"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

Friday, March 17, 2006

TIME.com: Why the U.S. and Iran Will Talk

TIME.com: Why the U.S. and Iran Will Talk -- Page 1

Time has taken the time out to describe to us what they see as the reasoning behind the recently announced talks regarding Iraq, between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Previously, Time's nuggets of wisdom brought us; "Why Iran Won't Back Down," attibuting it to being a "product of democratic politics." And the obvious, when writing on economic interests of Russia, China, rising oil prices, etc. in "Behind Iran's Nuclear Defiance. Then there was the one about, "Why Russia and China Hold the Key to an Iranian Nuclear Deal."

Again, Time displays it's eye for the obvious, but moral relativism fogs the writer's view making Iran your everyday, average democracy.

At the offset, Time muses with the need for the two meeting when they "could just as easily do it via the megaphone of the media;" which has proven to be the font of knowledge with no regard for accuracy.

"What's in it for the U.S.?"
The impression that the U.S. is the weaker of the two is inescapable with Iran's hand being treated relativistically with having "more influence than Washington does over the Shi'ite religious parties that have emerged dominant from Iraq's democratic elections." The political process is "stalled" due only to the lack of agreement between elected leaders, as though exclusive of daily violence. According to Time, were the U.S. to withdraw support for the new government for the purposes of concessions; this might draw Iran "into a more active role in the country." Wouldn't a more astute observation be Iran being drawn into a more "overt" role?

Time's suggestion of a "powersharing" is reminiscent of "powersharing" in Europe with the Soviet Union after WWII. It appears that in Time's mind, Iran role is just "a product of democratic politics."

"What's in it for Iran?"
Time ponders Iran's rebuffing of the U.S. recently as being "comfortable in a situation where the U.S. needed it more than it needed the U.S.. It also looks to be this as the thinking in Time's case as well. Iran's perceived "leverage" is likely it's error, but certainly not a fatal one; especially with reporting of this caliber.

Referring to Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani simply as it's National Security Council head also implies a naively relativistic view. The final straw arrives with Time attributing Iran's coming to the table based upon concerns of the "collapse of the new Iraqi political order into civil war" and that it "would threaten the influence Iran has gained in Iraq through the workings of democracy, and could even draw Iran into a damaging regional conflict." This last bit is laughable and ignores entirely, the possibility that Time's "worldview" is not one of reality.

As Time sees it, Iran is just another democratic player on the world stage. Apparently, as Time sees it, the thought that Iran has been pushing buttons and pulling strings to let chaos rein in Iraq hasn't occured to them (or they've ignored it).

Apparently, as I see it, we really cannot trust the main stream media for a clear view of what is truly going on in one of the major hotbed regions in our time.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks