I support the idea of holding direct talks with Iran. Like everyone else, I’ve played the rhetorical game, “If I were President I’d….” Well, if I were President [what I think President Bush or President McCain or President Obama should do] I would fly Air Force One to Tehran international unannounced.
[Current photo of abandoned American Embassy in Tehran, Iran-where “talks” with Iran should be held with the Washington and entire world press corps at hand]
On the ground, I’d have a tent set up just outside the abandoned US embassy (which still bears the paint on the sides of a giant American flag with the words, “DEATH TO AMERICA” on it. We’d have tea and cookies ready, some paper, some pens, and I’d have the cynical Washington Press Corp surrounding me. Then I’d wait until someone from Iran came to talk. If it took hours, no big deal-the plane has bathrooms. If it took a day, hey, there’s food on the plane. Besides, the waiting would only harden the press corps and sharpen their attitudes.
When someone-preferably Ahmadinejad-came to talk, the cameras would roll away. We’d sit down, and then…
WHAT?
This is where there’s a problem with the idea of “talking” to Iran. Obviously a presentation of greivances has to be made so both sides know the goal. The President has to tell Iran that they’ve got to stop killing Americans in Iraq, stop arming, training, funding, and harboring the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists who are killing Americans in Iraq, Iran’s got to stop calling for the destruction of Israel as it’s a very destabilizing threat, and Iran’s got to prove to the world via the IAEA that their nuclear program isn’t a series of nuclear bomb factories (which it is). Iran’s President would then go on and on about US support for Israel (ignoring US support for Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, the Gulf States, and Iraq all of which dwarfs US support for Israel 10fold). Iran’s President would have to call for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Gulf (something we’d love to do, but can’t because of the Iranian backed terrorist efforts and Iran’s threats to Israel etc). Iran’s President might also want other concessions.
Concessions….
There’s the rub. Democrats are in an uproar this past week because they felt that President Bush was calling likely President Obama and other Democrats “appeasers.” Well, appeasement is the idea of giving “stuff” to leaders and nations that are clearly tyrannical in the hope that it will appease or satisfy or coax them into complying with US will. SO, if that fateful day ever came where an American President held talks w Iran…if he offered this and that and whatever to Iran in the hopes that Iran would then
- -stop killing Americans in Iraq
- -stop supporting, training, arming, harboring, and assisting the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq
- -stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and
- -stop screwing around with the IAEA and prove that they’re not making nuclear bomb factories, but a peaceful nuclear program for energy (despite the lack of any new power grid being built)
…if an American President offered concessions to accomplish those goals, then that American President (Bush, Obama, me) would be appeasing the Iranians.
Now, lacking appeasment or carrots, the other way to make the mule move is to slap its ass with a stick. Pundits, retired generals, political opponents, professional politicians, and candidates all tell us the US military is broken from service in Iraq. I beg to differ-though I readily acknowledge the incredible strain on the Army and Marine Corps. The US Navy and the US Air Force are not strained. They are a very viable military option. Some say you can’t just bomb a country into compliance/submission, or that an air campaign option wouldn’t work with Iran. They might be right, but they’re more likely wrong. If the world has learned anything from American military action over the past 18 years, it’s that a US air campaign is devastating, and as time passes…it only gets more so. Doubt it? Ask the Taliban who now live in caves.
Still, there’s an even bigger threat to Iran with an even more direct effect than a US invasion or airwar.
If the Iranians “talk” with an American President (Bush, Obama, Clinton, me, you), and they’re not given appeasement carrots to stop killing Americans etc., and they still don’t believe there’s a significant threat from a military that punditry calls “broken” (yeah, telling the world our military is “broken” doesn’t exactly help use it as a deterrent btw), then there is an option.
Iran is flooded with oil, but it is not flooded with gasoline. Just as the US doesn’t have enough refineries, so too is the case with Iran. Moreover, refineries are extremely vulnerable to fire given that there’s flammable petroleum products literally everywhere.
At this point in, I’d like you all to open your copies of Tom Clancy’s book, Red Storm Rising, to page 1. Take a moment and read the first 3 pages. What? No copy of the bestseller on your bookshelf or in any of the boxes down the basement? Ok, well let’s jump to the point then. In the book, a few Islamic Holy Warriors take over a refinery in Soviet Russia, turn on/off a series of valves that release petroleum all over the ground in some areas and builds up pressure in pipelines elsewher. Soon, pipes break, and fumes find an ignition source. The refinery is destroyed in their martyrdom attack.
Iran is extremely vulnerable to a strategic air attack (or covert attack) on its refineries. Their emergency storage of fuel is very small, and they are surrounded by American forces that can prevent fresh fuel from coming into the country. Whether it’s a stealth air attack, a commando attack, a deniable attack conducted by US-sponsored anti-Iranian terrorists, or whatever…they can be economically brought to submission.
Yes, talking with Iran is a good idea though. Why? Because it puts things out there to be very clear for those who would oppose any subsequent and likely action against Iran. Let’s face it, Iran has no reason to stop killing Americans in Iraq or arming, training, harboring, assisting, and supporting the terrorists who kill Americans there. Iran’s not been held to account for it in the past, and they have no reason to believe they will be in the future. The same is true for their years of threats against Israel. Most of all, if Iran is comfortable (as it demonstrates it is) in defying the entire world regarding inspections of its nuclear program, then what can the US do via talks; appease them into compliance or threaten them?
No, there is trouble on the horizon with Iran. There has been for a long time-since 1979. When Iran refuses to comply with the request to stop killing Americans etc., then it’s clear for those who oppose military action (direct or indirect, overt or covert), that diplomacy was tried and failed.
So yes, please, go “talk” to Iran, and try to make those talks successful without appeasing them, and keep telling them our military is “broken” because that really helps-NOT. And when those talks fail there will be no other option. There will be one last resort [back to page 1 of Red Storm Rising again please].
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Unfortunately, Obama has no “preconditions” for diplomacy with Tehran. The guy’s going to be Carter II.
The Dems brought on 9/11 with their laid-back Middle East foreign policy, and an Obama administration will court another.
(Clancy’s great, btw. I might even have a copy of “RSR” on my paperback book shelf!)
You think the Israelis will PERMIT an American president to talk to Iran? LOL! No way — they want to be the boss in the Mideast, and don’t want Iran to challenge with favorite status. Remember, the last time the US and Iran started to cooperate and talk over the US Invasion of Afghanistan, the Israelis manufactured the “Karine A” incident and got Bush to call Iran a member of the “Axis of Evul”
And trying to blame your screwups in Iraq on Iran is simply laughable.
Sorry Hass, but the Israelis can’t do anything to prevent a US President from talking to Iran, and as to their support for the invasion of Afghanistan…purely rhetorical. They didn’t even let US bombers fly over their territory. Imagine how much easier it would have been to invade Afghanistan if the US had been allowed to build a base in Iran as it was allowed in Pakistan and other Afghan neighbors. Iran’s post911 support was barely even skin deep. Perhaps you can direct us to a link showing some of their contribution their?
Scott: We’ve already made it clear in direct face to face contact that Iran should stop killing Americans. They answered by directing their proxies in Iraq to kill more.
Without a credible “big stick” which is the other half of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote, talking alone serves no puropse.
And Democrats have made it clear they refuse to support the “big stick” in any way, shape, manner or form.
P.S. The “stick” doesn’t have to be the threat of military attack. But I don’t hear Dems pressuring our allies for sanctions or any other action against Iran either. All they have done is make it clear they don’t support President Bush’s policy.
Democrats themselves have undermined any hope of a diplomatic solution.
Mike, as is so often the case, I couldn’t agree with you more.
🙂
Hey, correct me if I am wrong but didn’t we hold talks with Iranians already? Didnot the Europeans hold talks with the? Didn’t the Iraqis hold talks with them? Didn’t Saudi Arabia call on them to stop their nuclear actions? Let’s see, who else can we bring into the equastion? Here the Iranians are, surrounded by countries who don’t want them to have the bomb and they still spew the same logic “peaceful purposes” “death to Americ and Israel”, absolute proof they are meddling in Iraq. And some still want to talk to them? All this willingness to talk is nothing but delaying tactics. They hope to get the bomb so they can wipe out our forces in Iraq and Israel. They evidently don’t care that they will be abolished also. That is the problem with an enemy who doesn’t care if he dies. And he doesn’t care if he takes his entire country with him. Talks will do no good. Appeasement will do no good. They want to wipe us off the face of the earth. This is their goal and we forget it at our peril.
Iran’s nuclear program started with the full support and encouragement of the United States because it is perfectly legitimate and everyone who keeps saying “they’re making nukes” or “they’re sending IEDs into Iraq” etc is just spouting Bush propaganda BS . That’s all there is to it.
Really hass?
I say you’re full of crap.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
-Philip K. Dick
Really Hass? Then, could you help me with a few things I find odd about it?
1) They’ve got huge amounts of oil, but prefer to develop the most expensive, complex, and toxic form of energy rather than wind, solar, wave, geothermal, or (dare I suggest it…) oil. Why nuclear power instead of the others?
2) Why did the IAEA find plans to build a nuclear bomb in their inspections?
3) Why did the IAEA find plans to make a nuclear bomb core in their inspections?
4) Why doesn’t Iran show the IAEA all their facilities?
5) Why do all of the Iranian nuclear plants look exactly like the Pakistani nuclear bomb plants?
6) Why hasn’t Iran started building a power grid for their peaceful nuclear program?
Barbara S is absolutely right. The “EU THREE” made up of Britain, Germany and France have been talking to the Iranians FOR YEARS with no result.
It was hoped that a multilateral process, similar to the one which has recently born some small fruit in the six party talks with North Korea would be a better idea than a unilateral approach. And aren’t all the Dems constantly whining about how we have to work with our allies and not go ahead unilaterally? I wish they would make up their minds.
But in the case of Iran, negotiations have been a useful tool to hide from accountability and their obligations under international treaties:
P.S. It would appear that commenter Haas is grossly misinformed about what the Iranians are doing and the illegality of that activity under International Law.
Unfortunately, building a nuclear bomb is the only logical course of action for the Iranians, so it’s certain that that’s what they are doing. They know, that a credible nuclear detterent is the only guarantee they can get that they won’t get subjected to the same attempts at “regime change” as their neighbours to the left and right, iraq and afghanistan. Think about it…. if the USA wasn’t nuclear armed, and Iran had invaded Canada and Mexico, wouldn’t developing a nuclear bomb be top priority number one? It’s worked for North Korea so far.
Canada and Mexico aren’t Islamic Republics and state sponsors of Islamic death cults/jihadis. Bad example.
Regime change was never a US objective towards Afghanistan until that nation’s terrorist arm, Al Queda, destroyed 2 US zip codes in an attack that was aimed at 250,000 Americans, sought to destroy our government, put us in a recession that cost millions of jobs, and devastated entire industries.
As to Iraq…the US did what Iran wanted-removed Saddam.
Nah, the “they need nukes”/deserve nukes argument is not only incorrect, but a veiled excuse at suggesting they be allowed to get nuclear weapons then they’ll stop being a threat (ie, give the tyrants what they want, and they’ll stop=appeasement).
Please try again. HOW can “talking” w Iran work?
My point is, talking to Iran will not work. They don’t “deserve” or “need” nukes, they want them. They think if they can get one, it will put us or Israel off attacking them. I don’t think they would be stupid enough to launch a first strike on Israel, the U.S or europe, they know they would be obliterated. It doesn’t matter what we say to them, or what they say to us, they’re going to work flat out until they get a nuclear bomb. The question is therefore, is it worth going to war to stop them?
2 pts, First, Iran’s got WAAAAAAY more than enough conventional ballistic missiles to lay waste to Tel Aviv using conventional warheads. Hundreds-even thousands would do it. That’s a serious and sufficient deterrent force. Second, is it worth going to war against a state sponsor of terror that has nuclear weapons and could give them to terrorists at war with the US? They give all other kinds of munitions to their death cult suicide bomber buddies-why not nukes? If an American city blows up via a car bomb w a nuke inside, there’s no pinning it on Iran, but the effect that benefits Iran is made. Deterrence only works against traceable attacks. If terrorist proxies of a state sponsor of terror like Iran deliver a nuke, then there’s no accountability. No accountability=no deterrence (especially in an environment where political wackos think all that needs be done is to sit at the same table and a fairy Godmother waves a wand making all the world safe; ie talk).
I fall back to the refinery accident idea.
Right wing logic:
We Americans are tough as nails and can never be deterred from anything we want to do, no matter what we’re threatened with.
Those other guys are pussies and will be deterred by our threats against them.
Things look simple when your world is so asymmetrical. Of course it helps if
– when someone on your side seems to not want to bear the costs of war, paint them as weaklings and appeasers
– if the guys on the other side show any backbone, chalk it up to death-loving religious fanaticism
I will give you credit for one thing though: you acknowledge that whether you talk to your enemies is neither here nor there. What matters is what you say.