No Way to Conduct Foreign Policy
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."-----George W. Bush, 8/15/08, on Russia's military offensive into Georgia.
Indeed, Mr. Bush. Demanding that Iran forgo uranium enrichment, a right enshrined in the NPT to which it is a signatory, before diplomacy and negotiations are started to resolve disagreements over its nuclear policy (bullying), and threatening unilateral military action ("all options are on the table") by the world's most powerful military against a sovereign state with limited defensive capabilities (intimidation) to force them to give up that right because we say so, are unacceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.
When Iran returns to the top of your foreign policy agenda; when bullying resumes at the UN Security Council (Ambassador Khalilzad pressuring the council to go along with further US-sponsored sanctions), and intimidation goes into high gear in the campaign season (Messrs. McCain and Obama echoing your threat that the military option remains on the table), perhaps the Russians will remind us to listen again to your own words. Or did Mr. Putin's eyes tell you, in Beijing, something we don't know? Well done, Mr. President.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here is a funny roast of Bush-McCain by Stephen Colbert.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
Congratulations, Cowpoke president and Annie Oakley Secretary of State, for your uninterrupted record of foreign policy blunders. Once Russia vetoes the next Iran sanctions resolution, watch Putin laugh as the price of oil heads up again and the money flows into his treasury.
Khrushchev used to say that encircled Berlin was the US' privates, which he could squeeze at will. The new Mideast birthed by the abovementioned morons has replaced Berlin as squeeze point, and has the added advantage that it generates hard currency for Russia. Here comes the payback for those Stingers we delivered to Osama & Co.
Next, maybe, an advanced missile defense system for Iran. Maybe advanced interceptors for Syria. Anti-ship missiles for both nations? The Russians have so many options, while we've boxed ourselves neatly into a no-win choice between impotent screeching and WW III.
Congratulations, Cowpoke president and Annie Oakley Secretary of State, for your uninterrupted record of foreign policy blunders. Once Russia vetoes the next resolution, watch Putin laugh as the price of oil heads up again and the money flows into his treasury.
Khrushchev used to say that encircled Berlin was the US' gonads, which he could squeeze at will. The new Mideast birthed by the abovementioned morons has replaced Berlin as squeeze point, and has the added advantage that it generates hard currency for Russia. Here comes the payback for those Stingers we delivered to Osama & Co.
Next, maybe, an advanced missile defense system for Iran. Maybe advanced interceptors for Syria. Anti-ship missiles for both nations? The Russians have so many options, while we've boxed ourselves neatly into a no-win choice between impotent screeching and WW III.
Oh, I forgot. We have Poland and Burkina Faso behind us.
Why even bring up the UN? They put sanctions and resolutions out there with nothing to back them up. Iraq gave them the middle finger for years, the UN did nothing.
i completely understand the sentiment behind this short article, but really...
why even bother anymore? they don't care in the slightest.
Mr. Majd, I have to say that you have always been an impeccable person. I communicated with you quite a bit when you worked in the music industry (at Island Records, a label good at nourishing creativity), and you were a good person among an industry of thieves. It's as great to read you here as it was to read you in Billboard Magazine. Thanks for all of your insight.
Sitcrit.
OK, I'll try again. Reuters reports that Iran now has a missile capable of launching a satellite.
LOL... O.K. I just wanted you to know that at least one person has read this....a couple of times. You should provide a link. People get more interested when they see a link.
"LOL" You must be easily amused. My first try did include a link; with 0 comments pending and not on my profile, I tried again. Big deal. Over to you for your big thought of the day.
NONE OF US should believe anything the US Government tells us at this point.
I encourage all of you to watch the Bill Moyers special on PBS - a clear and concise
timeline of how our own government and MEDIA lied us into war. We, as Americans,
should now say NEVER AGAIN! I'm sick.
Lied about the war? No matter what propaganda was used, the reason was to rid the world of the dangerous leader Sadam Hussein. Moyers could make a PBS special on how the US government has used huge amounts of propaganda to get us into every war the US has ever been in. Does anyone remember the phantom attack on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin that got us into Vietnam? Does anyone remember the Lusitania?
"the reason was to rid the world of the dangerous leader Sadam (sic) Hussein. " The trouble with that logic is that in the 1980's the US government was sending the dangerous leader arms and support. Sorry, deposing Saddam was simply a by-product, not the reason. The reason involved oil and Israeli security.
The Lusitania(1914) was 3 years before the US entered WW1 (1917). We entered the war because of the Zimmerman Telegram, a message obtained by the Brits that was supposedly from Germany to its ambassador in Mexico, encouraging him to convince Mexico to attack the US to keep us busy during the war and out of Europe.
The validity of said telegram has always been in question since, of course, so you aren't wrong so much as your details were off
Why did we support Saddam in the wake of the first Gulf War and allow him to slaughter Kurds and Shia?
Oh I remember. As a counter balance to Iran.
He didn't seem that dangerous back then.
It was only after years of UN inspections and destruction of all Iraq's capacity of building WMDs that he once again became a "dangerous leader."
Or maybe because Cheney/Bush wanted to corner the worlds oil supply.
Take off the blinders. It was always about oil!
DuganS1,
Thanks for admitting they lied just like they had with Tonkin.
Mr. Hooman Majd writes, in part, "Indeed, Mr. Bush. Demanding that Iran forgo uranium enrichment, "
Um, wait a minute - did or did not all permanent members of the UNSC vote (along with the US) regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations? So how is that babuskie's fault?
I don't believe that any of the sanction votes required that Iran entirely forgo it's uranium enrichment, only that the process be suspended long enough to ensure that sufficient monitoring be put in place to make sure the process was not aimed at nuclear weapons development - despite the fact that Iran is a signatory to the treaty on nuclear weapons proliferation. The problem though, is that the Iranians' perception is that our pre-condition for talks is the core subject of the talks themselves, and this pre-condition they are unwilling to meet, hence the stalemate. For me, the Iranian position is clearly more logical than that of the white house, which uses tactics of bluster and intimidation, even during diplomatic dialog.
@davidly
}}}}}}}}}}}
None of those I knew would've made the chimpanzee comment, for example.
}}}}}}}}}}}
Look, I already apologized for that remark..
It was an insult to chimpanzees to compare them to the psychotic scumbags that pass for leadership in Iran..
Mea culpa...
Michale.....
Based upon our forays into Iraq and our "position" on Georgia and Venezuela--to mention but a couple--it seems we didn't learn from Operation Ajax, huh? We're still paying for it, and yet our MO remains the same.
Lead the charge into Iran, me and a couple of my old buddies from Nam will follow.
Once thing thought, you have to pound ground, no leading from the air.
EL....
Before you go full Rambo, maybe you should check to see if medi-care covers Viagra.If any of your "Nam"? buddies want to rock, why not send your children first. Bush twins anyone?
No, that wouldn't be the Bush way. Try bombing innocent civilians! That always turns heads!
If you want to discuss bombing innocent civilians, you should look at the Russian actions in Georgia.
When the US bombed targets, we choose MILITARY targets.. The fact that those military targets were staged in civilian areas, is the fault of the enemy.. Not the US..
Michale.....
I was in the military during Operation Just Cause. Remember that? The running gag amongst the average military types was, "Just cuz we want to!" Lemme tell ya, Michale32086, from the grunt to the general to the Joint Chiefs of Staff--we don't care about civilians. The only thing we care about is how to get it spun so we can remain the "good guys".
@Major Kong
}}}}}}}}
They know it would likely turn into a huge mess.
{{{{{{{
They also know that it would likely be a lot BIGGER of a mess if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons.
Michale.....
That's not what that hippie liberal peacenik Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm
That's kewl...
I disagree with him..
And so does conventional wisdom.. AKA common sense...
Michale.....
@Romeover
}}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't hear anyone talking about giving Iran what they really want: a guarantee that the United States will not attack them. From their point of view, the only way to keep the world's premier rogue nation off their backs is to have a nuclear deterrent.
}}}}}}}}}}}}
If there was ANY reliable evidence to suggest that Iran was looking for a 'deterrent', I would agree with you.
But, from all indications, Iran intends to use their nuclear bomb..
Michale.....
"But, from all indications, Iran intends to use their nuclear bomb.."
Pure speculation. You're postulating that they plan to use something that we don't even know for sure that they're trying to develop.
Wrong. It's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Iran is producing nuclear weapons...
As for their intent to use them, you are right. It IS speculation.
But it is informed speculation based on the words of Iran's leadership..
So, what would be the more prudent thing to do??
Assume that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons (as the facts would indicate) assume that Iran's leaders intend to USE the nuclear weapons (as their own words would indicate) and take steps to prevent it??
Or assume (without ANY facts to back it up) that Iran really isn't developing nuclear weapons and wouldn't use them if they had them..
Which is the more PRUDENT course of action???
Michale.....
@Tasies
}}}}}}}}}
Let's go for a nuclear free mid-east. How do you think the Israelis will take to that?
}}}}}}}}}
If you could get EVERY country in the middle east to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and BACK up such an acknowledgment with definitive actions, I think the Israelis would "take" that just fine..
But you can't so they won't...
Michale.....
everywhere the british re-drew the map there has been trouble.
Drew the map. Not redrew.
And Europe has been a bloody continent for 1,000 years,
and I don't recall the brits having too much to do with
"continental adventures".
That's the US foreign policy toward Iran, and it's not going to change anytime soon.
In case you didn't notice, BHO was rattling the sabre at Iran during his Berlin speech. GWB, JMac, BHO, they're all the same on Iraq policy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
