Diplomacy for War

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Daniel M Pourkesali
by Daniel M Pourkesali
22-Feb-2008
 

Reuel Marc Gerecht's opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday titled 'Attack Iran, With Words' advocating diplomacy with Iran may have taken some readers including this one by surprise given his resident fellowship credentials at the American Enterprise Institute. Not that there is anything new and earth shattering about the concept of engaging in dialog in order to resolve differences between nations. But is it possible that these people finally got a whiff of what the rest of us call 'Common Sense'?

Well, after reading the article the answer is still a resounding 'no'.

The current administration has paid a lot of lip service in the last few years to the notion of a diplomatic solution while continuously preparing public opinion through media spin on a path toward war with Iran. But that was three months and one very damaging National Intelligence Estimate ago. Strangely enough, the new neo-con strategy seems to be calling for real diplomacy not for the sake of preserving peace but rather to revive the vanishing and increasingly unpopular idea of using military force because as Gerecht puts it "the current approach isn't working". He goes on to suggest that "we must find a way to restore the resolve of all those parties [China, Russia, Germany, Britain and France] to hit Iran with a tsunami of sanctions if we are to diminish the victorious esprit in Tehran and the centrifuge production at Natanz."

And as for those "praying for the clerical regime to do something stupid" he dashes such hopes by stating that "[Iranians] will likely play it sufficiently cool to make it difficult for the United States to strike them pre-emptively. Thus the best reason to offer to begin talks with Tehran is that the regime will almost certainly refuse any offer to normalize relations."

So his recommendations for talking is not for the old cockamamie idea of engaging Iran in a wide-ranging dialog that would recognize its regional role or address any security or geo-strategic concerns, but "something that must be checked off before the next president could unleash the Air Force and the Navy."

And if you still have any doubt as to what he is exactly suggesting, he spells it out in black and white for you: "To make the threat of force against clerical Iran credible again, there needs to be a consensus among far more Democrats and Republicans that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable. If the White House tried more energetically to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear threat, if it demonstrated that it had reached out to Iranian "pragmatists" and "moderates," and that again no one responded, then the military option would likely become convincing to more Americans."

Well this writer is certainly convinced. After 6 years of saber rattling and refusing to talk, except for making threats, moving a third of the U.S. naval arsenal to the Persian Gulf and accusing Iran of helping Iraqi insurgents without presenting a shred of evidence, who knew diplomacy could be such a powerful tool for war.

 

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Daniel M PourkesaliCommentsDate
Neither wrong nor illegal
7
Dec 06, 2010
National Interest
6
Jun 17, 2009
True intentions
14
May 13, 2009
more from Daniel M Pourkesali
 
default

anonymous...: DO you think

by JR (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 08:26 PM PST

anonymous...: DO you think Iran should "liberate" Palestinians by declaring war on Israel?


  •  
default

STRANGER THAN FICTION

by Anonymous ... (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 08:08 PM PST


  •  
Zion

Yes I do.

by Zion on Fri Feb 22, 2008 08:17 PM PST

I also understand the difference between peaceful purposes and official rhetoric of a country who calls another nation state a cancer tumor and an infectious bacteria that must be wiped off the map, and commemorates a dead mass murderer professional terrorist garbage as its greatest of heros. Do you?


  •  
default

ZION the floating turd , you shall be flushed KHAZAR

by Anonymous ... (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:22 PM PST


  •  
default

Anonymous8

by Realist (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:19 PM PST

Very good point. The Neocons only see their side of the equation, that's why they are always right no matter what!


  •  
default

Zion: do you speak English?

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:10 PM PST

are you not able to distinguish "peaceful nuclear program" from "nuclear weapons program" ? Are you slow?


  •  
default

programmer craig or craig the programmer?

by On-Acid (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:08 PM PST

Coming from a neocon, what you have said makes nonsensical sense. You are blessed for being an American who are normally intelligent and worldly. I bet you have visited many places and thought them all the American values, based on humanitarian philosophy. Hopefully didn't kill them afterwards.
Thanks again, you are a blessing to humanity.
To all others please remind yourself what time it is??!!??


  •  
default

Yek Irani said it all

by Farshid Yazdi (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:01 PM PST

I absolutely agree with you Yek Irani . That I think most of us have noticed. Thanks for reminding those who might have forgot.


  •  
default

Dear fred

by Realist (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 06:58 PM PST

As we say in Iran, move let the air pass. Lucky for you talking none sense is not taxed, so go a head.


  •  
Zion

Profession

by Zion on Fri Feb 22, 2008 06:55 PM PST

Yek Irani, are you trying to show us how proud you are of your profession with that avatar? Is that a picture of you in your work suit, or is it that of a colleague?


  •  
Zion

Cognitive Dissonance

by Zion on Fri Feb 22, 2008 06:51 PM PST

Dear Sir,
I am quite confused here. You quote Mr. Gerecht as follows:
`we must find a way to restore the resolve of all those parties [China, Russia, Germany, Britain and France] to hit Iran with a tsunami of sanctions if we are to diminish the victorious esprit in Tehran and the centrifuge production at Natanz.`
You see something wrong with this suggestion? Do you rather prefer nuclear mushroom above cities in Middle East?
More confusing is what you said this quote is supposed to mean:
`Strangely enough, the new neo-con strategy seems to be calling for real diplomacy not for the sake of preserving peace but rather to revive the vanishing and increasingly unpopular idea of using military force `

Do you not understand the English meaning of the word `sanctions` in that statement? Did it say anything about `using` any military force?
You keep on insisting on this bizarre interpretation while you quote the gentleman again:
`To make the threat of force against clerical Iran credible again, there needs to be a consensus among far more Democrats and Republicans that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable.`
Are you not able to distinguish between two clearly and obviously different concepts: One of `using military force` and the other of 'making the threat of military force credible` and the need to `use sanctions`? Or is it merely deliberate cognitive dissonance?


  •  
default

to programmer craig

by mirror (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 06:30 PM PST

"The US is going to do what the US is going to do, and we'll all just have to live with that."

I think what you mean is that the US "government" is going to do what the US "government" is going to do, and "the people" will all just have to live with that.

Well, sadly enough, the only ones who are willing to rise to the occasion and answer that logic from the other side, are the likes of Bin Laden. So, pick your poison, dialogue or violence!

Incidentally, who is more intellectually bankrupt? A nation under the yoke of a brutal theocracy lead by incompetent, corrupt idiots, or a nation born of a democratic constitution guaranteeing the right of free speech lead by incompetent, corrupt idiots. If you allow yourself to paint 72 million people with a single brush you are morally as well as intellectually corrupt. Buy a mirror. You need it.


  •  
programmer craig

Iranian patriot

by programmer craig on Fri Feb 22, 2008 03:36 PM PST

Still waiting on that e-mail, tough guy.


  •  
programmer craig

Right

by programmer craig on Fri Feb 22, 2008 03:34 PM PST

But is it possible that these people finally got a whiff of what the rest of us call 'Common Sense'?

Every possible alternative is completely unacceptable to you. Iranians are intellectually bankrupt on how to solve any of these problems. The US is going to do what the US is going to do, and we'll all just have to live with that.


  •  
Fred

The many attributes of Fred

by Fred on Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:35 AM PST

"Fred is a propagandist and (a) liar" Propagandist by definition is a liar just as an Islamist is one by nature, therefore no and is needed.


  •  
default

Fred is a propagandist and liar

by Iranian patriot (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:15 AM PST

Fred is a bootlicker and propagandist for the Jewish supremacists who consider themselves God's Chosen People and the other 99.8% of humanity to be "Filthy Goyim" ("shaygetz" or "shiksa" in Yiddish). Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Zoroastrians, atheists, etc. are all "Filthy Goyim" because they are not among His Chosen People. Now, wait for Fred to start with his lies, saying that this is all "anti-semitism", etc, etc


  •  
Fred

Q

by Fred on Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:07 AM PST

Correction requested. Per your Islamist  Leader,President & officials of lesser standings, the correct moniker is "the filthy Zionist".


  •  
Q

Zionist Fred, at it again

by Q on Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:58 AM PST

Seldom has there been an anti-neocon blog where Fred hasn't come in and essentially said: "They are right, Iran sucks" and attack the writer with little or no substance to back it up.

For a full analysis of Fred and his buddies, read this blog. He's "good" afterall.

//iranian.com/main/blog/q/profile-people-...


  •  
Yek Irani

Over Analyzed

by Yek Irani on Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:47 AM PST

Mr. PourKesali, you didn’t need to go through all these analysis that you did. You just needed to look at the good Reuel’s last name. From his last name you can tell that he belongs to a certain tribe in the Middle East. Just accidentally all the NeoCons come from the same tribe.Their bottom line is not the best interest of the US. As a matter of fact the real American conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, etc are all dead against them. You just need to look at last names to figure out whether they are furthering American interests or using America to further foreign interests of particular tribes. 

 


  •  
default

Regardless of RMG's

by bird flu (not verified) on Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:40 AM PST

Regardless of RMG's intentions, I think he is right. Given the new shifting of power structure and the state of economy in Iran (two hardliner factions vying for power), the likelihood of accepting any talks or negotiations by the Khamenie's factions are slim to none.

Khameni and his cronies, IRGC, desperately need a war. War is the only option left to prolong the reign for at least a few more decades.

//www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory...


  •  
Fred

Facts that don't vanish

by Fred on Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:27 AM PST

Islamist lobby CASMII/NIAC Danny is at it again. He says: [us] “accusing Iran of helping Iraqi insurgents without presenting a shred of evidence” .Islamists tend to think they are in Islamist Republic and by mere disclaiming indisputable facts it vanishes.


  •  
« first‹ previous12