Like Hannes, I am simply blown away by this news. I really don't know what to say, the turnabout is so huge, so significant. It's almost a Nixon-goes-to-China moment. (For reasons of realpolitik I doubt it, however, as Bush just isn't as shrewd a statesman as Nixon, for all his other faults, was.) The fact that this administration, which only a few months ago seemed to be ready to bomb the Iranians back to the stone-age is now not only not denying the news coming out of Tehran about an interests section but discussing it publicly, especially in the context of 'people-to-people' exchanges a la ping-pong diplomacy is stunning. Really, I know there are a lot of emphatic words here, almost superlatives, but it's a shocking turnabout. And one I, in particular, am thrilled to see happening.
I know Iranians and have friends who live there. I've visited the place, as you all know. As I have said, time and time again, engagement with the odious regime in Tehran is the key to its downfall, not 'regime change' by force. I made the argument time and time and time again on the radio with Jack Riccardi and Chris Duel and Col. Ken Allard. The key, I would always say is "to engage the regime like we did the Soviets get them to put there money where their mouths are, in a sense. Engagement will bring about the downfall or moderation of the regime once they feel less threatened." This occurred with the Soviets and my bet is, if this can be pulled off and there is still a lot of doubt, that the same can happen with the Mullah regime in Tehran. I feel tremendously vindicated, just as I did when the Bush Administration finally talked with the North Koreans. While serious and substantive issues remain, it appears as if full and verifiable inspections will be a reality in Pyongyang. Of course, they (and right-wingers in general) argued I was wrong. But that's by the by now.
It's simply the most unadulterated good news to come out of this administration ever. Dare I say they've done something right?
Lastly, Obama (and Edwards even more so for calling the War on Terror the fraud it truly is) is to be applauded by having the courage to call for negotiations with the 'baddies' and thus open up this key, critical domestic space. Were it not for Edwards and Obama I doubt we'd be where we are.
If things continue in this fashion the war in Iraq might even be over much sooner than we think and in a fashion many of us could scarcely have dreamed possible.
Much remains to be done, but for some reason imagination and courage seem to have temporarily triumphed over narrow ideology.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
Need I remind you that there are more Americans being killed in Afghanistan now than in Iraq? That we are in perilous danger of losing in Afghanistan as did the Russians in 1989, and the British twice in the 19th century? Afghanistan, as history has proven over and over again, to such peoples as disparate as Mahmoud of Ghazni, the Russians, the Mughals, the British and now we Americans are learning: it's easy to conquer but impossible to hold. Of course, Americans care not for history, but that is another story.
Afghanistan is where all of our money should have gone. Not Iraq. And saying Iraq is or was the central front on the war on terror was as fraudulent now as it was then. They had no WMD and our actions have given the Iranians leverage over us they never would have had otherwise.
So yes, the 'War on Terror' is a sham. To fight an adjective is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, only slightly less dumb than invading Iraq.
Exactly, I totally agree with you. I am shocked as to why so many Americans are in the dark and fail to see the true motives of this war. It's sad.
The Bush legasy is a shambles in all ways other than fattening the oil industry to obscenity. He may be attempting to somehow best this piece of his favorite triad, "The Axis of Evil," through diplomacy so he can claim at least SOME success but it would be so far out of character and experiance to defy credibility. A stable Iran might drive down oil price and that will not help industry profits. A strike against Iran will drive oil to the ceiling and the domestic producers will make a killing of historic proportions. That would be in character for Bush-Cheney.
One other scenario: Bush had every intention to strike Iran for the reasons above but has been warned that impeachment would follow immeadiately on a fast track. He may accept that punishment if the oil industry can make their killing but it would doom the Repubs at every level in November.
Disagree. Iraq provided a unique opportunity. We need a strategic alliance in the Middle East. Beside Israel, whom do we have? God forbid if we have to rely on the Saudi's as our friends.
What is the problem in the Middle East? The problem is two-bit dictators (house of Saud, Egypt, Syria) or Mullahs (Iran) run the Middle East. The local population hates their government. The way these dictators and mullahs stay in power and keep from being hanged from the nearest tree is they spew hatred about the US and Israel. This keeps the local population from focusing on local problems.
A free a Democrat Iraq will change this. Iraq has already shattered previously misconceived myths
American relies too heavily on technology and has no stomach for fighting. They will cut and run.
Middle East is not ready for Democracy.
People are misguided by their ignorance and their incipient racism and prejudice.
I do think, however, that election year politics is playing heavily into this decision, in an effort to keep Republicans on the R ticket.
But, yes, this is a moon-landing step in the right direction, SPK.
Your article is Featured in the Triple Name Club.
Thanks for posting at Scores 4 Everyone.
If you think otherwise you have been duped.
Abe Lincoln was right, you can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time.
The whole thing is a facade. When they are ready to bomb, they will say we've made attempts, this one being one of them. Bush and McCain are convinced the only way out of this is to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
If Obama wins, Bush will bomb Iran in December. If McCain wins, he will leave it up to McCain.
The US presence in Iraq began with a goal to find the weapons and Saddam Hussein.
It is now a peacekeeping force, while a new government is being formed and implemented. The Iraqi people want and need American assistance and we have never refused to help countries in need. If it was about oil, we'd be shipping it out of there in a fleet of tankers. Instead, we are paying outrageous prices for foreign oil because the Democrats are worried about Alaskan bears.
This news from Iran is hopeful and tentative, but hope is wonderful. Prayer is powerful; more powerful than war. Let us pray for peace.
As for drilling in Alaska. Here a data point for you that I defy anyone to deny: if we were to pull all the proven reserves in the US out of the ground today--including Gulf Coast oil and California oil off the Coast--it wouldn't last more than one year. We cannot drill our way into oil independence. We cannot. It is physically impossible. What is needed is a crash program of nuclear power, wind power, green power, and anything else that is renewable followed by a massive shift towards public transportation. That's the only way.
Of course the war was about oil but anyone who is expecting that to mean more plentiful and cheaper oil for the American consumer is naive in the extreme. It was a war for oil and oil companies, who are making obscene profits on the backs of dead American soldiers. If you're looking at gas prices to determine the money trail on this war you're looking at the wrong numbers. Look at oil company profits and it all becomes crystal clear.
Thanks for the article. It's an echo of what those of us who know about conditions in the region have been saying for over 30 years. I don't even care if Bush is acting out of the need to create a more positive legacy, as long as we eventually obtain results.
You'd think something as serious as war, Bushy would double check his intel.
Oh I forgot, they did, Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA in the prelude to the war, going over intelligence assessments with the analysts who produced them. He pressured them "Are you sure, check again"
Had this been the policy of a Gore administration we would all have rightly called for impeachement. The differences in the parties is that the Dems would have voted for it while as we've seen Reps just walk in lock step....again.
Now, regarding Iran. The best policy would be engagement. If you truely believe that Ameriac and it's system of govrenment is the best in the world, what better way to export that than thru engagement with the citizens of the world. Imagine if we usd our vast wealth, which we use for war, to actually help. rather than propping ups dictators actually establishing Democracy....yes it will backfire at first as it has with Hamas........but if we are truely a shining city on a hill what better way to show it?
Your president has been trying to IMPOSE democracy at the point of a gun......do you think that's freedom?
And all I can say is hopefully we will get that nut-case out of office before he can drag us into war with Iran, because make no mistake folks, that is what he wants! In the worst way!
No. And we haven't been attacked on our own soil all that much before 9/11, either. Bush is just trying to dream up a "legacy" that will consist of more than simply ruining our economy and ruining our reputation in the world, along with killing God knows how many innocent civilians in Iraq, and ...
Well, you get the picture.
They will not give up power just because of some insignificant "election'.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~