Just as a reminder of how absurd the notion that we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely to somehow curb Iranian influence, note that it took an Iranian general to help resolve the fighting in Basra. Ultimately, all that Iranian influence in Iraq shows is how badly we need to make some effort at a diplomatic opening with Iran. At the end of the day, we have very compatible interests in terms of wanting to fight al-Qaeda and ensure that oil general flows out of the Persian Gulf.
« Klobuchar Call | Main | Richardson as Judas »
Intermediaries
31 Mar 2008 11:13 am
Comments (10)
Max, last time I checked, pursuing diplomacy with a country is not equivalent to pursuing harmony. This is not a particularly complex concept.
"Iran pursues an extreme foreign policy...."
Compared to what? They're freakin' Switzerland compared to us.
I agree that the diplomacy is not equal to harmony and I think diplomacy is a reasonable course of action. But highlighting the compatibility of our interests when it comes to al Qaeda and oil could (though doesn't necessarily) ignore the more extreme elements of their foreign policy, such as providing weapons and money to Hamas and Hizballah. Not exactly Swiss behavior.
On a lot of important issues, Iran pursues an extreme foreign policy that is not in the best interest of the United States...
They do? Why it's almost as if they're a different country with different goals.
Not in the best interests of the United States?! Why this means WAR!
Max, i said relative to us they're like the Swiss.
Giving support to Hamas and Hezbollah? Shall we list violent organizations and parties the US has supplied weapons? Or merely leave it at nations we've bombed, invaded and occupied for no good reason?
My point is, saying we need to be wary about Iran's extreme foreign policy is laughably hypocritical...let's worry about our own extreme foreign policy, then we can complain about Iran.
The reason that Iran is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas is that we are threatening their security. Read Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance. Iran offered in 2003 to stop all this shit in return for being brought in from the cold. Matt is perfectly right: especially in Iraq and Afghanistan where our interests are extremely well aligned with Iran; the Gulf states--traditional rivals--are nudging us to patch things up with Iran. Patchings things up between Iran and Israel (traditional allies) is the big challenge.
Well, duh. The convergence of interests between the US and Iran has been blindingly obvious for years to everybody but the neocons.
And it's impossible to have a serious discussion of this without saying the taboo words, so I'll break the taboo here (Chris Dornan already hinted at it in his last sentence). The failure to act on such an obvious diplomatic opportunity is only one of many ways in which US foreign policy is distorted by the ridiculous political necessity of pandering to the Israeli right wing. Iran is in their "axis of evil", so it follows as the night the day that it had to be on ours as well.
Perhaps someday we'll have a US foreign policy that's run with the actual enlightened self-interest of the US in mind. But not in the next administration (Marty Peretz [hearts] Obama, which tells me all I need to know about how far even an Obama Administration would really depart from the established orthodoxy.)
Obama has already established that he doesn't understand the Iranian issues at all. All he promises is "more aggressive diplomacy" (read: more sanctions) and when he runs out of that - which he will because the Iranians cannot and will not stop enrichment for any reason - he will be left with the same war Clinton and McCain will start for reasons of supporting Israel and war profiteering (or in McCain's case, because "war is cool").
Iran's support for Hizballah and Hamas is based on their clear recognition of the fact that Israel is run by Zionist freaks who are a threat to the entire Middle East. If the US had any brains, we'd cut support to Israel completely and demand they stop trying to invade and disrupt Lebanon, stop threatening everybody else in the Middle East, disarm their nuclear arsenal, and stop oppressing the Palestinians.
If we did that, Iran would, if not love us, at least be much more accommodating.
SLC will now appear in...3...2...1...
Sometimes its useful to put oneself in the opponents shoes. Iran along with the arab nations advocated a nuclear free zone in ME. Israel refused.--And built their bombs.
Now the Zionists have the audacity to accuse Iran of doing the same...withour any proof Quite the contrary. Gordon Prather has written a lot of good articles--here is one:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12448
The Iran Question is a good example where US and Israel intersts diverge. US needs Iran at the table in Iraq, and your petroholic nation need cheaper oil. Still US continue the selfmutilating policy. Why ?
To me it looks as if the Likudniks have a solid grip on Bush's "family Jewels"-
Comments closed April 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I agree that Iran already has huge influence in Shiia Iraq and that our interests are compatible in terms of al Qaeda and oil. But don't forget that those two overlapping interest are not indicative of some kind of harmony... On a lot of important issues, Iran pursues an extreme foreign policy that is not in the best interest of the United States...
Posted by max | March 31, 2008 11:42 AM