My OperaSo, what is diplomacy with Iran....
Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:21:09 PM
...supposed to accomplish?
An unfortunate question that few appear to be able to explain, least of all the Bush- administration.
Take a look at this horror, for instance:
http://thismodernworld.com/3551
It's a series of assessments on the likelyhood of military strikes against Iran by various people, such as CIA and others more or less independent. But in the "analysis", the various correspondents will never address the point of why we are at this point, except in a self- centered reference to american politics.
Just imagine - in a discussion about a potential war with Iran, noone can muster even a sentence on whether the escalation is necessary on the strategic level.
An unfortunate question that few appear to be able to explain, least of all the Bush- administration.
Take a look at this horror, for instance:
http://thismodernworld.com/3551
It's a series of assessments on the likelyhood of military strikes against Iran by various people, such as CIA and others more or less independent. But in the "analysis", the various correspondents will never address the point of why we are at this point, except in a self- centered reference to american politics.
Just imagine - in a discussion about a potential war with Iran, noone can muster even a sentence on whether the escalation is necessary on the strategic level.
Instead we have, as described before, a pathological need from left to right to have the option of military action on the table, in order to make diplomacy "a viable option". Very well. But what is it supposed to accomplish? As if this is an untouchable subject, no analysis goes into answering that question. Not even through the indirect fashion of suggesting what Iran would be able to make of concessions to please the United States.
This is the exact same thing as happened with Iraq. A single- mindedly reckless corps of analysts, intellectuals and politicians consistently failed to envision what the resolution to the escalation should be. Unless they were very clear on the subject, as was in the case of some who spoke warmly about the "unforseen consequences" of total and utter chaos in Iraq - i.e, glorious democracy (or jewelry out of potato- chips).
The carefully avoided question, of course, is the Iranian nuclear program. What is addressed is their "nuclear ambition", but not the particulars of the program. Why is that? Even Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who are often very elliptic with any message, manages to come to the point quickly on this.
And it is the following - the practical steps are possible to take, but the US will not hear it. Concessions such as last week to solve the outstanding issues in a short time are brushed off, and simply replaced with a narrative that emphasizes Iranian "defiance".
One wonders whether this is born out of vindictive pettiness or simply stupidity. Because this leads to war, as it did with Iraq.
Of course - noone says how this has been a consistent line from this Administration, and how this has been backed up by any amount of reckless narcissists eager to please their egos.
But a consistent line it has been - from the preemption of diplomacy, to the continued covert strikes, to the narrative- forging and pandering to domestic political interests, and at the same time neglect of real diplomatic dialogue with those a solution should be discussed with. And it is to one end only - to facilitate regime change, one way or the other. To "slam the fist down on the map", to demonstrate once and for all that american pig- headedness can win against all kinds of reason and considered analysis.
And what is the response to this from the "opposition"? Self- grandizing tripe emphasising their lack of puissance in affecting what they concieve to be an inevitable conclusion to the manufactured crisis. All the while crediting themselves with speaking for "the people" and their lack of will to go to war yet again.
But this is not what is the issue. Any country can be whipped into a frenzy and brought to support their leaders in time of war. Ask Goebbels. The question is why one goes to war. What possible attainable goal is there to threatening with war at this point. What are we supposed to accomplish? Are those goals attainable?
And we are now, for the second time in less than six years, on the brink of seeing the US population accept, from left to right, the initial framing of the questions, to such an extent that all criticism is reduced to grumbling discontent - and a war of choice is increasingly (sic) seen as inevitable.
Really, how fucking stupid do you have to be to go along with this. How brainwashed to you have to be to not instinctively recoil from the prospect of bombing a country to bits for your own sense of self- aggrandisement?
In other news:
"Bomb explodes in southeastern Iran"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_explosion
On Wednesday, a car bomb blew up a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards, killing 11, in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province, which sits on the border with Pakistan.
A Sunni Muslim militant group called Jundallah, or God's Brigade, which has been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops, has claimed responsibility for the Wednesday bombing.
Iran has accused the United States of backing militants to destabilize the country. Tensions between Tehran and Washington are growing over allegations of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. troops in
Iraq, and over Iran's nuclear activities.
Fars said the Friday explosion was at a school in Zahedan.
"The insurgents began shooting at people after the explosion. Clashes are continuing between police and the armed insurgents. Police have cordoned off the area," the Fars agency said.
