While we should not blindly trust Iran, I think that there is much the US could have done to head off the current round of enmity between us and Iran.
In the wake 9/11, terrorism became very unpopular around the world, not just in the US. But instead of proceeding to make the US even more unpopular, the Bush administration should have used Iran’s support for terrorist groups as leverage to improve their behavior.
In 2002, Iran had a burgeoning pro-democracy movement and a moderate, pro-western president. Of course, the non-idiots around here know that the Iranian president has no real power, that being in the hands of the Revolutionary Council under Ayatolla Khameni. Direct talks would be premature, so a certain “back door” diplomacy was in order. Play Good Cop/Bad Cop with them and the rest of the world. Use the carrot-and-stick by dangling the prospect of eventual restoration of diplomatic relations once we see concrete improvements in their behavior and real cooperation in the war on terrosim. As always, it’s important to provide them with face-saving avenues.
Tell me that would not have worked better than calling them “Axis of Evil”, invading and occupying 2 of their neighbors, and threatening to bomb them.
[QUOTE=sqweels]
I kinda figgered, but why have they refused international oversight?
[/QUOTE]
They haven’t. They just won’t agree to forgo their rights to nuclear energy granted to them as sig to the NPT and let third parties control some stages of the fuel cycle.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, can we get a cite that he is one of the “same old war criminals” (your words, not mine)? Or have you moved the goal post? And can we get a definition of what a “right-wing” pol is-- preferable not: *anyone **tagos *disagrees with.
[/QUOTE]
The overlap between the Reagan and Bush 2 admins is well known, but apparently not as well known as I thought. And a right wing pol is a right wing pol. As is Sarkosy.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But that’s not what you said earlier, and that’s not what I was responding to. You said “There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda.” Do you retract that now?
[/QUOTE]
No. There is no evidence. Just the same old suspicions from the same old war criminals. Plenty of fools joined in the chorus about Iraqw’s WMD’s too. The Intelligence world is incestuous and the world believed because the Americans were telling them they had intel. Only France had the balls to go with their own info.
Neither neither SA nor Iran actually have nuclear weapons. So clearly I meant with nukes.
[QUOTE=tagos]
…No. There is no evidence. Just the same old suspicions from the same old war criminals. Plenty of fools joined in the chorus about Iraqw’s WMD’s too. The Intelligence world is incestuous and the world believed because the Americans were telling them they had intel. Only France had the balls to go with their own info…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that is correct. Remember the UNSC vote, which a certain President reputed to stand by his convictions was going to force, consensus or no. Well that vote didn’t happen. Why? The intelligent speculation is that the other SC members weren’t going to rumble the US ‘intelligence’ publicly. That said, there was no way they’d commit to a UN resolution, and history, on the basis of WMD claims by the US they privately knew to be false.