Trying To Pull An End-Run
Last month, this nation was visited by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was addressing the UN General Assembly. The man he succeeded, Mohammed Khatami, had been invited to speak at Harvard and at the National Cathedral. And while the pundits here chastised the State Department for allowing both of them in, Captain's Quarters points to a story in today's London Telegraph that shows the Khatami visit was less confrontational that the Ahmadinejad visit. It seems we spoke, in private, with Khatami and asked him to carry a message back to the Iranian Guardian Council:
The Bush administration made secret overtures to former Iran president Mohammed Khatami during his visit to the United States last month in an attempt to establish a back channel via the ex-leader.
American officials made the approach as part of a strategy to isolate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Khatami's hard-line successor, by using the former president as a conduit to the Iranian people.
They also hoped that Mr Khatami would report his conversations to senior members of Iran's theocratic regime who are wary of the current president. Diplomatic sources said that "third parties" were authorised by Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state responsible for relations with Iran, to talk to Mr Khatami in a step towards "engagement" with senior Iranians.
The clandestine contacts with Mr Khatami reflect a significant shift in American policy, away from preparation for military action and towards increased diplomatic pressure on Iran, which is defying United Nations demands to suspend its nuclear programme.
The US wants to persuade the EU and the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran.
Foreign ministers from the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany, who met in London on Friday, agreed that talks should start swiftly on what form economic sanctions should take.
While I commend the administration for continuing it's attempt at diplomacy, I must condemn them for thinking that Khatami wants to help us, or even give a straight message to the Guardian Council. Under Mohammed Khatami, the Iranian nuclear program didn't stop or slow down. It continued along completely unhindered, which sends the message to me, at least, that he's just as much a defender of the program as Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council is.
For the Telegraph, I have to question what sort of planned "military action" they're privy to. As yet, the president hasn't started preparing this nation for a war with Iran. As a matter of fact, he's sent every message to the nation--and to the world--that he'd prefer to use diplomacy right now. As for any sort of potentially hostile actions, President Bush has urged the Iranians who dislike the mullahs regime to rise up against them. He's promised that America will be there to help them when that time comes, but such an overture sends a message that we really don't want boots on the ground over there, or planes in the sky.
And really, who can blame us? We've seen what our enemy is willing to throw at us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've seen what they've been trying to hatch in terms of terrorist attacks against us and our allies. These people barely have the financing to carry out a lot of these operations, and many of these sorts of missions takes months of planning and financing. And because we have such a stranglehold on their money, it's more difficult for them to funnel the money to their assets abroad in Europe and North America.
But in Iran we have a nation that openly endorses, finances, trains, and gives sanctuary to terrorist organizations. Hezbollah isn't a part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (though they claim it is). They're a terrorist groups that was created, according to historians, to fight the "Israel occupation" of Lebanon. But Iran has been a shadowy partner with them since the start. According to current intelligence, Hezbollah has a standing army of almost 40,000 men. Add the Iranina Revolutionary Guard to the mix, and Ahmadinejad's "secret" basiji squads, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I'm not insulting the US military here, but let's face facts: An invasion of Iran would be a meat grinder for our troops. In World War II, we were ready to deploy over a million Marines to take the shores of Japan. Thank God we didn't because after the bombs were dropped and we sent in UDT and EOD teams to Japan prior to the surrender, we found midget suicide submarines hidden away that would have bneen used against the landing crafts and support ships. The popuylace was believed to be fanatical enough that the casualties would have been more than we experienced with the invasion of Normandy. That's why we opted for the atomic bombs.
We're not planning any sort of invasion for Iran. Yes, we do war-game out scenarios, but that's what the thinkers in the Pentagon and DoD are supposed to do. I'd be willing to bet that we have invasion and defense plans for just about every nation on the face of the planet. That doesn't mean we're gearing up for invasions around the globe, but it does mean we've cosidered it, and we may have working plans on the books. But that's hardly evidence we're preparing to invade. We'd prefer to work diplomatically with Iran until such a time that it's no longer feasible. And we are still aware that Mahmoud ahmadinejad and the mullahs are pursuing nuclear weapons. If diplomacy strikes out, sanctions will be pushed for. And like Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran will have dug themselves their own hole. And if they're not careful, it may become a grave for them.
Sabrina McKinney
Last month, this nation was visited by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was addressing the UN General Assembly. The man he succeeded, Mohammed Khatami, had been invited to speak at Harvard and at the National Cathedral. And while the pundits here chastised the State Department for allowing both of them in, Captain's Quarters points to a story in today's London Telegraph that shows the Khatami visit was less confrontational that the Ahmadinejad visit. It seems we spoke, in private, with Khatami and asked him to carry a message back to the Iranian Guardian Council:
The Bush administration made secret overtures to former Iran president Mohammed Khatami during his visit to the United States last month in an attempt to establish a back channel via the ex-leader.
American officials made the approach as part of a strategy to isolate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Khatami's hard-line successor, by using the former president as a conduit to the Iranian people.
They also hoped that Mr Khatami would report his conversations to senior members of Iran's theocratic regime who are wary of the current president. Diplomatic sources said that "third parties" were authorised by Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state responsible for relations with Iran, to talk to Mr Khatami in a step towards "engagement" with senior Iranians.
The clandestine contacts with Mr Khatami reflect a significant shift in American policy, away from preparation for military action and towards increased diplomatic pressure on Iran, which is defying United Nations demands to suspend its nuclear programme.
The US wants to persuade the EU and the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran.
Foreign ministers from the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany, who met in London on Friday, agreed that talks should start swiftly on what form economic sanctions should take.
While I commend the administration for continuing it's attempt at diplomacy, I must condemn them for thinking that Khatami wants to help us, or even give a straight message to the Guardian Council. Under Mohammed Khatami, the Iranian nuclear program didn't stop or slow down. It continued along completely unhindered, which sends the message to me, at least, that he's just as much a defender of the program as Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council is.
For the Telegraph, I have to question what sort of planned "military action" they're privy to. As yet, the president hasn't started preparing this nation for a war with Iran. As a matter of fact, he's sent every message to the nation--and to the world--that he'd prefer to use diplomacy right now. As for any sort of potentially hostile actions, President Bush has urged the Iranians who dislike the mullahs regime to rise up against them. He's promised that America will be there to help them when that time comes, but such an overture sends a message that we really don't want boots on the ground over there, or planes in the sky.
And really, who can blame us? We've seen what our enemy is willing to throw at us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've seen what they've been trying to hatch in terms of terrorist attacks against us and our allies. These people barely have the financing to carry out a lot of these operations, and many of these sorts of missions takes months of planning and financing. And because we have such a stranglehold on their money, it's more difficult for them to funnel the money to their assets abroad in Europe and North America.
But in Iran we have a nation that openly endorses, finances, trains, and gives sanctuary to terrorist organizations. Hezbollah isn't a part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (though they claim it is). They're a terrorist groups that was created, according to historians, to fight the "Israel occupation" of Lebanon. But Iran has been a shadowy partner with them since the start. According to current intelligence, Hezbollah has a standing army of almost 40,000 men. Add the Iranina Revolutionary Guard to the mix, and Ahmadinejad's "secret" basiji squads, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I'm not insulting the US military here, but let's face facts: An invasion of Iran would be a meat grinder for our troops. In World War II, we were ready to deploy over a million Marines to take the shores of Japan. Thank God we didn't because after the bombs were dropped and we sent in UDT and EOD teams to Japan prior to the surrender, we found midget suicide submarines hidden away that would have bneen used against the landing crafts and support ships. The popuylace was believed to be fanatical enough that the casualties would have been more than we experienced with the invasion of Normandy. That's why we opted for the atomic bombs.
We're not planning any sort of invasion for Iran. Yes, we do war-game out scenarios, but that's what the thinkers in the Pentagon and DoD are supposed to do. I'd be willing to bet that we have invasion and defense plans for just about every nation on the face of the planet. That doesn't mean we're gearing up for invasions around the globe, but it does mean we've cosidered it, and we may have working plans on the books. But that's hardly evidence we're preparing to invade. We'd prefer to work diplomatically with Iran until such a time that it's no longer feasible. And we are still aware that Mahmoud ahmadinejad and the mullahs are pursuing nuclear weapons. If diplomacy strikes out, sanctions will be pushed for. And like Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran will have dug themselves their own hole. And if they're not careful, it may become a grave for them.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home