|
A New "Cold War"?
Hello all, good to see the old crowd here. I've only time to stop by and chat. No time to discuss the impending civil war in Iraq or how the Kurds are the only ones in Iraq smart enough to deserve any more help from old uncle Sam. But I digress, this article is a clear view into what is likely to be our approach on Iran. Honestly its probably the most realistic approach we have on the table seeing as how we don't have an additional 300K boots to drop into Tehran tomorrow night. The State department is pissing in Rummies' cheerios as we speak, and oil futures are sure to rise very soon. So where the hell is .com? I want to get your take on this one old man. csmonitor.com Tom Regan The United States may be preparing for a "cold war" with Iran. Paul Reynolds, the world affairs correspondent of the BBC, says that the US is looking at the idea as a 'third way' between trying to engage the hard-line mullahs at the top of the Iranian government, and attacking the country's nuclear facilities. The idea is that "regime or policy change could be effected by the Iranian people themselves." State Department is frothing as we read this! The idea for this third way is being championed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The hope is that it will buy time for Western policy-makers to come up with a way to stop Iran's nuclear program. But the new policy is also born of a disagreement in the White House on how to move forward. Iran gets nuke in 3,2,1 The old policy of engagement with Iran has run into the ground. Even its advocates accept that they cannot get round the problem of Iran's method of government. Senior ayatollahs have a veto on reform and blocked reformist candidates in last year's election. At the other end of the spectrum, those favouring military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations are having trouble in justifying a policy which would have huge consequences, adding to the problems the US is already facing in Iraq. But Mr. Reynolds notes that the 'cold war could go hot' if Washington decides that this approach won't stop Iran from building a bomb. Let me decide for you. Fuel up the planes boys, we're going in! The Washington Post reported Monday that the Bush administration has been "huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning academics for advice, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran." While the administration is not using the term regime change publicly, that is has become the objective. State department has been harping this same old tired bullshit for 30 years now. "The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime," said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover Institution's board of overseers. Good luck with that one. Probably not going to happen. But whatever separate as you please. "The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement. There is no such thing as diplomacy with the Mullahs. There are numerous signs of the new emphasis on Iran. The State Department has created a full-time Iran desk. From 1/4 time desk to a FTE, I'm gloriously happy, this will solve everything! We're saved! In the past, only two people worked on Iran, but that number has been increased to 10. There will be increased Farsi language training, and the Voice of America has received more money to improve and increase broadcasts into Iran. Currently VOA does only one hour of programming into Iran; that will soon increase to four. Gooooooood Morning Tehran! The Press Association reports that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in a speech to the Center for Strategic International Studies, gave a hint of this new approach when he said that Britain had no objection to Iranians benefiting from "civil nuclear power" and that he wished them a "a freer, more democratic and prosperous future." Sounds like a half ass cop out there Jack. But he said that the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was leading the country in "the wrong direction" and risked damaging the prospects of its people if it continued on the path of confrontation. OK, let me get this right. He's leading Iran in the wrong direction? Straight to hell seems like the path they've been on the whole time. Yep, the old army compass says due South. Amnijobbo is a nut, a freggin nut. A lunatic who believes the messiah is taking a train to Tehran next week. "If the Iranian regime chooses not to heed the concerns of the international community, it will damage the interests of the Iranian people," he warned, in a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. But the Post also reports Wednesday that prominent activists inside Iran say that Washington's plan to promote regime change by the Iranian people themselves is "the kind of help they don't want." These activists say the very act of announcing the program places human rights advocates in danger because it makes them seem to be agents of the US's agenda. Shiites remember how we allowed old Sammy helicopters to put them down in '91, they say no thanky for your help. "Unfortunately, I've got to say it has a negative effect, not a positive one," said Abdolfattah Soltani, a human rights lawyer recently released from seven months in prison. After writing in a newspaper that his clients were beaten while in jail, Soltani was charged with offenses that included spying for the United States. "This is something we all know, that a way of dealing with human rights activists is to claim they have secret relations with foreign powers," said Soltani, who co-founded a human rights defense group with Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi. "This very much limits our actions. It is very dangerous to our society." In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed once again to resist international pressure on his country's nuclear program. The BBC reports that Mr. Ahmadinejad said no power could take away nuclear technology. We'd be happy to help you all gain a healthy nuclear glow and a free permanent orange afro! It's your right after all! "One of them delivered a so-called speech yesterday by saying that not all the Iranian people are pursuing nuclear energy," he said, in what appeared to be a reference to a speech by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Monday. "I am telling them to open their ears and listen to the cry of the people of Gorgan and Golestan concerning nuclear energy," he told the crowd, which began chanting "Nuclear energy is our absolute right". The Iranian government continues to say it has a nuclear program in order to provide nuclear energy to the Iranian people, not build a nuclear weapon. We don't need nukes we have the power of Alaah. What's that, no we're just trading missile technology with the North Koreans for our nation's model rocket programs, nothing to hide here, move along. Finally, it seems as if the issue of a nuclear-free Middle East may soon be on the table. The Jerusalem Post reported Monday that last week Straw also said that the world should turn its attention to the Israeli nuclear program once it finishes dealing with Iran. Bullshit, I call bullshit! The Israeli government did not reply to Straw's statements. Israel has had a nuclear program for years, but has refused to acknowledge that it exists and is not a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. No nukes here. We need Israel to keep a few nukes for old Amnijobbo and the Mullahs. Peaceful as the Mulahs are, they need a reminder that we can and will destroy them if they step. EP Posted by: Unereth Slotle9082 2006-03-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=145453 |