The renewal of talk of attacking Iran has become an issue in the election, with the Democrat Obama being called an "appeaser" by Bush and the Republican McCain portraying himself as a "patriot," supporting a "hard-line" policy toward Iran.
The naive way some Americans perceive "strength" and "weakness," which , unfortunately, colors McCain's immature and unbalanced view of history and international relations, has been played upon by many politicians to manipulate an uninformed public in supporting misguided policies .
Obama's statement regarding openness to negotiate with Iran sent a positive message. It is jejune and ill-informed to interpret it as implying it suggested a sign of weakness. Obama has presented an intelligent and coherent view of foreign policy.
Anyone who has paid attention McCain's speeches calling for a renewed confrontation with Russia and China stould think seriously about his intelligence or grasp of foreign policy in this century.
Many Presidential candidates have made statements to highlght their difference from the opposition. Eisenhower declared he "would go to Korea" to end the war. Kennedy (wrongly) declared there was a "missle gap" with the Soviet Union, threatening our security. The opposing candidates naturally seek to spin whatever is said in favor of themselves.
Israel doesn't feel threatened by Iran militarily. Israel and Iran have unofficial business contacts - also, officially, Israel still owes Iran money , negotiations over payment of which have been ongoing for many years, held mostly in Europe. Iranian and Israeli private citizens still travel back and forth between the two countries for visits without interference by the two governments.
The rhetoric from Israel and Iran has to be read in the context of Israel's maintaining its nuclear weaponry unchallenged, just as the United States has broken its treaty with Russia on arms reduction and stopped participating in working with other nations and the UN on preventing nuclear proliferation (which Iran has supported.) There are more than thirty nations who have the capability of making nuclear weapons based on their on existing nuclear technology. And the United Staes has tolerated nations like Pakistan, who are not signatories to the UN treaties governing nuclear development as is Iran. The United States has even offered to supply nuclear technology to India outside the UN treaty .
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel or anyone except in self-defense. It's official policy is clear. The deliberate misquoting of Ahmadinejad's rhetorical statements - as his quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1980, predicting the collapse of the Soviet and Zionist regimes in Russia and Israel - is propaganda.
Israel's informed view is that Iran can't mount a significant retaliation. In a paper for the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University last February, Ephraim Kam, the leading Israeli specialist on Iran, wrote, "Iran's retaliatory capability against Israel is yet limited."
An attack might cause Iran's leadership to conclude that the country needed the potential for nuclear weapons to deter and defend itself against the United States .
Informed view in the West (the long-term assessment by the the British Defense department,for example) is that Iran can become a a leading source of stability in the region and and a pro-Western democracy. The population explosion in many Arab nations , the instability of their governments and the migration of many Arabs to Europe seeking work presents many problems for the future.
Iran favors the opening of a US interest section in Tehran to facilitate communication . It sees its role as opposing extremism in the region and a force for increasing the collective security of all the nations.
The failure of the United States to seek normal diplomatic and trade relations with Iran for more than a decade has contributed to the weakened position of the United States and the instability in the region. Iran has demonstrated its pragmatic foreign and trade policy since 1989. 35 nations have embassies in Tehran and Iran has trade agreements with many nations.
Iran has indicated its willingness to negotiate with the United States. It has offered proposals including its recognition of Israel. Its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which are recognized and elected political parties is negotiable for Iran.
Iran provided significant diplomatic and strategic military assistance to the United States in its invasion of Afghanistan and establishment of the Karzai government (to which, since the donor conference in Japan, it has contributed more money for reconstruction than most donor nations.) The United States diplomats ,including our present ambassador Crocker, worked closely with Iranian ones in Berlin prior to the defeat of the Taliban and the Iranian military worked with the Americans in Afghanistan. The United States expressed appreciation for Iran's cooperation. However, this was followed by Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and declaration of a policy of pre-emptive war and regime change.
Iran, like Israel, has always been a minority in its region and opposed as a competitor and often an enemy. Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban were aggressive enemies for Iran. But Iran's neighbors, as Turkey and the Arab states recognize they can and do benefit from having positive relations with Iran and do not consider Iran's aim is to expand beyond its borders. They do not approve of the United States' aggressive policy in the region, especially regarding Iran, which risks instablity for all.
Iran does not control the many different Islamist parties, such as Hezbollah , Hamas or those in Turkey, Egypt and other nations. Iran's aim is to develop its economy and increase its status as a regional and inernational power, not spread revolution and chaos.
The United States influence among its allies in the region is weakened because of its increasingly provoking conflict and being perceived as opposing the interests of the people of all the Muslim nations for reform and independence.
The United States needs Iran's cooperation in Iraq but it should negotiate with Iran based on a recognition of Iran's status as a regional power.
Secretary of Defense Gates has said, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them [Iran]. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." Gates amplified, "My personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth ... We ought to increase the flow the other way [of Americans visiting Iran]."
The recognition that threatening Iran and seeking to isolate them, impose sanctions and deny their right to nuclear technology has proved counter-productive has a broad consensus in Washington.
Regarding a comment that Halliburton had long ago ceased to work in Iran.
Halliburton did business in Iran until 2007, supplied Iran with equipment that could have been useful to its nuclear program. Among Halliburton's Iranian partners was Cyrus Nasseri, who was also a point man in the Iranian nuclear program. Cheney had lobbied intensively on behalf of Iran when he was CEO of Halliburton until 2000. Iran has had a number valuable oil contracts with the Halliburton Company, for example , a series of multi-million dollar contracts for drilling wells in the Southern Pars oilfields since 2004
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
I agree with your thoughts on how many people ignorantly view strength and weakness. It's like high school.
I am not surprised one bit by the last paragraph, but nonetheless I would like to see your source for that info.
Five years ago, our State Department had one experienced person covering Iran and he was 73 and he was retiring. The Pentagon, I think, had none and the CIA had few with experience and the system was bureaucratized so much information was not allowed to be shared.
Regarding Halliburton, Jason Leopold wrote about Halliburton's work in Iran. What he said found support from an Iranian source:
The USG Foreign Broadcast Information Service, as carried by BBC Monitoring,
translated an article from an Iranian newspaper in 2005. SOURCE: Resalat web site, Tehran, in Persian 17 Jan 05
LENGTH: 387 words
Text of report entitled: 'An explanation of the dimensions of the cooperation of a senior diplomat in Iran's nuclear negotiations with senior officials of the American government, " published 'by Iranian newspaper Resalat web site on 17 January
An informed source has explained the new dimensions of the joint economic cooperation of the senior diplomat in Iran's nuclear negotiations with senior officials of the American government.
In an interview given to Fars News Agency he stated that a study of the contract signed between the Iranian government and the American Halliburton Company shows that the main individuals who paved the way for the contract were Dick Cheney, the American Vice President, and Sirus Naseri, the lynchpin in Iran's nuclear negotiations and special adviser of the Supreme National Security Council.
He added: The participation of Iran's valuable oil contract with the Halliburton Company involving drilling 12 wells in phases nine and 10 of Southern Pars oilfields goes back to early 1383 year beginning 21st March 2004 .
In phases nine and 10 in Southern Pars gas is expected to be found in Iran's land and marine sections over 52 months up to 1385, and 50 million cubic meters of natural gas and 400 tonnes of sulphur is expected to be extracted.
He added: With a proposal worth 282 million dollars Halliburton wanted to achieve success in this phase of the Southern Pars project.
According to this informed source, before this, too, the American company, along with the American Schlumberger, wanted to participate in phases two and three of the region, something that it failed to achieve.
Stating that there were several aspects to Halliburton's new participation in Iran, the informed source added: The first of this is that the contact concluded with Halliburton is nearly 70 billion tumans more than the amount the company had sought. That is to say, while Halliburton had asked for nearly 23 million dollars for drilling each of the oil wells, amounting to a total of 282 million dollars for drilling the 12 wells in Oslavieyyeh, the Iranian government, in the contract that has been signed, has granted some 360 million dollars to the Halliburton-Oriental consortium, which is nearly 70 billion tumans more than the amount asked for in the bid."
This week, Iran's Foreign Minister, Mottaki, in New York to attend a meeting of the UN Social and Economic Council, met with a group of US editors and reporters. In response to a question about the impact of sanctions on Iran, Mottaki stated that the easiest thing in the world today is trade and added, "right now some US companies are doing business with Iran but we will not name them for obvious reasons". He also added that, "in the past six months, we have signed major contracts with European companies and with the Asian countries". The deals, he said, have been even more important and Iran's non-oil exports in 2007 have been twice that of the preceding year, 2006.
There sure is a lot of opposition to them in our government and the military.
I fully understand that Iran is in an "either or" scenario... either use your oil for electrical power or sell it for profits and buy your power from someone else. Personally I think with strict oversight and monitoring (by the Israeli's) of the Iran nuclear power program would work. Hell- half of Europe uses nuclear power now. What do you think?
I have posted a number of articles on Iran for some time, mostly about current affairs. I worked for some years in the Middle East before the current regime came into power in 1979. I refer you to those if you find it of interest to do so. Whatever the rhetoric of Israel , the US or Iran, the best case is recognize Iran
needs for security and to develop its economy through normalizing relations with all countries and it is not intent on expanding beyond its borders. It is minority in the region, like Israel . But iran is Iran is western- oriented and and has a vital political life unlike others in the region. The theocracy has to deal with that because Iran has a democratic part to its constitution. Better for everyone a ee a strong and sable Iran .Let them work out how to wither the theocracy