Monday, November 06, 2006

Entrusting our Strategic and National Security to Tehran: Baker Recommends!

As the Baker-Hamilton Commission is poised to recommend entrusting US national security to Tehran’s good faith, it makes sense to consider Tehran’s long history of breaking its diplomatic commitments.

I thought I would describe several thought-strands that have knotted themeselves inexplicably and bugged me for all of last week. They are ideas that haven't been fully developed yet, perhaps due to my lack of understanding of the convoluted subjects. Hopefully someone can help disentangle it and reduce my annoyance at not being able to place a finger on it. Thank you for reading.

For a while, the significane of our foreign policy or lack thereof toward Iran had become more apparent to me than ever before. It has lately become fashionable to blame the United States for poor relations with Iran and the 'appeaser pundits' of all stripes call for a "grand bargain" via an unprecedent "glorious talk" with the "all-mysterious Islamic Iran"(viewed by these captive journalists as a novelty item and fooled by their oriental mafia-like charm as if Iranian thugs and mafias were any different than any other thug species and as if history of Islam and how it was spread througout the region is not out there for everyone to research).

Some of these Western journalist/pundists/policy makers(past and present)/ME Experts (see:Arrival of American "peace seekers" in Iran with Pictures. October 30,2006) who are often wooed and invited by the undercover agents of Minestry of propaganda to Iran seem to buy this expensive tailor-made, pre-packaged propaganda manufactured systematically by this entity. The IRI's Minstary of propaganda spends millions on resarching and hiring experts on innerworkings of American/Western politics. In other words, they have learned how to influence the journalists and policymakers in the US; they tell them what they want to hear.

Last May I was compelled to figure out what was really going on with our foreign policy toward Iran or did we even have one. The drive in me had gathered speed by the outlandish statements of the schizoid leader of Iran who wants Israel to be erased from the history of time (The exact translation which sounds even more hostile to me than being wiped off the map) and who not only can talk to the "12th hidden Imam" but had recently had announced an upgrade of his bandwidth and now is in direct contact with God himself. He also wishes "A World Without America".

Hearing statements such as “Wiping Israel off the map” or “Re-conquering Jerusalem for their rightful owners” are nothing new to us Iranians and Iranian-Americans. (As Iranians we have been inundated and become almost desynthesized by these type of hate speech since the inception of IRI). And no this was not also the first time we had heard statements of such callousness by Islamists leader of all stripes throughout the ME. But never so blatantly championed and actively promoted as official course of action of the Islamic Republic across the greater ME:


IRAN EXPANDS INFLUENCE IN SYRIA: a dangerous phenomena mostly witnessed by an alarming number of non-Shia turning to Khomeini-style Shia in return for financial rewards," "Whole villages and urban areas are adopting the Hizbullah model whereby clinics, schools, and social services are provided by Iran in return for Syrians to convert to Shi'ism." )

Iraqi Sunnis Urge U.S. to Fight Iran Influence, Not Insurgents)


Iran's Presence in Iraq: Why we can't Leave Iraq and hand it over on a Silver Platter to Islamic Republic)

Having graduated from a dreadfully research-oriented university, where the motto is and was “Publish or Perish”, and not knowing what I would find regarding Iran and US relation, I started my investigation and navigation into this uncharted territory. As a novice in politics, I was only vaguely aware of the significance of our foreign policy or lacktherof in the labyrinth of the United Nation and the EU system and the methods to negotiating them.

After six month of intense investigation, I discovered several facts that are rarely mentioned by anyone in the MSM. You won’t hear a peep from David Ignatius who thinks talking to Iran is the panacea to all problems regarding the ME but never bothers to mention what he means by “talks” and what these glorious talks would entail and what kind of concessions we’re supposed to offer to the most active state sponsor of terrorism that would not threaten and jeopardize our national and strategic interests in the region. If Mr. Igantius had done his homework properly he would have discovered that we have always been talking to Iran in the past and present and it’s the Iranians who refuse to talk.

Jim Hogland in his half-baked op-ed is refreshingly honest enough to enumerates some of our recent attempts to talk to Iran:

”A series of public and secret contacts between the two countries in the past two months has underlined the administration's move toward engagement.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to join personally in high-level international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program once the Iranians suspend uranium enrichment for the duration of the talks. That offer has -- at her request -- been conveyed to Tehran by European negotiators with no results, involved diplomats tell me.

In September the administration informed Iran directly of its willingness to allow General Electric to export spare parts for turbine engines to Iran Air because of concerns over the airline's safety record. After initially expressing doubt that the offer was genuine, Iran came back with a positive answer, and export permits were issued with little fanfare on Sept. 29.

And when Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, suddenly asked U.S. officials to expedite the issuance of 150 visas for the Iranian delegation he wanted to bring with him to New York for a meeting with European Union officials in mid-September, lights were kept burning late in the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, to meet the request -- only to have Larijani cancel the trip and then deadlock the talks.

Other contacts -- ranging from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to Tehran to Jim Baker's meeting with Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, in the context of the former secretary of state's Iraq Study Group -- went ahead in September with either no opposition or with encouragement from the White House.”

But will diplomacy be enough to stop the Islamic Republic's acquisition of nuclear weapons?

What enables diplomacy is trust that the opposing side will honor its commitments. Tehran's track record does not create confidence. (See My Previous Post on the Anniversary of American Hostages.)

Next post: Clinton offered the so-called “Grand Bargain” to the Iranians. IRI did not accept the offer. Clinton offered the “Grand Bargain” to North Korea, NK accepted the offer but reneged on its promise. What is the “Grand Bargain”??? Can Iran be trusted and why?

Update: Iran in missiles warning:"The Revolutionary Guards does not only depend on its technological might because it has thousands of martyrdom-seekers and they are ready for martyrdom-seeking operations on a large scale."

No comments: