting-nuclear-iran-if-diplomacy.html
If you don’t understand this man and his thinking and motivations, you won’t understand Iranian actions or anticipate them. The Mullahs in Iran, who actually wield more power than he, support his his views.
OMG, is there any Bush idea, no matter how hare-brained, that you won’t shill, Brandon?
“Wesley Clark has not demonstrated alot of geo-political smarts . . . ”
It’s “a lot,” two words, sheesh. You want us to believe crap you write and you can’t even spell it.
Iraq is an effing disaster, and instead of learning our lesson, you want to repeat it.
Double the pleasure. Double the fun.
Maybe you’ll get drafted this time . . .
Gee, I wonder what would have happened if we hadn’t help overthrow the elected government in Iran and re-establish a feudal monarch, the Shah?
Maybe we made a mistake in interfering in another country’s democratic destiny and selling out our own values . . . ya think?
Nope, you don’t think. You want to do it again . . .
And quit with all the narcissitic vanity posts to your web-site.
If we want to go there, we will.
I’ll be happy to tell YOU where to go, if you ask . . .
Bush has “strong disapproval” of 40 percent, more than any other president except Nixon at 46 percent.
The beginning of the end has finally arrived–
http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21808
George “I am a war president” Bush has no interest in a settlement.
He should not only go there, he should be their president, the government wouldn’t last a year.
I think Bush should by all means go to Iran. I think he should announce it well ahead of time. I think he should leave the Secret Service at home and wear a light jacket. That’ll show those Iranians he’s not scared!
You notice how Brandon doesn’t actually respond to other people’s posts?
I get the feeling he just comes on here to advertise his website and doesn’t even read anything.
No point in reading other people when you already know it all, right Brandon?
The neo-cons in Iraq have been saying from day one, “first Baghdad, then Terehan.”
If these bat-sh*t crazies actually made good on that by a military invasion of Iran, Bush would no longer be the Worst. President. Ever.
He would be Worst. President. Possible.
If the little zionist errand boy attacks Iran then they will close the Straights of Hormuz and sink at least a few warships. In turn that will send the price of oil to $200 per barrel, quickly plunging the world into a severe depression. The economic collapse will lead directly to race/civil war across Europe and America, during which time WE will put things right! The traitors are constructing their own gallows.
V.L.R.B!!
Iran Battening Down the Hatches
Two developments pointing to Iranian intentions of letting the situation worsen arose today. After the decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, a statement delivered by Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said:
“The United States has the power to cause harm and pain. But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll.” The statement also slammed the IAEA, saying the “opportunity for diplomacy and collaboration … was thus kicked out of the window.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s parliament has ratified a budget allowing the government to ration petrol. Iran is OPEC’s number two producer of crude oil. Ironically, they import 40% of the gasoline they consume, due to a lack of refining capacity. The Iranian government pays heavily to subsidize the cost of this gasoline to consumers.
Authorizing rationing will be quite unpopular with the average Iranian. For the government to make this move indicates that they see tough times ahead. They may be anticipating Iran cutting exports to punish being referred to the Security Council, or preparing for sanctions by the council limiting Iranian exports. Either way, Iran would have fewer dollars to buy refined oil.
China and Russia issued statements that indicate getting much in the way of tough language, let alone action out of the Council will be an uphill battle. Iran knows this, and some of the bravado may be counting on U.N. ineffectiveness.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-battening-down-hatches.html
See, I told you.
The guy uses us for free advertising.
Hey, Brandon, go Cheney yourself!
*****
Don’t worry, you can say anything you want to the guy. He won’t read it.
I wonder if he has an automatic bot just post his latest words of wisDUMB here.
When Cheney insisted on even more massive bloodshed in Iran, AIPAC offered thunderous giddy applause.
What makes these people worth such a loss of life? To what real end?When left on their own they show no compassion, mercy or justice, or decency, just an insatiable appetite for cruelty and blood-lust driven greed.
The United States has the power to bring a peaceful solution to the Middle East, but doesn’t. Why?
Why feed the monster we’ve created? Have we no eyes to see the evil for which we are responsible?
Has this monster eaten its way into our American creed?
Have we been corrupted?
PL, Many read these posts and remain silent.
Pl, Bush is already the worse president possible, so he would then become the worse president the mind could ever conceive.
Your turn.
Brandon – does not a sovereign state have the right to defend itself from aggression?
This Proudlib person has got to be the most pathetic, unthinking person I have… oh never mind, you arent even worth the effort.
Thanks, Don. An insult from you is like a compliment from a intelligent person.
You know, the army is taking new recruits up to the age of 42. If you really support Bush’s Iraq Extravaganza, why don’t you enlist?
But I did make one mistake–Bush’s “strongly disapprove” rating has fallen to 44 percent, only two points better than Nixon when he resigned.
So, Don, go ahead and nail your feet to the deck to show your loyalty if you want, but Bush’s ship is going down . . .
Uh Don? Proud lib is a long posting member of this forum. Your personal disagreement with his ideals in the form of a personal attack is hardly the basis for a post.
You didn’t even bother to address the thread and you also seem unable to complete a sentence.
Probably Limbaugh came back from commercial so Don had to go.
Worst President ever doesn’t even seem to describe what bush is doing. Maybe worst human being that ever lived?
India can have nukes, they provide valuable cheap employees for telemarketers and customer service.
Pakistan is ok. We used to not think so, but they are helping us get Bin Laden now so it’s ok.
Israel has nukes. I think Ed can cover that one for me if he hasn’t already.
But Iran can’t have a nuke. Probably a good idea for bush to keep Iran from getting a nuke. It could make an invasion of that country problematic. But I bet that is probably what Iran is thinking too; ya know since US troops are “liberating” their neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yes, They LOVE DICTATORS there!!!
He could even pass a law there that no one in the US or Iran could speak out against him!
Exactly right, JR. North Korea would be toast by now if they didn’t have nukes.
Iran looks at Iraq and says, “not here, you don’t” and fast tracks it’s weapons capability (while very logically lying about it).
Thanks, GW, for helping to create another nuclear power in the powderkeg of the Mideast.
Dagnabit– “it’s” = it is, “its” = possessive.
Gotta start previewing my posts.
Ed, you asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner. I don’t see this as a partisan issue. There are compelling reasons for us to be committed against Iran developing nuclear capability. Iran has made it’s intentions rather evident.
As you know the President of Iran, has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel – while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state. “The application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel – but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world,” Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.
If there is an issue of “a sovereign state have the right to defend itself from aggression”, I have not heard Israel calling for Iran to be destroyed. Rather than giving you more of my opinion on the Iran situation, perhaps you would hear it better from leading Democrats, who have taken a position:
Howard Dean
“We promise that we will kill or capture bin Laden; with the help of China and Russia, we will shut down the North Korean nuclear program; we will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power; and we will protect our ports.”
Senator Evan Bayh
“And the radical leader of Iran who is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons – has pledged to destroy Israel and asked his people to imagine a world without the United States. How do we deal with Iran in a tough and smart way?
First, Iran must be made to understand that a nuclear Iran is not negotiable. We will not let a government that calls for the end of the United States or Israel acquire a nuclear weapon. It is that simple.
With that as our non-negotiable position, the administration must immediately go to the United Nations Security Council and call for strong economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions. If its nuclear activities persist, there will be consequences beyond that, including the use of force. We cannot afford to wait. The Iranian government must understand that if its nuclear activity continues, it will be treated as a pariah state.
Second, supplies of refined gasoline to Iran should be cut off. Iran may be one of the world’s largest exporters of oil, but currently imports 40 percent of their refined gasoline. By cutting that supply off, the Iranian economy will be hurt badly.
Third, Iran must be isolated diplomatically, financially, and culturally. Their delegations should no longer be welcomed in countries around the world. Iranian assets should be frozen and financial and banking ties severed. Travel to and from Iran should be cut off and international flights should not be allowed to land or originate from the country. Most importantly, Iran should be denied the foreign investment for its energy sector that it so clearly craves.
And last, Iran should be assured that if they do the right thing, they will be welcomed back to the family of nations, with clear benefits including a carefully monitored civilian nuclear power program, membership in the WTO, and investment for a stable, more prosperous Iran. This will not be easy. Time is not our friend. Bipartisan support for tough, thoughtful action is needed now.”
Barack Obama
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action? Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
Senator Hillary Clinton
“I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel …”
“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don’t believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let’s be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Senator Joseph Biden
“Well, I don’t think there is anything, to use the colloquial phrase, that the administration has “taken off the table,” in terms of potential options to move against Iran if they viewed it as necessary. But the fact of the matter is there are not many options. Unlike the program that existed in Iraq, as opposed to Iran years ago when the Israelis very famously took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor, all the experts will tell you there is no single military action from the air and/or through sabotage that could, quote, “end their nascent nuclear program.” And so the options are more limited.
I would make two other points. The administration has, I think of late, meaning the last year, adopted the correct policy with regard to Iran, and that is to attempt to further isolate Iran by cooperating with and getting the consensus of the European community, Russia, China and others to say to Iran that, `If you continue to act in this sort of, in a generic sense, this anti-social behavior internationally, there will be consequences for you.’ Notwithstanding the fact that the present president of Iran has been somewhat bellicose, the very day they said they’re going to renew their effort to produce material and come out from underneath the IAE safeguards, he also said that the possibility of Russia being a vehicle for the–dealing with the enriched uranium that occurs as a consequence of this civilian nuclear power plant, of all of it being shipped back out to Russia, it was still on the table. So I don’t think we know nor do they know exactly where their end position is.
I think the administration is going at it the right way right now. And I think that we won’t know until the international community finally decides, if it does, to sanction them, what the result is likely to be.”
So Ed, responsible Democrats are taking essentially the same position on Iran.
Well, knock me over with a feather, it TALKS!
The same position on Iran as Republicans (vis a vis Iran’s nukes), except for the total war option.
That’s a big exception, isn’t it.
Dammit PL, I was afraid that was gonna happen if you called him on blog pimping. I thought about calling him on it too, but figured then he would just cut and paste and post it all here. Must get paid by the hit.
“And last, Iran should be assured that if they do the right thing, they will be welcomed back to the family of nations, with clear benefits including a carefully monitored civilian nuclear power program, membership in the WTO, and investment for a stable, more prosperous Iran. This will not be easy. Time is not our friend. Bipartisan support for tough, thoughtful action is needed now.”
Perhaps we shoould also offer Iran the same deal we give japan – protection should they be attacked by a hostile nuclear power.
I not impressed by your one-sided Israeli approach, even while your Rice is banging away on congress mooching more bankrupting money for WW3. Israel is the root cause of this problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/rice.iran/index.html
BH,
Good call, if Iran is attacked by israel we will promise to come to their aid! lol
Israel is the ONLY power in the region with WMDS, payed for with our tax dollars I might add. If I had an insane blood enemy with an assault rifle and I only had a baseball bat for protection then I would be seeking to upgrade my capability, and I wouldn’t let anyone dissaude me!
V.L.R.B!!