Confrontation with Iran
Middle East Online / Melvin A. Goodman

The neocon editorial
writers at the Washington Post used the run-up to the Geneva meetings
between the United States and Iran to marginalize the significance of
the negotiations, to endorse a policy of confrontation against Iran,
and even to support steps to bring down the regime in Tehran.

Not even the apparent success of the talks led to any change in the Post’s editorial views.

The most reckless advice at
this possibly critical juncture comes from Post editorial writer Anne
Applebaum, who wants the Obama administration to “increase funding for
dissident exile groups, smuggle money into the country,” and to
“bombard Iranian airwaves with anti-regime television.”

Op-ed writer Robert Kagan,
a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
(!), supports “crippling sanctions” that would not necessarily topple
the regime but would have a chance to succeed if they were a part of
the “right mix of internal opposition and foreign pressure.” 

There are many elements of
the current situation, however, that suggest broad strategic
discussions that avoid polemics and accusations could lead to some
unanimity on regional security in the Persian Gulf, some understanding
on the dangers of international terrorism, and even some transparency
on Iran’s nuclear activities.

recommended by Ostaad