It was almost surreal as I watched President Ahmadinejad announce that he was freeing the British sailors and marines captured 2 weeks ago by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The announcement took Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British government totally by surprise. But why the about face on Iran’s part here. Just last night the British Foreign Affairs Minister held a press conference urging patience, citing that diplomatic efforts could take some time. Obviously Iran gave no indication that they would be making this announcement this morning.
When you take into account Ahmadinejad’s history of ratcheting up rhetoric and then following up with an almost conciliatory attitude causes me to wonder what his true motivations are. When he addressed the United Nations last year it was very reminiscent of the speech made by Soviet Premier Khrushchev back in the 1950’s. But afterwards he began making impassioned speeches declaring nuclear research in Iran was purely peaceful and that the international community had nothing to worry about.
This correspondent believes this latest incident is just another example of Ahmadinejad’s habit of casting out threats and immediately reeling them back in. The difference this time is that he produced a play instead of just making speeches. A play starring 15 innocent British sailors and marines. It reveals an aspect of the constant attention paid to the turmoil in the Middle East is to an extent an addiction to having a place of prominence on the international stage. It can’t be discounted that a lot of these antics perpetrated by the governments in that region are calculated to keep them on the front page so to speak.
And Ahmadinejad is a master at it. But this latest shift from rhetoric to action is in the least alarming. What if the British had decided to fight and were killed? This kind of irresponsible approach to international affairs is inherently dangerous. And this danger can be laid directly at the feet of the Bush administration. His policy of snubbing countries like Iran, Syria, and Korea has placed our country at a very much higher level of danger in the world. It’s hard to imagine how Bush came to this conclusion. Even his father knew the wisdom of keeping your enemies close. Reagan called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire”, but he continued to hold summit meetings with their Premier.
President Bush is playing a fools game. If this policy is not reversed and direct, high level, open communication does not resume between the United States and ALL the nations of this planet, we will be doomed to living in the path of violence and destruction that is always the result of miscommunication.
***************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every Tuesday and Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56
This is pure speculation, but it's very likely that Iran decided to keep the 15 soldiers as bargaining chips to get back its 5 kidnapped citizens.
I wrote a post about it here http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976949927
Unbelievable --- Ahmadinejad builds atomic bombs while hosting a Holocaust denial conference -- and you blame Bush?
When is ANYONE in the world besides Bush going to be held accountable for their actions?
President Bush seems to think it's his prerogative to rewrite the rules when it comes to foreign affairs. His failure to acknowledge time tested policies has resulted in the unnecessary loss of over 3000 of our citizens and has destroyed our international reputation.
Reacting to violence with violence can only end in more violence. It is only when we speak to each other about peace that we have a chance to achieve it.
When anyone crosses our border illegally; we give them jobs, free education, medical care and social security.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm
Very fishy.
How do you know these things?
Please discern the fact from propaganda.
To me that kind of showed that Iran was pushing it and that the British were probably right. However Iran later claimed that in either case those waters have been disputed between Iran and Iraq for centuries (so they claim). They even have an open case about it in the international court in the Hague. This position legitimized the Iranian claim to some extent. The British and the US begrudgingly accepted it.
What I find more interesting though, is why was the US response to this episode so deliberately subdued? I recall hearing a vague explanation of this on CNN but i don't quite recall.
Anyone have any insights on the US response? They were quick to condemn it, but beyond that, there was no confrontational rhetoric from the administration. Quite honestly i found this to be uncharacteristic of the Bush administration.
Thoughts?
Didn't you hear about the secret Russian document that's been floating around? Word did reach Gather (here).
Translated copies stated that US forces had already committed to invading Iran on April 6th.
I suspect Ahmadinejad might go to some serious diplomatic lengths not to get his forces slaughtered and his people placed under the militarized police state we create; complete with warrantless searches of family homes made at gun point, black cloak abductions of civilians that are tainted by suspicion and secreted torture prisons where access to any kind of judicial process is denied equally and completely to all.
I think we've made a very big point to the world; We can destroy a third world country and ruin their lifestyle AND economy without resorting to nukes or WMD.
What scary critters we are.
Despite the political motives involved I am very glad that the sailors are back home.
I agree that the sailors and marines safety was paramount. But if you knew "yesterday" that they were to be released, was that your own conclusion, or are you an insider of the Iranian government. The fact that the British government was surprised is not something I made up. British Foreign Affairs Minister Becket did hold a press conference the night before and I find it very hard to believe that if there had been an agreement to release the hostages that she would not have mentioned it. My bottom line point is that we have learned through thousands of years of wars and carnage that talking is the ONLY path to peace. Now we have a president apparently hell bent on reversing that truth.
If the British government appeared to be surprised, that doesn't mean they were surprised.
Not getting attacked by us is not being rewarded. And talking to another country does not assume we have to be friends. What direction do you think the Cuban Missle Crisis of 1962 might have taken if Kennedy had refused to talk to the Soviets. And you're right, when a child does something wrong you do not reward them. But you don't beat them either. Military action should be used only when our security is under an eminent threat, not as a means to "punish" or change the behavior of another country. For one thing, it's rarely the people in these countries idea for their leader to misbehave, yet they are the ones who have to bear the brundt of the violence, destruction, and loss of their loved ones. Then add on the loss of our own citizens and the draining of our national treasure and the idea of using military force as a means to achieve foreign policy goals is far too high a price to pay.
I wrote this article as the story was coming over the airwaves. All the major news agencies were reporting that "everyone" was taken by surprise by the announcement. Your insistance that they were not does not jive with the reporting.
A great article and you raised some good points of history [which the obscenely crude and ignorant Rich Kaye would do well to note]; i.e., the nonproliferation treaty and the most basic tenets of diplomatic negotiation got thrown out with the bath water quite some time ago. The current Bush Administration, however, epitomizes not just a failed approach to foreign pollicy, but a concerted and deliberate distortion of our own laws and international law.
As to whether the Brits "knew" in advance, I'm sure there deals being cooked from day one of the incident wherein each side believed they would prevail. As to how to get into their heads, we can't right now. But, the truth will out, as it always does.
I believe that Nancy Pelosi took a nice chunk of our tax dollars with her on her recent visit to the middle east. They're all actors on a big stage and the Brits [just like Bush] have a hard time accepting that they're not the sole "stars" of the play. The hapless sailors are innocent in the sense that they're the bit players, doing the job they were told to do.
"Bush Bashing" The apologists would have us believe that it's just pure coincidence that the shoe fits oh so neatly.
Weeds are such a nuisance -- hardly ever productive or constructive.
Deals have already been struck -- we just get to see the final show!
Everything you spew is garbage. I'm not obliged to stay on "your" point. Who do you think you are stating that I hate my country? You don't know me and obviously have no desire to. I'm a proud American who loves this country. In fact I love it so much I'm willing to defend it from extremists like you. Isn't it apparent to you that the policies of this president are dragging our great nation down? I think the lowest approval rating in the history of the presidency speaks for itself. You are in a minority that is getting smaller and smaller everyday Rich, wise up.
Your attempt at psyco babble was very entertaining Rich. Apparently you've attended the Tom Cruise school of psycology.
Why is it that when someone calls this guy on one of his foibles, you Right wingers accuse us of blaming him for the cause of whatever occurrence we're speaking of. I'm not blaming Bush for the trouble in the Middle East. But as an American citizen I WILL hold him accountable for how he has handled the situation. To be fair, there are some from the Left who make ridiculous accusations and I wish they wouldn't do that. But if you'll remember, many Righties made some pretty outlandish accusations about Bill Clinton too. Like accusing him of murdering Vince Foster.
Bottom line, I've made some pretty serious accusations, but they were serious and are shared by more than a few, including some of the most conservative Republicans around.
"He just waves his magic wand(paid for by Hliburton [Haliburton]) and leavies [levies] break, little old ladies get attacked because he cut the budget, Tigger [tiger] attacked a kid at Disney. I[t] amazes me sometimes the volume of things that he gets the blame for." (Charles, try using spell check, you'll come off a lot more credible.)
This kind of response is irreverent and just silly. If you want to defend Bush, do it realistically.
You just don't get it do you. Where did I ever accuse Bush of only caring about money or oil or anything of the kind. In fact I think he is totally sincere in his beliefs regarding his policies. I also think he is completely wrong and his administration is completely incompetent. I've got to tell you Rich, the leaps of assumption you make about me boggle the mind. Perhaps you should try taking what I write for what it is and stop putting so many words in MY mouth.
It would be a lot easier if Bush were an evil person. No, the problem is that he and his following passionately believe in their mission and that makes them far more dangerous.
And yes, accusing the Clinton's of Murdering a life long, dear friend is WAY TOO FAR!!!!! Especially when there was not one single shred of evidence except for a gang of Repub wing nuts whose idea of "evidence" was "if you can get enough people to say its true, then it will become true" school of thought.
The invasion of Iraq was justified because Sadam Hussein's regime had not only committed some of the most heinous violations of human rights by the mass murder of his own people and torturing dissidents. He also conspired to murder a former U.S. President.
Although intelligence may be inconclusive regarding weapons of mass destruction, we know he has developed, produced and used them in the past and if he does not possess them now, he will not rest until he possesses them again.
There for it is the moral obligation of the most powerful nation in the world to intervene militarily in order to achieve a regime change.
There Rich, if you could come up with a defense half that good and "honest", I think we could have a productive debate.