More on a nucular Iran

October 17th, 2007 4:45 pm · 4 comments

Does the Leader not see the irony in announcing, in effect, that we are thinking about attacking Iran yet it is Iran which constitutes a “dangerous threat to world peace?”

Apparently not. This is becoming the Great Thing That Must Not Be Spoken: That the United States reserves the right to attack virtually any nation at any time but it is these other nations who are a “dangerous threat to world peace” when they decline to toe the line that we draw in the sand before them. Arthur Silber, in writing about Hillary’s basic acquiescence to this type of thinking, says this:

And everyone knows — although no one will state explicitly — the meaning of that last vile phrase: “all options must remain on the table.” That means one thing, and only one thing: if Iran does not do exactly as we say, we reserve the “right” to attack it, to bomb it, and to destroy it — just as we have destroyed Iraq. But note what Clinton does not say: she does not postulate that Iran has directly threatened the United States, or that it has even indicated it wishes to threaten us. She does not imagine that Iran has attacked the U.S., or that evidence exists that it plans to do so. No, Iran’s crime would be of an altogether different kind: Iran will not have conducted itself in the manner that we demand. This has nothing at all to do with self-defense, if that phrase remains even tenuously tethered to reality. But it has everything to do with the title of my ongoing foreign policy series: “Dominion Over the World.”

Clinton has enunciated this position before. The ultimate meaning of this foreign policy stance is what I indicated at the conclusion of that article: “America is God. God’s Will be done.” Other nations must do exactly what we tell them to do, and nothing else at all. If they do not, we have the “right” to destroy them.

This is the meaning of American world hegemony.

You bet, and it doesn’t end with the Decider, and as we saw this past week, it’s making Russia leery. It sets up a situation where it begins to dawn on other nations that the real “dangerous threat to world peace” is the nation accusing everyone else of threatening the peace.

Ah, but because our nation manifestly good and the very embodiment of justice, it doesn’t matter that we wage war in the name of peace. Outcomes don’t matter; only intentions do. Or so the wishful neoconservative thinking goes.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • Wists
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

  4 comments  Tags: War in Iran · War on terror · War in Iraq

There are currently 4 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
bigstew
10/18/07
10:33 AM
What a load of crap. And don't ask what part, because the whole thing is s h 1 T, and a lie.
justplainjoe
10/18/07
12:26 PM
this article in esquire should give pause to even the most bellicose among us.

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107



Mann and Leverett didn't know each other then, but they were already traveling down parallel tracks. Months before September 11, Mann had been negotiating with the Iranian diplomat at the UN. After the attacks, the meetings continued, sometimes alone and sometimes with their Russian counterpart sitting in. Soon they traded the conference room for the Delegates' Lounge, an airy two-story bar with ashtrays for all the foreigners who were used to smoking indoors. One day, up on the second floor where the windows overlooked the East River, the diplomat told her that Iran was ready to cooperate unconditionally, a phrase that had seismic diplomatic implications. Unconditional talks are what the U.S. had been demanding as a precondition to any official diplomatic contact between the U.S. and Iran. And it would be the first chance since the Islamic revolution for any kind of rapprochement. "It was revolutionary," Mann says. "It could have changed the world."

A few weeks later, after signing on to Condoleezza Rice's staff as the new Iran expert in the National Security Council, Mann flew to Europe with Ryan Crocker -- then a deputy assistant secretary of state -- to hold talks with a team of Iranian diplomats. Meeting in a light-filled conference room at the old UN building in Geneva, they hammered out plans for Iranian help in the war against the Taliban. The Iranians agreed to provide assistance if any American was shot down near their territory, agreed to let the U.S. send food in through their border, and even agreed to restrain some "really bad Afghanis," like a rabidly anti-American warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, quietly putting him under house arrest in Tehran. These were significant concessions. At the same time, special envoy James Dobbins was having very public and warm discussions in Bonn with the Iranian deputy foreign minister as they worked together to set up a new government for Afghanistan. And the Iranians seemed eager to help in more tactical ways as well. They had intimate knowledge of Taliban strategic capabilities and they wanted to share it with the Americans.

One day during the U.S. bombing campaign, Mann and her Iranian counterparts were sitting around the wooden conference table speculating about the future Afghani constitution. Suddenly the Iranian who knew so much about intelligence matters started pounding on the table. "Enough of that!" he shouted, unfurling a map of Afghanistan. Here was a place the Americans needed to bomb. And here, and here, he angrily jabbed his finger at the map.

Leverett spent those days in his office at the State Department building, watching the revolution in the Middle East and coming up with plans on how to capture the lightning. Suddenly countries like Syria and Libya and Sudan and Iran were coming forward with offers of help, which raised a vital question -- should they stay on the same enemies list as North Korea and Iraq, or could there be a new slot for "friendly" sponsors of terror?

Whirlwind
10/19/07
6:47 AM
No irony in the current administrations efforts to get around the non-proliferation treaty to sell nuclear materials to India, while accusing Iran of nuclear ambitions, either.
usedmeat
10/19/07
11:39 AM
Yes,Biggie, a load of bull exhaust, not!!!

In the immedieate aftermath of 911 Iran was one of the Middle East nations that came forward to offer assistance. Your Monkey derailed that whit his saber ratteling Axis of Evil speech.

Oh and BTW: Good job he did on bringing Osama to justice.
View Topic | Comment on this blog