Our two presumptive candidates are sparring on what to do with bin Laden. As I have said often enough, I think he’s dead, so the “debate” is beside the point. Still, it’s interesting to parse Obama’s remarks on Nuremburg, about which he doesn’t seem to know very much (he seems to think that the Nazis had American Constitutional protections, including habeas corpus, which they didn’t). Which brings me to another of my favorite themes: our elite schools aren’t educating their students. And an ignorant elite is very dangerous for us.
Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Iran expert, Vali Nasr, admits that Iran has taken a shellacking in Iraq, but then (of course) argues that this is (the latest) reason for us to negotiate with them. He even says that “Engaging Iran now could even influence who wins the Iraq debate in Tehran.”
Mr Nasr has some interesting theories about that “debate in Tehran,” which seems to me to be over the best way to kill Iraqis and Americans, drive the Coalition out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and impose an Islamic Republic on the poor souls. But Mr Nasr has a different impression:
Tehran will find it difficult to regain lost turf in Baghdad or Basra, or to go back to happily supporting Shiites both at the center and in the militias. It will have to choose whether it is with the state or the sub-state actors.
One wonders just why the mullahs have to make such a choice. I would think that Supreme Leader Khamenei would want it both ways. He wants to support murderous Shi’ites and try to intimidate the Iraqi Government by killing its supporters as often as he can. And above all, he dreads the thought of an independent and politically free Iraq that has an American security umbrella. Which, as the Washington Post editorialists rightly argue, is exactly what is happening, and exactly what Maliki told the mullahs:
He assured his Iranian hosts that Iraq would not be a launching pad for an American attack on Iran. But he pointedly told a press briefing that negotiations on the strategic partnership would continue. He repeated that commitment on Friday, even after warning that the talks had “reached a dead end.” In effect, the Iraqi prime minister was saying that his country does not want to become an Iranian satellite but an independent Arab state that would look to the United States to ensure its security.
That is why the Supreme Leader must try to intimidate Maliki at the same time he has his killers slaughter Iraqis. Any Iraqis, neither their cult nor their ethnicity interests him in the least. There’s abundant evidence that he is doing precisely that. First, the London Times informs us that the latest car bomb (which, interestingly, has not been called a “suicide attack,” perhaps because it was remotely controlled) that killed so many Shi’ites in Baghdad a few days ago was essentially an Iranian operation. As American Lt.-Col. Steven Stover pout it, our people are convinced that “this atrocity was committed by a Special Groups cell,” language that is used to describe groups closely tied to Iran.
Please notice that this is not the celebrated sectarian conflict that has been so shamelessly promoted as the cause of nearly all violence in Iraq for so many years; this is Shi’ites blowing up other Shi’ites, with Iran pushing the buttons. And I am sure when all is said and done, we will find that Iran has sponsored violence on all sides, Sunni and Shi’ite, Kurd, Turkoman, and so forth.
And as for Mr Nasr’s quaint notion that Iran wants to play some sort of “constructive” role in Iraq, the wonderful Caroline Glick, whose new book, The Shackled Warrior, should be on the top of your reading table, tells us everything we need to know about that.
On Tuesday, the day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki completed his three-day visit to Iran, his envoy to the Islamic Republic received a care package - delivered to his front door. When Iraqi Ambassador Muhammad Majid al-Sheikh’s driver opened the package, he discovered it was a bomb.
In their best Farsi imitation of the Godfather, Iranian police spokesmen claimed that the package was not a bomb - but aquarium equipment. And in a way, they were right. The package was supposed to help Sheikh “sleep with the fishes.”
I think Mr Nasr has the context entirely wrong. Iran is not a normal state, its rulers are not normal politicians, and its policy is not based on our models of “conflict resolution.” They are waging war against us, as they have for nearly thirty years, and will use all means to win it.
Mr Nasr concludes that this is a great time to negotiate with the mullahs. To be fair, it is hard to remember a time when he didn’t think conditions were right for talking to Iran, so this is nothing new. Nor has he ever seemed to notice that we are in fact negotiating right now, and we have been talking to them ever since Khomeini seized power in early 1979.
This is classic Council on Foreign Relations silliness. Their self-important experts told us all during the Cold War that we should be nice to the Soviets, that we shouldn’t support the dissidents, and that Reagan was a militaristic lunatic. So today they tell us to be nice to the mullahs, remain silent on the massacre of decent Iranians, and Bush is a militaristic lunatic.
Plus ca change…it’s the usual.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
7 Comments
Anthony (Los Angeles):I think Mr Nasr has the context entirely wrong. Iran is not a normal state, its rulers are not normal politicians, and its policy is not based on our models of “conflict resolution.”
When I read Nasr’s article this morning, I was reminded of a conversation I recently had with a friend, a devout “liberal realist,” who argued that what we need to do is have a hard, private talk with the Mullahs, making it clear what would happen to them if they crossed a line, while at the same time offering them guarantees that would “meet their security interests.”
I refrained from asking him what planet he was from and what had he done with my friend, but instead pointed out to him that we are not dealing with rational state actors like the Soviets of the Cold War, but millenarian religious fascists who see it as their duty to bring about chaos to hasten the return of their Mahdi. The carrot-and-sticks approach just won’t work, because they see the bomb and their war with us as as religious duty.
ML:
There is a really intense determination not to see what we are dealing with. Have you seen that wonderful movie “The Gathering Storm,” about Churchill trying to convince his peers that Germany was a mortal threat? To watch it these days is a cathartic experience. And it’s a great movie, too.
He didn’t get it.
I saw the same “paradigm trap” in Mr. Nasr’s article, and it’s scary to think that many of our foreign policy elites just don’t “get it.”
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:19 pm Ira Zad:Vali Nasr, Houshang AmirAhmadi, Ray Takyeh, Trita Parsi and other Iranian regime lobbyists, advocates, apologists, and operatives are all working towards the infamous “Grand Bargain” with the Tehran regime that they are serving. They all want to see Khatami, Rafsanjani, or Larijani in Washington kissing the face of President B. Hussein Obama three times as it is customary with the Islamist regime officials in Tehran: once on one cheek, then the other cheek, and last the right cheek again. (Note: under the Shah, people only greeted each other with one kiss on each cheek.)
In Nasr’s case, Nasr’s father, Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr, was (under the Shah), and continues to be now a known Islamist scholar with British ties. CFR be damned if they do not know this fact. Where is Islamist-appeaser Brezhenski when we need him?!
Trita Parsi, another regime lobbyist in US, takes frequent trips to Iran and is dined (and wined figuratively speaking) by high ranking regime officials in out of town outings; in one case by a resort area by a river near Tehran according to London-based reporter Alireza Nourizadeh.
Nasr and the rest of the regime “5th Column” cohorts are known regime lackeys. So, it is really not surprising to hear them howl for talks right now.
Their best friend is B.Hussein Obama who will embrace their mission wholeheartedly when he becomes the President of these United States in Jan ‘09.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:40 pm j green:And chances are that he will be, too. Thanks mainly to our failed Iran and perceived (but not actual) failed Iraq policy in the eyes of the politically unsophisticated masses.
Iran is trying to do regime change in Iraq and here. They are flooding their idiots here to influence our opinion so we vote for Barry. When are we going to wake up and see that the Islamic regime wants to have a continuation of Carter’s failures through the 21st century Carter who’s name is Barry Hussein Obama?
Again, a member of “the usual suspects” (Trita Parsi, Mehrangiz Kar, and others who are also regulars on VOA) comes to confuse the discussion in the U.S. by a) pretending we never talk to Iran, b) denying that Iran is at war with us, and c) the coup de grace saying Iran has “helped” the U.S. by influencing a reduction in Iraqi violence as a reward for our limited “discussions”.
Let us translate that: a) we have spoken to Iran since 1979 and we continue to do so till this day, b) Iran itself expresses that they are at war with us and Israel, and c) they didn’t help, they were pulling the strings directly and they are now losing so they had little choice in the matter.
Jun 20, 2008 - 8:20 am Ira Zad:An article entitled “Worn-out US seeks grand bargain with Iran” from Australian Times tells it like it really is:
“The signs of the grand bargain are everywhere. The idea that George W. Bush won’t negotiate with Iran is nonsense. The US and Iran regularly meet at ambassadorial level in Iraq and other officials have also held meetings. Rice, in her recent important essay in Foreign Affairs, repeatedly offers full normalisation and a complete change in relations with Iran if it will just desist from illegal nuclear activity.”
Jun 20, 2008 - 11:28 am Winston:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23896672-7583,00.html
Vali Nasr, Ray Takeyeh, NIAC, Trita Parsi, et al. These people are front groups and individuals representing the Shiite Mullahs of Iran in the US of A. The only difference is that these people wear tie and drink alcohol and their buddies in Tehran don’t. I don’t know how somebody like Vali Nasr with a degree in theology can tell us how to behave/act/think in area of foreign policy.
Jun 22, 2008 - 11:39 pm Ira Zad:Well said, Winston; they should all be arrested by Homeland Security and put in Gitmo and questioned the hard way. But instead, they are roaming around freely from TV studio to TV studio in the US of A and spewing their hidden hatred for America and love for Islamists of Iran.
Who says B.Hussein Obama is not already the President? It sure feels like it, doesn’t it?
Jun 24, 2008 - 2:26 am Nikos Tanrousses:Brzezinski spawned Zia al Haq, Khomeini, and bin Laden. Carolignian Brzezinski wants to break up the superpowers using Aztlan and Kosovo. Brzezinski and Buchanan are winking anti-Semitic votes for Obama, deliver USA to Pope’s feudal basket of Bamana Republics. Talal got Pontifical medal as Fatima mandates Catholic-Muslim union against Jews (Francis Johnson, Great Sign, 1979, p. 126), Catholic Roger Taney wrote Dred Scott decision. John Wilkes Booth, Tammany Hall and Joe McCarthy were Catholics. Now Catholic majority Supreme Court. NYC top drop outs: Hispanic 32%, Black 25%, Italian 20%. NYC top illegals: Ecuadorean, Italian, Polish. Ate glis-glis but blamed plague on others, now lettuce coli. Their bigotry most encouraged terror yet they reap most security funds. Rabbi circumcizes lower, Pope upper brain. Tort explosion by glib casuistry. Bazelya 1992 case proves PLO-IRA-KLA links.
Aug 28, 2008 - 2:56 pm