Tiassa
05-25-03, 08:54 PM
(1) USA cuts ties with Iran (The Statesman) (http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=13856)
(2) US Hawks want Iran Govt. ousted (The Hindu) (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/stories/2003052603071400.htm)
(3) Lieberman: Iran Needs Regime Change .... (NewsMax) (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/25/121839)
(4) Iran Unlikely Key to Mideast Stability, Bush Re-Election (PNS) (http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ec1d5a27cd3134e554ec6 9ec04cfc964) Note: This story is officially in the Moot column following today's developments.
(5) Iran Counters US Allegations on al-Qaida (Voice of America) (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=B45CD4A5-5F8E-4404-A89B33544C80ED25)
I suppose I should begin with some commentary of my own. I mean, we all saw this coming, didn't we? So I suppose the question is where will it go, and how bad will it get?
Some quotes from the above articles:- Gaffe of the day: "There's no nation in the world where the government is more anti-American and the people are more pro-American then Iran .... And that's the equation we have to flip." (Joe Lieberman, 3)
- You think they're annoyed? After meeting with his Australian counterpart in Tehran Sunday, Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said his country has been fighting al-Qaida longer than the United States. (5)
- "No Longer Relevant Award": More than 30 years ago, a visit to China helped end the Vietnam War and pushed President Richard Nixon to a landslide re-election. Today, with some prominent Iranians hinting at rapprochement with America, a U.S. visit to Tehran could have the same effect for Bush. (4)
- Indications of the future? . . . . in the wake of the suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia that left at least 34 persons dead in three compounds, Washington has apparently decided to cancel a planned meeting set for next month . . . . (2)
- The "Just to include them in the excerpts section": Senior officials of the Bush administration will meet on Tuesday to discuss the strategy towards Iran, with Pentagon officials suggesting actions that could lead to a popular uprising to topple the government, the Washington Post quoted administration officials as saying. The State Department appears inclined to accept such an aggressive policy if Iran does not take visible steps to deal with suspected Al-Qaida activists before Tuesday. (1) And one more article, not quite central to the Iran theme, but I've not the energy at present to make a topic out of it:
- Saudis Re-Examine an Islamic Doctrine Cited by Militants (NY Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/international/middleeast/25SAUD.html) - registration required
Commentary .... ?
While I don't think the Taleban would seriously have delivered Osama bin Laden, and while I don't really believe that the Taleban would have willingly let the US tromp through the countryside in pursuit of Al Qaeda's frontman, two positives would have come out of the situation if the Bush administration had simply coughed up the evidence of Bin Laden's guilt to the ulema:
- Due process and matters of procedure; the evidence would have been laid down for the whole world to see, without a doubt, thus crystalizing the American claim of military necessity
- Osama bin Laden would not have had the opportunity to finally "confess" to what we already suspected.
In the same way I know OJ Simpson is guilty, I know OBL is guilty. But it was not my own government that demonstrated this, but OBL's gleeful references to it after the Bush administration failed to make its case to the world.
So this time out, I want someone from the Bush administration to come over to my house, smoke a few bowls with me (I'll load), and connect the dots for me. What were these troubling intercepts? How do the people involved connect up? Show me the situation as you perceive it, and if I agree, I can agree. But what I get from the press and the government right now do not convince me that we're following a wise course.
In my own home, I have a great deal of difficulty communicating with my partner. However, we do not simply stop speaking to each other, as we have a child to consider and a life to continue to figure out. When there's millions of people at stake (Americans and Iranians alike), I don't see how refusing to talk to the other party is going to help. It seems to me that the Bush administration wants to pull a variation on the "Afghani Routine" and corner Iran into a bad situation: be as difficult as you can be, and then yell, "That's it! I can't work with this bastard!"
Of course, I'm reminded, in Hollywood terms, that this is something of the standard. Brian de Palma was and is a notorious director, exceptionally difficult to get along with on the set, according to reports. However, it was Tom Cruise that drove de Palma nuts, and wasn't it Cruise who was in Kubrick's last film?
Maybe we should sent the Scientologists to reason with the Iranians.
But the bottom line is that I'm worried. Even into my lifetime, withdrawal of diplomatic contacts was a standard precursor to war. Maybe with Bush it's a lack of foresight and therefore an overstatement of the situation, but I can't believe Powell is happy about the situation.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
(2) US Hawks want Iran Govt. ousted (The Hindu) (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/stories/2003052603071400.htm)
(3) Lieberman: Iran Needs Regime Change .... (NewsMax) (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/25/121839)
(4) Iran Unlikely Key to Mideast Stability, Bush Re-Election (PNS) (http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ec1d5a27cd3134e554ec6 9ec04cfc964) Note: This story is officially in the Moot column following today's developments.
(5) Iran Counters US Allegations on al-Qaida (Voice of America) (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=B45CD4A5-5F8E-4404-A89B33544C80ED25)
I suppose I should begin with some commentary of my own. I mean, we all saw this coming, didn't we? So I suppose the question is where will it go, and how bad will it get?
Some quotes from the above articles:- Gaffe of the day: "There's no nation in the world where the government is more anti-American and the people are more pro-American then Iran .... And that's the equation we have to flip." (Joe Lieberman, 3)
- You think they're annoyed? After meeting with his Australian counterpart in Tehran Sunday, Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said his country has been fighting al-Qaida longer than the United States. (5)
- "No Longer Relevant Award": More than 30 years ago, a visit to China helped end the Vietnam War and pushed President Richard Nixon to a landslide re-election. Today, with some prominent Iranians hinting at rapprochement with America, a U.S. visit to Tehran could have the same effect for Bush. (4)
- Indications of the future? . . . . in the wake of the suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia that left at least 34 persons dead in three compounds, Washington has apparently decided to cancel a planned meeting set for next month . . . . (2)
- The "Just to include them in the excerpts section": Senior officials of the Bush administration will meet on Tuesday to discuss the strategy towards Iran, with Pentagon officials suggesting actions that could lead to a popular uprising to topple the government, the Washington Post quoted administration officials as saying. The State Department appears inclined to accept such an aggressive policy if Iran does not take visible steps to deal with suspected Al-Qaida activists before Tuesday. (1) And one more article, not quite central to the Iran theme, but I've not the energy at present to make a topic out of it:
- Saudis Re-Examine an Islamic Doctrine Cited by Militants (NY Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/international/middleeast/25SAUD.html) - registration required
Commentary .... ?
While I don't think the Taleban would seriously have delivered Osama bin Laden, and while I don't really believe that the Taleban would have willingly let the US tromp through the countryside in pursuit of Al Qaeda's frontman, two positives would have come out of the situation if the Bush administration had simply coughed up the evidence of Bin Laden's guilt to the ulema:
- Due process and matters of procedure; the evidence would have been laid down for the whole world to see, without a doubt, thus crystalizing the American claim of military necessity
- Osama bin Laden would not have had the opportunity to finally "confess" to what we already suspected.
In the same way I know OJ Simpson is guilty, I know OBL is guilty. But it was not my own government that demonstrated this, but OBL's gleeful references to it after the Bush administration failed to make its case to the world.
So this time out, I want someone from the Bush administration to come over to my house, smoke a few bowls with me (I'll load), and connect the dots for me. What were these troubling intercepts? How do the people involved connect up? Show me the situation as you perceive it, and if I agree, I can agree. But what I get from the press and the government right now do not convince me that we're following a wise course.
In my own home, I have a great deal of difficulty communicating with my partner. However, we do not simply stop speaking to each other, as we have a child to consider and a life to continue to figure out. When there's millions of people at stake (Americans and Iranians alike), I don't see how refusing to talk to the other party is going to help. It seems to me that the Bush administration wants to pull a variation on the "Afghani Routine" and corner Iran into a bad situation: be as difficult as you can be, and then yell, "That's it! I can't work with this bastard!"
Of course, I'm reminded, in Hollywood terms, that this is something of the standard. Brian de Palma was and is a notorious director, exceptionally difficult to get along with on the set, according to reports. However, it was Tom Cruise that drove de Palma nuts, and wasn't it Cruise who was in Kubrick's last film?
Maybe we should sent the Scientologists to reason with the Iranians.
But the bottom line is that I'm worried. Even into my lifetime, withdrawal of diplomatic contacts was a standard precursor to war. Maybe with Bush it's a lack of foresight and therefore an overstatement of the situation, but I can't believe Powell is happy about the situation.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool: