| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| A New "Cold War"? |
| 2006-03-14 |
| 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 |
| #20 No where in the Soviet doctrine did it call for everyone else's conversion, death or dhimmitude. The inevitable triumph of world socialism, victory of the proletariat, etc. Death to the Borugeous revisionists. Change the terms and the rhetoric is identical. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-14 23:49 |
| #19 .com still comes round. Not every day though --- there are lots of pretty girls in Las Vegas, and he's too much of a gentleman to let them languish. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-14 23:36 |
| #18 Ann COulter said it best on FNC yesterday [Guam time], in paraphrase - the Dems prefer to wait until an American city(s) gets blown up vv WMD/Nuke Terror attack(s) before a Dem POTUS-Congress does anything, iff and when it ever does decide to do something, anything, in response, ergo vote for the Dems in 2006 and 2008. IOW, America must be attacked first and 00's, 000's, or Zilyuhns of Americans must be dead first before the Dems decide whether or not to retaliate, iff at all. 9-11 occurred, amongst other reasons, becuz the STATUS QUO IS UNACCEPTABLE TO AMERICA's ENEMIES, INCLUD BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FAILED/ANGRY LEFT AND COLLUSORY INTERNAT LEFTS AND ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICANS. Any so-called "New Cold War" vv IRAN, etal is at best a short/near-termer in length. Iran's Radical Mullahs want Nukes and Iran-centric EMPIRE, and they are fanatical enough to induce a US-Russia-China geopol- and military confrontation in order to get their way, i.e. ala North Korea are willing to commit national suicide vv regional and global belligerencies. IRAN > "Iran gets Nukes and Empire, or everyone in the ME and World dies". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-14 21:10 |
| #17 Actually, the Soviet communists had a near religious zeal in their desire to free us "downtrodden wage slaves" from the shackles of capitalist servitude. Marxism demands the same sort of suspension of disbelief that fundamentalist religion also requires. There was the same obsession with conversion, and a de facto sort of dhimmitude as seen with the satellite countries of the Warsaw pact. C-Low is correct in that the Soviets were not so insane as to relish death over patient waiting. Mutual Assured Destruction had a definite neutralizing effect over the Soviets. Something that is entirely absent in the Iranian mullahs. Give these loons their wish, pronto. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-14 20:06 |
| #16 Wrong Phil C-low hit it on the head. No where in the Soviet doctrine did it call for everyone else's conversion, death or dhimmitude. No where. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-03-14 19:38 |
| #15 Both the SU had and Iran have their 'true believers, but also large numbers who pay lip service cos thats the way to keep out of trouble. We shall see who's right. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-14 19:09 |
| #14 Phil you believe that I got a bridge to sell ya. The Soviets were atheist who feared death. The Mullahs are radical Islamist who believes death while killing infidels is guaranteed access to heaven, milk, honey, and even 72 virgins. What use is it to threaten death to someone who wants such and is even rewarded by such as long as they get such trying to kill you? The only way to deal with such people is not threats but pre-emption simple kill them first. As for the political situation saying Bush cant hit Iran, why not? Bush polls are already in the tank, he’s on the defensive, CNN is openly saying “the so called WOT” on their front-page stories about Afghanistan Pakistan. The Repubs in general are looking at getting whipped in the mid terms. The Dems are on full offensive with the media setting the debate. We will see full partisan attacks all the way to November with media overblown scandal after scandal. How exactly hitting Iran something the majority believe is eminent maybe even with some quite passive support by the EU would hurt? It would switch the debate off the all out attack by the Dems to Iran. The Dems and their pacifist radical anti-war BS just don’t sell. The WOT is Bush’s legacy Iran is at a cross roads in this war if we falter here the whole effort up to now was a waste of time its win the damm thing or lose it. You cant just quit in the late 3rd quarter because your tired and beat up and expect to win the game. Not promoting Iran as a wag the dog scenario Iran is definitely one of those things that must be done and whether good politically or not should be done. After all that’s a leaders job to make the hard decisions not the popular ones. But just saying I don’t really see the political effects as bad and if things don’t go south big time may even be a sweeping benefit. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-03-14 19:00 |
| #13 I've covered many of the parallels in the past. Just to highlight two. The Iranian system deliberately copies the Soviet system with the party (called the Pasadran in Iran) and state having largely duplicate structures. The SU fell apart when the state institutions took full control. The ethnic layout of Iran is very similar to that of the SU, with a heartland where the main ethnic group dominates and various ethnic minorities dominating regions on the periphery. The main difference is Russians were an absolute majority in the SU, whereas Persians are likely a minority in Iran (there hasn't been a reliable census in 30 years). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-14 18:53 |
| #12 "pending civil war in Iraq" ? Ah, turn off your CNN dude. One thing is for sure, if the mooslims ever get the bomb life will be over as we know it. The Soviets never want to use theirs but they were not fueled by hating everything civilized. Time to break out the B-1s for some high altitude bunkerbusters. One good pass would take care of the whole Islam with a bomb mess. 9-11 folks could like like small potatoes... |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-03-14 18:45 |
| #11 No shiite? All dynasty's end, and its never purty. When did they pull ol .com's plug? I'd love to read those posts! Mean old bastard.., but so enjoyable to read. I haven't been around since Chrimas or so, so i ain't noticed who's hangin round the burg these days. So who else has been censured or deemed unfit recently? I thought I saw anonymoose still out there, but lots of the old regulars semed to have split. Dan Darling still around? Whom else? EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2006-03-14 18:43 |
| #10 There is one common element. The Soviet Union fell partly because it was bankrupt. If oil would go down to $40 and stay there for a few months, Iran would be too. But there are vast differences also. Iran is an advanced kleptocracy with Mullahs and their friends amassing large fortunes and the people with the money are getting frustrated with the ruling clique because of its economic policies and also afraid of the ruling clique for its potential to just execute people. Iran's military is another question mark. They have a multitude of security forces. Some probably can be assumed to be loyal to the Malarky, others not. Anyone who thinks they know how this will come out is fooling themselves. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-03-14 18:40 |
| #9 and slummers are commin on and we're runnin outta nice. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-14 18:10 |
| #8 Damn! Say it ain't so? |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-14 18:09 |
| #7 Poor .com is gone Poor dot com is gone All gather round his keyboard now and cry He had a heart of gold Even though he'd gotten old Oh why did such a feller have to go? Poor .com is gone Poor dot com is gone His comments were so peaceful and serene He's gone of for some rest With his hands on some babe's chest His fingernails have never been so clean Then the preacher'd get up and he'd say "Folks, we are gathered here to mourn and groan over our brother .com Who hung hisself up on always having to stomp every troll at the burg" And then there'd be weepin' an' wailin' --- from some of those women [Gentle, JC]--- Then he'd say, ",com was the most misunderstood man in the blogosphere People used to think he was a mean ugly fella and called him a dirty skunk and an ornery pig stealer, But The folks that really knowed him Knowed that beneath them two dirty shirts he always wore There beat a heart as big as all outdoors dot com loved his fellow man He loved the ma-deuces of the forest And the M1-A2s of the fields He loved the mice and the vermin under the barn And he treated the rats like equals (which was right) He loved all the little children He loved everything and everybody in the world Only . . . only he never let on And nobody ever knowed it Poor .com is gone Poor dot com is gone His friends are weepin' wail for miles around The new trolls in the burg Won't get to hear the gospel word Because dot com won't be postin' any more Poor .com is gone A candle lights his head He's layin' in a heart-shaped water bed And folks are feelin' sad 'Cuz they used to treat him bad But now he's feelin' just a Poor .com is gone A candle lights his head He's lookin' oh so purty and so nice But his hand's begun to creep And he'll make a comment here in just a trice. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 17:53 |
| #6 The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union fell apart. The same thing will happen to Iran. Waiting for the Soviet Union to "fall apart" took half a century. In half a decade (or less) Iran will be nuclear armed and its "falling apart" will be more in the form of vaporization. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-14 17:40 |
| #5 How so phil, and is .com still around or has he been excommunicated or something?? |
| Posted by: EP 2006-03-14 17:03 |
| #4 The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union fell apart. The same thing will happen to Iran. The parallels are remarkable. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-14 16:53 |
| #3 A new cold war? Doubtful. The commies, for all their faults (and there are legion), had some ability to reason, and no religious fervor at all. We, of course, also didn't want to go up in a puff of uranium or plutonium. "MAD" in the case of the US v. Russia cold war meant "mutually assured destruction" - and neither of us wanted our countries destroyed. "MAD" in the case of the MM™ means they're NUTS, as in certifiably crazy - and religious fanatics to boot. They don't care if their people are totally destroyed, as long as they get to take the hated US and the hated Jooooos with them. They actually think they'll get rewarded by their god for this. We can't let those nutcases get nukes. They have already publicly stated their intention of nuking Israel as soon as they get nuclear bombs - and the Western world is next. You'd think that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the paleos would be just a tad worried by the MM's nuke-Israel pronouncement, them being so close to Israel's borders and all. Unless they truly think dying quick in a burst of nuclear fission or slowly from radiation poisoning is the will of allen. But then, Ahmadinejad seems to think he's some kind of god already, so who knows.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-14 16:17 |
| #2 Theres a big difference between Iran and the Soviet Union. The Soviets were not looking to export nuclear arms, wipe Israel off the map, was not a radical theocracy, were rational enough to understand the consequences of using them, valued their self-preservation and had enough Western ideology to negotiate and reason with to a stalemate. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-03-14 16:08 |
| #1 There is no stomach for a confrontation with Iran. The left and the unbalanced domestic media would want everyone in the current administrations head on a pike regardless of the reasons for war, and work doubly hard as they have in Iraq to discredit any action. If an invasion fleet isn't off the coast of the US (and even then I'm not so sure)the media will work overtime to undermine any action however obviously justified to us adults. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-03-14 16:07 |