A New Perspective on Iran? (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

us all hope that Bush takes notice of Mr. Gate's opinion with regard to US/Iranian relations.
IMHO Iran is very probably the key to a form of peace within Iraq.
Link

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/11/08/a-new-perspective-on-iran/

I have in fact been advocating this for quite a while.
After all if the US is able to have friendly relations with the only country that kicked it's collective a$$ by defeating them in the Vietnam war, then it should be able to also have friendly relationship with that country that kicked their a$$ out.
I refer of course to Iran.
While Bush is about his lengthy introspection, he might also consider mending US relationship with Cuba, at the very least this might call a halt to S. America constantly taunting him and us.

 

[jujuman13]

Guess most agree with both that which I wrote as well as the thrust of the article.
Or could it be that most Americans are not remotely interested in what happens outside our borders?

 

[Moot]

With James Baker III and Henry Kissinger back in the picture and now Robert Gates of Iran-Contra fame....who next? Dan Quale? LOL JK

It's hopeful that Gates went against the grain regarding Iran in 2004, but if he is Secratary of Defense under Bush, won't he be obligated to follow Bush's foreign policy on Iran whether he agrees with it or not?

But with the Iraq Study Group report due out soon, it appears Bush may end up changing his ME strategy anyway. I think both the Dems and Repubs are waiting for the report with baited breath because it will let them all off the hook regarding Iraq. Hopefully it will mention something about Iran as well. I don't expect anything too drastic from the report, like a complete immediate withdrawal or anything, but it should help alieviate some of the divisivness.

Nixon's quote prior to the withdrawal and fall of Saigon... "If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

Well, if we can live with nuclear arms in Pakistan....we ought to be able to accept it in Iran.

Remember the old saying..."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

 

[cherokee]

jujuman13]us all hope that Bush takes notice of Mr. Gate's opinion with regard to US/Iranian relations.
IMHO Iran is very probably the key to a form of peace within Iraq.
Link

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/11/08/a-new-perspective-on-iran/

I have in fact been advocating this for quite a while.
After all if the US is able to have friendly relations with the only country that kicked it's collective a$$ by defeating them in the Vietnam war,

That is something isn’t it? The US won all the battles but the politicians gave the war away. makes ya say "Hmmmmm".

then it should be able to also have friendly relationship with that country that kicked their a$$ out.
I refer of course to Iran.
While Bush is about his lengthy introspection, he might also consider mending US relationship with Cuba, at the very least this might call a halt to S. America constantly taunting him and us.

Yes they did. They closed our Embassy, held our people for over a year, then blew up our embassy in Beirut, blew up the Marine barracks and then blew up embassy a second time. Yes by all means we should have peace with them.
Iran should be in millions and millions of little pieces.

 

[cherokee]

Remember the old saying..."Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

yes, yes.....and another is "Kill your enemies" ie...leave none alive..

 

[oldreliable67]

I don't expect anything too drastic from the report, like a complete immediate withdrawal or anything, but it should help alieviate some of the divisivness.

Couple of interesting article in todays WSJ re: Gates and his views, as well as the closely-related expectations for the ISG report. Here are a couple of excerpts...

Being from 1994, the first is a bit dated; there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, but it nonetheless offers a glimpse into his thinking on Iran. The second excerpt, from a different article in today's WSJ,
suggests that his earlier thinking on a dialogue with Iran has persisted:

The United States' long lack of direct contact with, and presence in, Iran drastically impedes its understanding of domestic, as well as regional, dynamics. In turn, this reduces Washington's influence across the Middle East in ways that are manifestly harmful to its ultimate interests. Direct dialogue approached candidly and without restrictions on issues of mutual concern would serve Iran's interests. And establishing connections with Iranian society would directly benefit U.S. national objectives of enhancing the stability and security of this critical region. Dialogue between the United States and Iran need not await absolute harmony between the two governments. …

Conversely, however, any significant expansion in the U.S. relationship with Tehran must incorporate unimpeachable progress toward a satisfactory resolution of key U.S. concerns. Political and economic relations with Iran cannot be normalized unless and until the Iranian government demonstrates a commitment to abandoning its nuclear weapons programs and its support for terrorist groups. However, these demands should not constitute preconditions for dialogue. ….

A permanent solution must address the catalysts that drive Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons: its persistent sense of insecurity vis-à-vis both regional rivals and its paramount adversary, the United States. Ultimately, only in the context of an overall rapprochement with Washington will there be any prospect of persuading Iran to make the strategic decision to relinquish its nuclear program.
--Summer 1994 report "Iran: Time for a New Approach" by a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations he co-chaired with former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Second, with an update on Gates views on dialogue with Iran, and more relevant to Moot's comment about expectations for the ISG report...

The most important figure at the moment may be a man who comes from neither party's leadership. Former Secretary of State James Baker, an old Bush family friend, is heading a bipartisan task force that is expected soon to issue recommendations for future U.S. policy in Iraq. Mr. Bush has said he plans to take seriously the proposals of the task force, which is co-chaired by former Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. The president yesterday said he plans to meet with task force members next week.

The commission's influence is likely to be bolstered by the fact that one of its members is Mr. Gates, who will take over for Mr. Rumsfeld. The arrival of Mr. Gates in the upper echelons of the Bush national-security team marks the return to prominence of someone closely associated with the Iraq policy views of the president's father, who took a markedly different approach to Iraq during the Gulf War 15 years ago.
[...]
The Baker commission is widely expected to call for talking directly to Iran and Syria, both American foes, about problems in Iraq, in hopes of getting their help in quelling the violence.

Mr. Gates had earlier advocated direct talks with Iran. In the summer of 2004, Mr. Gates and President Carter's former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski co-chaired a task force that called for direct dialogue, arguing that a lack of American engagement with Iran had harmed American interests.
[...]
The new defense secretary is more likely to oversee a shift of the U.S. effort away from providing security in urban areas such as Baghdad to a more advisory role -- in keeping with many Democrats' proposals. In such a scenario, the Pentagon would turn big U.S. units into quick reaction forces to bail out Iraqi soldiers and advisers who get overrun. Teams of American advisers who live and work with Iraqi units would increase in number. U.S. commanders are also debating how to increase the size and number of provincial reconstruction teams, which oversee economic development and local governance.

The Dem view (at least for the moment) might be best described by Biden when he said:

"I predict that the vehicle for a change in Iraq policy will be the Baker-Hamilton commission [aka the ISG]. It gives Bush a way of saving face," says Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware. In a Democratic Senate, Mr. Biden becomes chairman of its Foreign Relations Committee. "You have to give Bush a way out, because if you back him into a corner, he gets too blindly stubborn to change course," he says.

Though there are many significant differences between the various Dem proposals vis a vis Iraq (e.g., Biden's divides the country into three autonomous regions; Hilary looks to create an oil trust from which each Iraqi would get a cut; Levin and Reed have their plan; Murtha has his, etc.), Democrats highly likely to back the commission's recommendations, which are expected to include calls for a regional summit with Iraq's neighbors. Several leading Republicans, such as Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have also said they are likely to back the panel's proposals.

The ISG report, at his point, seems to offer the best hope of bipartisan agreement on a way forward in Iraq. Whether that way forward is effective and provides a solution remains to be seen.