Iran Policy Rift - State Doves and Cheney Hawks

The toilet Paper sees signs of a split within the Bush administration on Iran policy and that language in the President’s speech on Thursday “reflected an intense and continuing struggle between factions within his administration over how aggressively to confront Iran.”

This “struggle” has been ongoing between Secretary of State Rice and her State Department diplomatic mentality and Vice President Cheney’s office. Further distinguishing between the two approaches is The Times description of State and Rice reflecting:

“the more diplomatic view advocated by the State Department, which has pushed for a more restrained tone in America’s dealings with the world in general, and Iran in particular.”

And the VP’s office as:

“Mr. Cheney and hawks in his office, however, have become increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

One side the doves, the other hawks. Interestingly, the “dove” approach is one that has been practiced by each administration over the past 30 years, which has navigated us to the impasse of the moment. This mindset reflects the comforting belief that Iran and its leadership can be negotiated with and that Iran would in turn honor any negotiated agreements.

“Mr. Cheney and hawks in his office,” have evolved from the past decades failure to resolve and/or appreciate the true nature of the Islamic Republic. Laughably the “hawks” “have become increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress,” of the recent pasts inability to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions; State and professional diplomats continue with practices that have proven to be a failure for three decades and Cheney and the “hawks,” time to face the reality of the dead end that believe Iran negotiable.

Professionals are quick to call the Bush policies failures, yet 30 years of doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is not? It is high time that Iran be looked upon a little differently, perhaps for a change as the intolerant, instigator, supporter of terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al and not an honest broker.

Iran could not speak more plainly on a daily basis of its intentions for the region with itself in the throne. When Iran denies various involvements and calls these accusations lies we should be a little less gullible and take them at the words of their usual rants, as the daily paints a more honest picture.

Us and Them

We have been lulled into viewing these facts from the wrong perspective:

“Beyond its nuclear program, Iran has emerged as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration, American officials said, by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas.”

Iran is an “increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration?” It is distinctions like this that allow for a separation of the reality of Iran’s threat to regional stability and in the greater war in general and the more comforting belief that this is just Bush’s problem; peace and levelheadedness is just around the corner.

Iran and the Greater War on Terror (label)

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Populist, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Stageleft, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Iran Proffers Peace with Severe Retaliation

Friday during expressions of love for all mankind Provisional Tehran Friday Prayer Leader Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani during the weekly Friday Sermon said of the U.S. in Iraq:

‘"The only important point for the US statesmen is that 4,000 US soldiers have got killed in Iraq, not caring a bit about the huge number of the innocent Iraqis that have got killed at home due to the US arrogant policies."’

Today, in the interest of peace and reconciliation, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered these dove-like remarks:

'"They realize that if they make such a mistake the retaliation of Iran would be severe and they will repent. All people know they cannot strike us. Iran is capable of defending itself. It is a strong country. Superpowers cannot prevent us from owning this energy."'

'“We in the Persian Gulf are faced by difficulties and enemies. Those do not want the region to live in safety ... peace can be achieved by getting rid of these forces. They intervene in the region and make it insecure. They claim that lack of security is the reason for their presence (but) the problem is the intervention of foreign powers."'

'"They know that their plans have failed in Iraq, their vision is wrong. As long as you are plotting against the Iraqi people, failure will be there day after day."'

We love you too Momo! Sounds like we’re almost there…

So, how go negotiations with the nation that is ready to talk?

The suspension of uranium enrichment would be unacceptable as a precondition to talks…Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said:

'"Iran will accept no precondition. The idea can be discussed, if it causes no illegal limitation for Iran's legal activities."'

Further expressing the reality we in the West wish to ignore; Minister of Defense Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said the following:

'"The wrong and unilateral strategy pursued by the enemies of Iran made Iranian scholars determined to attain self-sufficiency."'

One of the summations by the IRNA news source of the Defense Ministers statements:

“Domestic unity and Islamic solidarity as well as attention to scientific issues will bring about a big change in the world, adding that the global arrogance is afraid of development of Muslim nations.”

“He noted that the westerners copied the Islamic knowledge and then misused the sciences against the Muslim nations.”

It all boils down to the West’s need for the Iranian technology:

"The West chants mottos such as 'human rights and knowledge has has no border' in order to make use of knowledge and capabilities of Iranian talented people."

Remember, next time some neo whatever says Iran is a danger…

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

North Korean Military Celebrations: Kim & the Gang, Keeping the Funk Alive!

Today Kim and the Gang celebrated the North Korean People’s Army’s 75^th birthday, which as described by the NY Times consisted of:

“Columns of soldiers accompanied by missiles and rockets marched through Pyongyang today under the eyes of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, in a bold display of defiance by a country that has been engaged in a nuclear standoff with the United States.”

The credit for the strong show of support is given, by the North Korean state run media to Kim and his “songun” or “army-first” policy. Songun policy dictates that the army comes first with regard to receipt of food, medical care and any other resources necessary. This policy is attributed to the strong feelings of nationalism in North Korea. This has “also stoked xenophobia among the North Koreans. It stressed a belief that the North Koreans were under attack from the Americans and that the only way out of their economic suffering was to build a strong military.”

“The show of might today illustrated just how hard it will be to wrest nuclear arms from North Korea now that they have become firmly entrenched in North Korean nationalism.”

Former South Korean government strategist, Nam Joo Hong said of Kim:

“Kim Jong-il won’t, and he can’t, give up nuclear weapons. It goes against the very premise of songun.”

Peter Hayes director of the research entity, Nautilus Institute agrees:

“I do not believe that Kim Jong-il will trade off nuclear weapons for mere economic benefits. The main benefit from becoming a self-perceived ‘dignified nuclear state’ that was 5,000 years in the making is political, not economic.”

Adding to these concerns is the fact that:

“North Korea’s armed forces, which have 1.2 million regular soldiers, are the world’s fifth largest in number, and the third largest if its 6 million reserves are added.”

Although a big army and this is no call for an invasion, Saddam Hussein had a rather large and imposing army at one time as well. However, even though their air force rarely flies and tanks rarely roll due to fuel shortages, they do have a large supply of chemical and biological weaponry.

A scant week or so ago, April 14^th to be exact “the first deadline for North Korea to shut down and seal its main facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons fuel expired.”

The deal to shut down the nuclear reactor, excluding the issue of nukes was reached in February and as of today the reactor hums along.

According to North Korea this has stalled because the frozen funds have supposedly not thawed, although “authorities in Macao have since said they would release the funds to their owners, but none of the account holders have come forward.”

So, good news all around considering the “great news of the Iranian agreement to talks,” and now this. Anyone detect a pattern????

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

GREAT NEWS!!! Iran Agrees to Talks

It’s about time isn’t it? IRNA reports that according to Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani:

“Iran welcomes correct and precise negotiations to settle ongoing disputes over its peaceful nuclear program.”

“"We have always welcomed precise and correct talks to resolve the nuclear issue but the opposite side has set conditions leading to suspension of negotiations.”

The head of the Iranian “negotiation” team will meet with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

Further brightening the days ahead and the possibilities of resolution were these remarks from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"The West has made a mistake and it needs to correct its mistake, while the entire world knows well that Iran's nuclear activities are both legal, and legitimate and many European officials have emphasized this point in their talks with us."

"We are ready to enter talks in the presence of the press representatives, since we have a bad experience with talks behind closed doors."

One question then remains regarding the emphasis of many European officials; were these talks behind closed doors?

He added to his remarks that:

"The Iranian nation has learned in the course of its proud history how to defend its rights, but Iran does not like to take advantage of oil as a weapon, and does not wish the trend of developments to lead us that way, which is why the Iranian nation has turned the West's threats into opportunities."

This should give pause to consider the wisdom and historical lessons learned by the president. Not using oil as a weapon is commendable, so we must be thankful that Iran’s “peaceful nuclear” intentions are just that; “peaceful.”

Another promising statement of note was this from Admiral William J. Fallon, chief of the US Central Command:

"I am not interested in planning to attack Iran. I am very interested in trying to get the Iranians to come and start engaging in a meaningful dialogue."

Good to hear as this isn’t a military operation, but negotiation.

Reuters has reported that, “Iran’s unwavering defiance over its nuclear program has further dampened hopes of a breakthrough,” regarding this meeting of the “minds” on Wednesday. Reuters reported:

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Reuters in an interview Monday the Islamic state would not accept any such "double suspension" and the government spokesman took a similar line Tuesday.”

Using terminology such as “defiance” is not a good starting point (or restarting point for the umpteenth time for that matter); no wonder we have gotten no where in our “negotiations” with Tehran.

In the end though, regardless of outcome at least we will all be talking. As said by Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based Iranian commentator:

‘“Both sides are in a lose-lose game. Both need to find a way out, so these meetings will likely continue precisely because the current approach really doesn't benefit any side.”’

I’m thinking that maybe the benefit to one of the sides wouldn’t really be a benefit to anyone else. One also may wonder whether Iran speaks from an entirely male/male point of view, while we’re kind of…I dunno.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

North Korea No Show on first Deadline

Odd that. North Korea is late or has missed its first deadline in the newest deal to with the U.S. and its multi-lateral negotiating party. According to The NY Times:

“The first deadline for North Korea to shut down and seal its main facility for manufacturing nuclear weapons fuel expired Saturday with no apparent action by the North to fulfill its commitments.”

China has asked the U.S. for patience. Ok, not like we have any other choice right? The Times get a dig in, with (italics mine):

“The inaction leaves President Bush vulnerable to attacks from hawks in his own party, who have argued that it was a mistake to return $25 million in frozen funds to the North Koreans — much of it believed to be from illicit sales of counterfeit currency and missiles — and who doubt that the North Koreans will stop producing bomb fuel as well as give up all of its existing weapons.”

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. But that said, allowing the release of the Kim Jong-il obsessed over, $25 million in frozen accounts strikes me as incredibly stupid. According to Claudia Rosett these funds were part of the estimated $500 million to $1 billion earned per year:

“via illicit deals in narcotics, counterfeit cigarettes, counterfeit U.S. currency and other scams, as well as weapons deals. Some of the players and money trails overlapped and intertwined with targets of two major inter-agency sting operations carried out in the U.S. in 2005, dubbed “Royal Charm” and “Smoking Dragon,” aimed at cleaning up alleged North-Korean-related criminal networks with tentacles reaching into the U.S.”

Former Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton prior to and in anticipation of a missed deadline said:

“One sign of whether we are in trouble is whether the administration will call this a ‘violation’ or use words like “noncompliance.”

Now would one call that prescience or war mongering? How about the common sense of previous actions or statements are a good indicator of future action? Good thing this Bolton guy didn’t bother going through the difficulties inherent in a partisan up or down vote to return to the U.N.; we wouldn’t want anyone like that there would we?

Even South Korea is “threatening” the stopping food aid that had been promised to N.K. to take the steps necessary in shutting down its reactor and nuclear advancement activities. Those mean South Koreans, of all the blustering and “threatening” that has the potential of derailing “business as usual.” Let’s not throw any monkey wrenches into the works that may confuse the great Kim il.

According to a TIME Magazine “piece,” Robert Einhorn who worked for almost 30 years with the State Department on North Korean nukes said:

"The North Koreans don't seem to realize that it is not in their interest to keep undermining and embarrassing those in the Bush Administration who want to find a negotiated solution. In for a penny, in for a pound. The Administration has no choice at this stage but to be patient a few days longer and see if the North Koreans will comply."

No they don’t seem to realize it or perhaps they do, but common sense does point toward waiting a few days to see what happens. Einhorn adds, predicting:

"The Chinese will now be more inclined to come down hard on the North Koreans for further foot-dragging."

Will the Chinese actually come down hard on N.K. or will it just be more diplomatic appearances….I see appearances in the future, if only because “diplomacy” is business as usual.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Stoking the Flames of Peace

Debacle; Iraq is a debacle of epic proportions, doesn’t anyone have a better idea? Hasn’t the Right learned any lessons from Vietnam? Iran, and its democratically elected government; aren’t we about ready to talk yet? Engagement?...yes but to who or whom?

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream and so, recently has Victor Davis Hanson:

“I recently had a dream that British marines fought back, like their forefathers of old, against criminals and pirates. When taken captive, they proved defiant in their silence. When released, they talked to the tabloids with restraint and dignity, and accepted no recompense.

I dreamed that a kindred German government, which best knew the wages of appeasement, cut-off all trade credits to the outlaw Iranian mullahs — even as the European Union joined the Americans in refusing commerce with this Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, and thuggish regime.

NATO countries would then warn Iran that their next unprovoked attack on a vessel of a member nation would incite the entire alliance against them in a response that truly would be of a “disproportionate” nature.”

Glad he can sleep….

Oop….forgot about North Korea; President Bush should have taken the call for a “uni-lateral” solution; not sure why since “uni-lateral” isn’t proving to do too well in the Iraq debacle. Multi-laterally speaking the six party talks are finally coming to a point of finality that bespeaks the wisdom of the pragmatism of the status quo. It would appear there has been break through after break through as of late if only according to the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Who has been busy at work on, as described by Claudia Rosett a:

“North Korean deal, which has many parts, working groups, and rewards for Pyongyang, all spun out of the Six-Party talks in Beijing, and described by Hill, State’s envoy to the talks, as “an excellent plan.” This Saturday marks the deadline for the initial 60-day phase in which Kim was supposed to have spent the time shutting down his Yongbyon reactor, providing a map of his entire nuclear program and opening wide for inspections. As of today none of this has happened. Most eyes are now on the reactor, and the debate is now shifting to whether Kim will miss the deadline.”

We can be thankful that the blowhard, acid-tongued John Bolton is no longer our rep at the U.N., had he been speech like, “In any arms-control negotiation, the need for verification is directly correlated to the propensity of the other side to lie, cheat and conceal its undesirable activities,” would likely have had dire consequences that may have stoked the flames of peace. This again speaks deafeningly to the pragmatic approach to diplomacy.

As David Byrne once sang, “you may ask yourself-well...how did I get here?” This you would find yourself better asking a shrink, just don’t wear leather pants on that sofa.

Signed, A Chicken-Hawk

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Anyone else and the 4% for Freedom Solution

Via the NY Times I read this morning that:

A spokesman for the National People’s Congress, Jiang Enzhu said regarding China’s military buildup:

“We must increase our military budget, as it is important to national security. China’s military must modernize. Our overall defenses are weak.”

American and European military analysts add:

“China’s public military budget actually reflects only a fraction of its overall defense spending, and that the real figure is likely to be two to four times higher. Most defense analysts agree that China’s military focus is to build a force that would prevail in any conflict with Taiwan, which it regards as a renegade province, and also to be capable of creating a deterrent to American military intervention.”

Of the Chinese revelation, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said:

“I think the point we would make with respect to military spending and military acquisition of various types would be the point about transparency.”

Setting aside the fact that this remark was made by the deputy in Beijing; I would like us to be a bit more realistic. Mr. Negroponte represents our nation’s diplomatic corps, which with all due respect does not concern itself so much with outcome as much as with process; this to me earns them their name (in a) foggy bottom.

I am not a negotiator or diplomat in my wildest "Walter Mitty" dreams, but asking for more transparency guarantees a little bit more of that which is contingent upon much, much more from us. We give them the farm and they just take the farm, continuing on with business as usual.

Like North Korea, of which John Bolton said this morning in an OpinionJournal piece:

“In any arms-control negotiation, the need for verification is directly correlated to the propensity of the other side to lie, cheat and conceal its undesirable activities.”

In contradiction to that, diplomats will hail any increase in “transparency,” regardless of the actual decrease in its level of opacity. Think 1994’s “Agreed Framework,” then flash to the present. It’s not the Bush administration that caused NK to ignore its obligations under this agreement before the ink was dry, nor was it the administrations fault that it was revealed NK was going about their research and development in secret; this just happened to be the administration in charge during this discovery.

Any naiveté and high hopes aside, diplomats wish to do the very same thing today in regards to NK. Why, because that’s what they do. They revel in and bow down to the intellectual elitism inherent in the “process.” Stick with “process” and you cannot go wrong; you can actually walk away with an extra hop in your step, oblivious to the fact you are dislocating your shoulder as you pat your own back.

Bolton closed with the very good point of questioning where the president’s support will come from. Will it be from “liberal editorialists enthusing about his newfound foreign policy "pragmatism"?” Pragmatism of the kind recognized by “foreign policy experts, administration critics on Capitol Hill and former diplomats.”

Rather than consuming ourselves with only the “diplomatic” need for more “transparency,” how about we not concern ourselves with this too much and ratchet up our “intelligence.” This way we don’t have to ask the Chinese for all their secrets as a “favor” in the interest of “transparency.”

We also might consider the approach as suggested by Jim Talent at The Heritage Foundation; which he refers to as the "4% for Freedom Solution." This solution calls for defense spending at no less than 4% of GDP, regardless of whether we are living a “peaceful” existence as we did in the 1990’s.

Friends, sometimes friends and enemies might take this into consideration when trying to make trouble. At the least, our military would remain the more capable force on the planet. Rather than cut funding and slip back into complacency as we and most others have done in the past after military actions; we would remain up to date and not have to play catch up. This is imperative in this day and age, when “intelligence,” doesn’t appear to know its *ss from a hole in the ground.

Jim Talent believes:

“This program -- called the "4% for Freedom Solution" by the Heritage Foundation -- would send the clearest possible message to America's friends and enemies that, whatever happens in Iraq, America will remain a force to be reckoned with. For some purposes, defense policy is foreign policy. Imagine the impact on China and North Korea, for example, of realizing that the U.S., by using only a small fraction of its economic resources, can guarantee an increased and highly capable naval presence in the Western Pacific for years to come.”

I tend to agree, at the least it is very worthwhile looking into.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1335171937303242522

Iran - Overture, Respect and Pragmatism

The New York Times is not alone in this "analytical," assessment (italics mine):

“Administration officials insisted Wednesday that the new overtures, including an agreement to join Iran and Syria in talks on Iraq, did not mean there had been a change in policy. “There is no crack,” the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said. “A number of people have been characterizing U.S. participation in a regional meeting as a change in policy; it is nothing of the sort.”

“But foreign policy experts, administration critics on Capitol Hill and former diplomats disagreed, saying the administration appeared to have recognized the extent to which it had tied its own hands by insisting on talking only to friends. Even Ms. Rice had called the opening to Tehran and Damascus a “diplomatic initiative.”’

How “diplomatic.” They are listed as experts, critics and diplomats; is it possible they might all more appropriately be referenced as “critics?” Aren’t many of the players adherents of “realpolitik,” pooh poohers from the get go, that do not think any way other than how it has always been done is apostasy? The “pragmatism,” in the title and their minds is that the practical approach to problems is the only way. They’ve been vindicated for their unbending stance of the past 50 years in only six; not exactly time for truly trying a different approach.

Diplomats have a different definition of “success,” and can be defined through their regular, daily accomplishments.

Experts are considered “experts” in their field, but aren’t “experts,” ever wrong? The “intelligence” prior to 9/11 and the Iraq theater hardly brought to mind the term “expert.” If it was, it was more in disbelief; ‘these are our “experts?”

Administration critics are just that, critics, regardless of whether or not the criticism is warranted? This has been the way of the nation since roughly January 2001.

Obviously people are going to have different points of view. But in this media age, cannot we, the readers hope for something a little different in the way of analysis? The administration has been on an experiment from the beginning; addressing the “enemy” in different terms than we have been used to. You will not be rewarded for making threats, being intransigent, or bullying; we have nothing to say to you in the diplomatese you are familiar with. Unfortunately, those that are well versed in diplomatese were not and are not interested in learning a new language.

What is a carrot to Iran or North Korea? What is a “deal-maker” to them? If the old way of doing things is so “on target,” why are we dealing with situations that had previously been resolved?

Said Daniel P. Serwer:

“The question isn’t whether the axis of evil is dead; it’s alive as it was yesterday,”

And only by doing as we have done previously, can we expect to be able to relax and ignore the problem for another five to ten years. Odd that we're dealing with the problem again, but not to "professionals."

Doing things the same way, yet expecting different results is what many seem to expect of our leadership. Doing things the same way as the “experts,” “critics,” and “diplomats,” and getting the same result is acceptable and the way of the world isn’t any better. But try to teach an old dog a new trick and you’ll see what I mean.

There is pretty much only one tried and true way to reach the right time to speak, but we’re not on our way there as the political will is non-existent. The “intellectual elite,” believes in their own greatness and wisdom and lacks the nerve and interest in even considering this nation and ideals worth defending or surviving.

___________

Key definitions to keep in mind when dealing with negotiations:

Action

Accomplish

Justice

“In Middle East, Third Way is a Myth”

"Critical Phase in Iran Stand-off"

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6845116710488729819