You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US needs "maximum diplomatic relationship" with Iran, sez Carter
2007-10-10
With increasing evidence that Iran is a dangerous and unpredictable country, the best thing for the United States to do is have "a maximum diplomatic relationship" with that country, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday.

Carter, whose re-election bid in 1980 may have been foiled by the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, said in a CBS "Early Show" interview that the United States, which has no diplomatic relations with Iran, needs to find a way to communicate directly with the Iranians "to reassure their fears that we might attack them, which is constantly a drumbeat out of Washington, maybe deliberately from the (Bush) administration or inadvertently." If the Iranian leaders feel they are going to be attacked, "then I think that is one incentive for them to be more militant," Carter said. "So I think to assuage their fears and to tell them the truth about our intentions would be very helpful." A U.S. military strike against Iran at this time "would be completely unnecessary and counterproductive," the 83-year-old former president said.

Carter questioned where the United States would get the troops to invade Iran, since it does not even have enough troops for the war in Iraq. "And I do not think we would have any other nation in the world that would join us in any sort of military intervention against Iran," he said. "So diplomacy is the best approach."
Posted by:Seafarious

#35  TOPIX > PUTIN - IRAN NUCLEAR BOMB IS A STRATEGIC THREAT TO RUSSIA, despite Russ finding no "objective proof" that Iran intends to build said bomb(s). OTOH, KOMMERSANT > USA, BRITAIN WORK AGAINST RUSSIA, FSB. Milyuhns and Zilyuhns, or circa 300 [RIAN][300 Spartans?] of anti-Russian "foreign intelligence" operatives caught or exposed in Russia.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-10 23:40  

#34  So what happened to Billy Beer anyway?

I found an unopened can when I was cleaning out my parents' house.
Posted by: Mike   2007-10-10 23:30  

#33  One of the things I've advocated is alienating the IRGC and the mullahs from the populace. If you take away what support/fear/respect they have (and the power from it that results), it makes it much easier to allow a response to a power vacuum.

How? Knock down their economic power so they can't provide jobs (or money for their own use). Designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization is a good first step. I'd go with designating certain mullahs as terrorist enablers as well. Nothing like starting a intramural conflict.

OS is correct on the other stuff, but I'd hit the Baseej first. They're the ones trained in handling civil strife. They're also the ones trained in urban combat.

That the Baseej have come under IRGC control is a development that can be taken advantage of. If the IRGC have to get involved as a result of the Baseej being reduced, so much the better.

Hit the IRGC camps involved in supporting the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban. Still a strike, but it's a legitimate reason.

The idea is to get them off balance. Off balance means making mistakes. Making mistakes means creating opportunities.

There are risks. Likely the Iranians will respond, the obvious target areas being the rest of the Middle East. I suspect that's why Mr. Carter is concerned - because his Saudi paymasters are concerned.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-10-10 22:03  

#32  Pappy's crazy - I support him totally
Posted by: Frank G   2007-10-10 21:42  

#31  Glemore, I agree with Pappy. You have to read it all. I have the same perspectives, having had my ass on the line, and seeing and knowing peopel that continue to put it on the line.

There is NO silver bullet, no magical way of donig it.

Thats why I said it has to be combined actions going after and destroying enough of the command and the things needed for command (C3I) to ensure there can be no effective responses. unlike going after terrorists, Iran does present conventional leadership targets, and they have to have soem semblance of structure and infrastructure to maintain their power. Unlike Bin Laden, they cannot simply leave and run things from a cave in another country.

The key is to damage the sectarian ability to command and control and act as a government to the point where they are incapable/impotent in their responses. Create a power vacuum, and leave enough of the secular Iranian Army to fill it.

But above all, no invasion.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-10-10 19:55  

#30  Maximum diplomatic relationship with Iran


Works for me.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-10-10 19:19  

#29  So what happened to Billy Beer anyway? Did such a fine brand name die off when Jimmy left the White House in disgrace?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-10-10 15:27  

#28  Worst. President. Ever.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2007-10-10 14:49  

#27  'Spook, I'm glad you work for our side.
Posted by: Mike   2007-10-10 14:04  

#26  Jimmy, Jimmy who, the penis farmer?
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-10-10 13:18  

#25  Pappy seems disinclined to re-comment on this issue, but he presents a really valuable perspective over at:
http://mycardboardbox.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-10-10 13:06  

#24  Who the hell says we are INVADING Iran?

Thanks for that, OldSpook. This is yet another example of loony liberals using lies, half truths and emotional appeals to advance their dubious agenda. And this time it's from King of the Dhimmis.

Nobody, except jimmuh himself, said anything about invading Iran. What we need to do is break it, disable the nuke program and let the survivors figure out what to do with the rubble.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-10-10 12:49  

#23  They can rot for all we care after that.

Yup. If there is one single lesson we must carry away from Afghanistan and Iraq it is that the era of nation-building is over. Most likely, forever and especially so in the case of these thankless, treacherous Muslim majority countries. From now on we will just drop by to break the bad boys' toys and they can clean up the mess themselves. Someone here even suggested going in after their national treasuries to pay for the beatdown. I like that idea a lot!
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-10 12:41  

#22  OldSpook - you have my vote for prez!
Posted by: 3dc   2007-10-10 12:12  

#21  Carter is an idiot.

Question: Who the hell says we are INVADING Iran?

Nobody. What we are likely getting ready to do is a combination of strikes that will destroy the nuclear weapons infrastructure, the command and control of the Government inclduing the leadership, and the C&C IRG and terrorist support areas, and the religiously controlled forces there. Basically put the Mullahs out of communication, unable to control, and if lucky kill many of the worst who have led this.

Its more of a decapitation and cordon. They can rot for all we care after that. Leave enough of the Army intact and encourage a coup.

If the Iranians want to continue the fight after that, then we move on to targeting dual-use civil infrastructure that their military needs - power, phones, bridges, rail, roads, pipelines and the single refinery, and interdict the ports.


Ultimately if we have to demolish the infrastructure, then we should dismember Iran from the start rather than invading. There are plenty of ethnic fault lines to use to accomplish this, and they are are quite fortunately placed in terms of geography and oil.

Maybe encourage the Turks to "pacify" the northern Oil regions and use the threat Iranian Kurds declaring independence there to motivate the Turks to move quickly. And get Arab countries to do the same thing in the SE part of Iran with Pakistan's help (Arab money, Paki troops). Have Iraq offer to help, shia to shia, in the Basra region - give that little bastard Sadr a chance to hold the whip hand over his old masters. The rest, we just cordon it off, and allow humanitarian aid in.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-10-10 11:07  

#20  Gee, thanks Jimmuh, but you did enough back in 78/79. You go take your meds and have a nice nap, ok old timer? We'll take it from here.
Posted by: mojo   2007-10-10 11:01  

#19  Will I have to help pay for Carter's funeral?
Posted by: Heriberto Ulusomble6667   2007-10-10 11:01  

#18  Like he had?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-10-10 11:01  

#17  He's right, diplomacy works. Except with killer rabbits.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-10-10 09:46  

#16  OK, so war is diplomacy carried on by other means. So let's get jimmuh appointed as a special ambassador to iran, and then go with the maximum other means diplomacy while he's there...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2007-10-10 09:35  

#15  I was all set to say something snarky, but tu3031, eLarson, Bobby, and GK beat me to it.
Posted by: Mike   2007-10-10 09:10  

#14  "If the Iranian leaders feel they are going to be attacked, "then I think that is one incentive for them to be more militant," Carter said.

So...why did they become more militant back in 1978-79 when they knew they weren't going to be attacked by a president with absolutely no guts and no clue?
Talk about "disconnect"...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-10-10 08:58  

#13  Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-10 08:43  

#12  Carter is rapidly falling into the domestic enemy category with his constant stream of hurtful talk.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-10-10 08:20  

#11  Ohfergawdsakes Dhimmi, just STFU already!
Posted by: Spot   2007-10-10 07:55  

#10  Carter, whose re-election bid in 1980 may have been foiled by the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis...

Now that's an understatement!
Posted by: Raj   2007-10-10 07:47  

#9  From JM's comment :

American Thinker Iran Plans to Checkmate America
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-10-10 07:46  

#8  "...because it worked out great for us in 1979-80, after all."
Posted by: eLarson   2007-10-10 07:37  

#7  And the Peanut Farmer is the expert on caving in to negotiating with the Mullahs.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-10-10 06:52  

#6  Because reassured mullahs are delightful, easy going folks. We should rock them to sleep whispering soft lullabies in their ears.

If we disbanded our military they would be assured we would not attack them. Would we be safer then?

Is it more likely they took hostages because they thought we would attack them, or because they were fairly sure we wouldn't? Hmmm.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2007-10-10 04:56  

#5  AMERICAN THINKER [10/7/07] > IRAN PLANS TO CHECKMATE THE USA.Iran is willing to sacrifice not only the pawns, but the trophy as well, vv CHAOS in a masterful geopol chess game of all chess games. ALso, IRIB NEWS [Iran] > MOUD > reiterates that MATERIALIST WORLD + MATERIALISM ITSELF IS AT AN END.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-10 03:44  

#4  AH yes, Jimmuh Cartah, the renowned expert on Iranian relations. There wouldn't be a problem with Iran if you had done your job as POTUS.
Posted by: GK   2007-10-10 00:31  

#3  ATLANTIC FREE PRESS > Daan de Wit -ATTACK ON IRAN: THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN AND IN WHAT FORM. USA allegedly already bureaucratically gearing up for Iran war. IRAN WAR GAME PLANNING -USCommand officers see inevitable escalation.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-10 00:28  

#2  Carter's demise would elicit the sound of one hand slapping clapping flapping crapping.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-10 00:24  

#1  NEWSMAX > IRAN CONTINUES ITS DEADLY GAME.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-10 00:18  

00:00