| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran Just Feels Insecure, Big Hug Needed and It's Bush's Fault |
| 2006-08-27 |
| Only an outfit like Time Could Make This Shit Up. How to Make Tehran Blink The best way to prevent a nuclear Iran is for America to offer the kind of security assurances that might reduce support for a nuclear arsenal. By Scott D. Sagan - Newsweek International Sept. 4, 2006 issue - Given Tehran's defiant response to the European and American effort to constrain its nuclear program, it is time for bolder diplomacy out of Washington. U.S. President George W. Bush should take a page from the playbook of Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with an evil Soviet regime—competing in the war of ideas, but addressing the enemy's security concerns through arms-control agreements. Yes, let's be bold. the Mad Mullahs are just like the Old Soviet Union. Sheesh, Bush is soooo stupid. Iran's intransigence is both deeply unfortunate and perfectly predictable. It is unfortunate because Tehran's refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment operations immediately—as demanded in July by the U.N. Security Council in a legally binding resolution—suggests that Iran is moving more quickly than expected toward a nuclear-weapons capability. Tehran has now turned the nuclear crisis into a test of the whole U.N. Security Council system. And Russia and China's current position, threatening to veto any biting sanctions against Iran, suggests that the Security Council may well fail this crucial test. Yes. It's a crucial test of the UNSC. It's sad and unfortunate and stuff. They couldn't help reacting this way for the last 3 years. I'm tearing up, here. *sniff*. Tehran's response is predictable, however, because the offer on the table contains both inadequate economic carrots and barely credible threats of sanctions and military force. The carrots appeared impressive at first glance—in return for a suspension of enrichment we reportedly promised to provide light-water nuclear reactors and to help Iran with civil aviation and telecommunications technology. But we did not offer the one incentive that might possibly work, security guarantees that could reduce Iran's desire for nuclear weapons. They say they want nukular power, but they really just want Big Hugs from Bubba Bush. This omission is striking. The Iranian government can't talk openly about their security concerns because that would blow their cover story that the nuclear program is only for energy production. And Washington does not want to discuss such worries because it wants to keep open the possibility of removing the regime by force. "Security assurances are not on the table," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice too cleverly argued this spring: "It is a little strange to talk about security guarantees ... I thought the Iranian position was that they weren't developing a nuclear bomb." They lied because, well because they had to. They're just scared and stuff. They lied for 3 years cuz we're so scary. It's our fault for being so scary. Condi's black boots were just too much. This is partly a crisis of our own making, as the Bush administration has practiced the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's maxim—speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. Think about how Tehran reacted when Bush stated (in his second Inaugural Address), "The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: 'Those who deny freedoms to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." Or when Bush dramatically told reporters last April that "all options are on the table," in direct response to a question about whether he was considering a nuclear attack against Iran. Such statements only encourage Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent quickly, before the United States can carry out its perceived aggressive intent. Last month, Iran's National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani pointedly complained about such rhetoric. "How can a side that wants to topple the regime also attempt to negotiate?" I blame Bush. Not at all like TDR. Bad Bush, bad. They're scared - and confused, now, too. Bad Bush, bad. If only you could've been like TDR and stuff, none of this would've happened. Given the current vulnerability of U.S. forces in Iraq, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and the lack of Israeli success against Hizbullah, Iranian officials seem confident that they face no immediate threat of a U.S. military assault. But they are clearly worried that Bush just might attack Iran right before he leaves office in January 2009, or that his successor might do so once U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq. Okay, meme time. Though we're so toothless and all, they're still scared and worried and stuff. Bush might still hurt them. He's purdy evil. And sneaky, too. Lookout Mullahs! The best way to prevent a nuclear Iran is for Washington to offer the kind of security assurances that might reduce support in Tehran for building a nuclear arsenal. It will be hard to make such assurances credible, but a public U.S. promise to take forcible regime change off the table, and a U.N. Security Council commitment to protect the "political sovereignty" of Iran could help. Involving the Security Council could also pull China and Russia back into the nonproliferation coalition and enhance the U.N.'s legitimacy. Yep. More carrots, less scary stuff, and Big Hugs. It's our job to convince them, cuz they're all scared and stuff. And as for the Ruskies and ChiComs, well, they're really just trying to be good UN members. If we stop being so, uh, bad and stuff they'll be good. We're preventing the UN from being all legitimate and stuff. It's our fault. Bad America, bad. There, all done. Nothing to be alarmed about, it was only a brain enema. |
| Posted by:Threatch Unons6270 |
| #7 Iran's intransigence is both deeply unfortunate and perfectly predictable. If "Iran's intransigence" is so "perfectly predictable" why waste time speculating on how to appease this rogue regime? ... inadequate economic carrots ... No amount of carrots will work with a regime that abuses the negotiating process to merely buy more time in circumventing possible military intervention against their illicit pursuits. Iran requires a policy of ALL STICK AND NO CARROT |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-27 17:47 |
| #6 Would someone please explain to me the sorts of security concerns that a secular Iran would have -- a) if it gave up sponsoring terrorism? b) if it gave up persecuting its own people? c) with Saddam in jug? There's no other regional power that's going to tangle with them. A democratic, secular Iran would zoom forward economically and wouldn't be challenged by any other military power in the Gulf. So why do they need a security assurance? Oh right, they're NOT democratic, they DO persecute their own people, and they DO sponsor terrorism around the world. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-27 16:24 |
| #5 Superior inlinery. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-27 10:35 |
| #4 a joint news report by Time, Newsweak. What? the NYT couldn't participate? Stocks drop along with credibility. Ask the LA Times, NYT, et al |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-27 10:29 |
| #3 What a void of common sense. Although Sunnis and Shiites do unify at times, currently the House of Saud views Iran as its mortal enemy. There is a Shiite majority among all the Persian Gulf oilfields. And the Kurdistan fields are subject to Shiite encirclement. Yesterday, Iran launched a long range missile from a submarine. With US forces out of Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf effectively an Iranian sea, the only thing stopping a total takeover is Iran's lack of technology to hold - versus take - these strategic oil fields. I would hope that President Bush would not indulge circumstances conducive to a future ICBM threat to the American Homeland. In any case, if Ahmadinejad is still in power by the end of September, he will force Shiite-Sunni unification against Israel. Thousands of accurate missiles will surround Israel, and monopoly oil levers will be applied. Adding insult to injury, on September 8, Iranian Ayatollah Khatami - permanent puppet to the Guardian Council and temporary mouthpiece of sham Parliamentary reformers - will speak in the National Cathedral of Washington. That is debasing, given the President's speech of Sept. 14, 2001: "Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing..." Hopefully, that "hour" will be before the end of September. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-27 10:16 |
| #2 Big time IIRC. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-27 09:42 |
| #1 I haven't been following it, but I imagine Time's circulation numbers have been falling, too. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-27 09:37 |