"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, March 20, 2006

Lawmaker warns of abuse in US-Iran talks over Iraq - Irna

Lawmaker warns of abuse in US-Iran talks over Iraq - Irna: "'If Americans in the talks with Iran over Iraq wish to use the Islamic Republic of Iran as a tool to solve their own problems, the plan will be futile.' "

Uh, ok...you got that U.S.?

Majlis' Foreign Policy and National Security Commission member, Javad Jahangirzadeh, said "giving a chronology of Tehran-Washington ties in post-Islamic Revolution Iran, Jahangirzadeh said these ties can be characterized by mountains of troubles and tensions due mostly to wrong American policies and discriminatory approaches."

"Wrong American policies," beginning with the taking of U.S. Embassy in Tehran, November 4, 1979. From that point on the U.S. viewed Iran as an enemy, oddly enough.

He added that, "believes that if the talks pave the way for recognition of national sovereignty and an end to the foreign occupation then they would be positive."

Since "national sovereignty" means "peaceful nukes" to Iran these days and the talks are not supposed to go into the realm of "peaceful nukes;" it is probably safe to assume the talks will be "characterized by mountains of troubles" and lead nowhere but to more fodder for Iranian propaganda.

More posts on Iran here, here and here, among a growing number.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks