1
   

The U.S. Bows Down to Iran

 
 
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 02:00 pm
The U.S. Bows Down to Iran -- And Fails to Stop Its Nuclear Program

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad strides to the podium at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, he could very well declare victory. The leader of the nation that is No. 1 on the State Department list of sponsors of terrorism is on a roll.

In July, Ahmadinejad signaled that Iran's creation, Hezbollah, would attack Israel.

The resulting conflict diverted attention away from Iran's nuclear program and bolstered its image in the Middle East.

It is painful for many to admit, but Iran has benefited from the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Once Iran's enemy in a bloody war and a rival for regional dominance, Iraq is now a country that pins down U.S. forces.

He is likely to come to New York with a stamp of approval for his country's nuclear program from the 100-plus members of the Non-Aligned Movement, where he is leading a festival of America bashing.

Most importantly, Ahmadinejad brazenly ignored an August 31 deadline from the U.N Security Council to cease enrichment of nuclear fuel. Rather than move immediately to impose sanctions, the Security Council has entered another round of fruitless negotiations about possible future negotiations. Not surprisingly, the Iranians came up with a proposal that holds out enough hope for the naïve - including some in the Bush administration - to keep the dance going.

Ahmadinejad declared in one of his diatribes that the United States should "bow and surrender" to Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, we already have.

Our unilateral concessions began in 1999, when we opened our markets to Iranian exports. Not oil -- only the stuff Iranians cannot sell elsewhere and we don't need, like caviar.

Since then we have acquiesced in World Bank loans to the Iranian government while we have continued to subsidize the World Bank. We allow U.S. corporations to do business with Iran through their foreign subsidiaries, and last year we opened the door to Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization.

For six years, the Bush administration has violated U.S. law by refusing to apply the Iran Libya Sanctions Act to billions of dollars of investment in the Iranian oil sector, even though energy sanctions were effective in changing Libyan policies.

Most recently, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush personally approved a visa for a five-city U.S. propaganda tour by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami.

Amazingly, U.S. taxpayers picked up part of the tab for Khatami's terrorism promotion tour. We paid for a State Department security detail. As you will remember, the last time American officials were in Iran there wasn't much security. A mob stormed our embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. (In another bow to Iran, our own State Department continues to throw up legal roadblocks to the hostages' long-continuing lawsuit against Iran).

There is a certain symmetry to all of this. According to the 9/11 commission, during the administration of President Khatami from 1997 to 2005, Iranian tax dollars were used to provide safe harbor and protection to al Qaeda terrorists. Now U.S. taxpayer dollars are used to provide safe harbor and protection for Khatami.

The failure to persuade U.N. Security Council members, particularly Russia and China, to sanction Iran for developing nuclear weapons is the greatest failure of this administration. Why have they failed? Because they reject the concept of "linkage." We won't tell Russia that their support on the Iran issue will influence our policy on issues in Russia's neighborhood. We seek Russia's help on Iran, while refusing to make the slightest concessions on issues Russia cares about - Moldova, Chechnya, Abkhazia. Any reasonable U.S. policy would subordinate these issues to the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Likewise, we refuse to link how China deals with Iran with trade issues important to the Chinese, such as how we choose to respond to their legally questionable currency manipulations.

The options are clear: We can use all of the economic and diplomatic power of the U.S. - including linkage - to stop Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons program. Or we can "bow down and surrender."

Actually, the Bush administration does have a third option, one they have seemingly embraced: Talk tough. Avoid effective action, especially linkage. And take solace in the fact that the failure of the policy will not become manifest - Iran will not develop and test a nuclear weapon - until after 2008.

huffingtonpost
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 810 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 03:22 pm
Jimmy Carter, " As a matter of fact, legally, Iran does have the right, under the Nonproliferation Treaty, as you well know, to enrich uranium, as long as it's used for peaceful purposes. That's what they claim to be done -- to be in progress. I don't know that we can believe them, now. But I think one thing that moves them maybe in the future to develop a nuclear weapon is the constant threat from the United States that we might attack them militarily if they don't comply with our demands. So the threat of an attack from the United States -- a nuclear power -- against Iran is certainly a strong incentive to encourage Iran to move toward a nuclear weapon capability of their own.

That's just logical, and I think that we very well ought to negotiate directly with both countries and alleviate their concerns about our launching an attack on them." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/13/lkl.01.html
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 11:14 pm
works for me. Iran OUGHT to be able to do whatever they want, unless they lose a war, and sign away their rights as Saddam did. Until then, let that Mutually Assured Destruction thing play out. AND, since it seems that every Muslim in the world thinks this Jihad thing makes sense, they are all targets.


UNTIL some of them actually distance themselves from Islamofascism. I am waiting...................................
0 Replies
 
mrcool011
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 01:57 am
paull wrote:
works for me. Iran OUGHT to be able to do whatever they want, unless they lose a war, and sign away their rights as Saddam did. Until then, let that Mutually Assured Destruction thing play out. AND, since it seems that every Muslim in the world thinks this Jihad thing makes sense, they are all targets.


UNTIL some of them actually distance themselves from Islamofascism. I am waiting...................................


Yeah Iran should be allowed to get nukes and use them if they want too Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 03:13 am
mrcool011 wrote:
paull wrote:
works for me. Iran OUGHT to be able to do whatever they want, unless they lose a war, and sign away their rights as Saddam did. Until then, let that Mutually Assured Destruction thing play out. AND, since it seems that every Muslim in the world thinks this Jihad thing makes sense, they are all targets.


UNTIL some of them actually distance themselves from Islamofascism. I am waiting...................................


Yeah Iran should be allowed to get nukes and use them if they want too Rolling Eyes


Yes,they should.
As one of the more liberal posters put it in another thread..
since there is no law that says they cant,they can.
Since its not illegal,it must be legal.

So,let Iran build and use nukes against another country.
0 Replies
 
Dizzy Delicious
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 03:34 am
mysteryman wrote:
mrcool011 wrote:
paull wrote:
works for me. Iran OUGHT to be able to do whatever they want, unless they lose a war, and sign away their rights as Saddam did. Until then, let that Mutually Assured Destruction thing play out. AND, since it seems that every Muslim in the world thinks this Jihad thing makes sense, they are all targets.


UNTIL some of them actually distance themselves from Islamofascism. I am waiting...................................


Yeah Iran should be allowed to get nukes and use them if they want too Rolling Eyes


Yes,they should.
As one of the more liberal posters put it in another thread..
since there is no law that says they cant,they can.
Since its not illegal,it must be legal.

So,let Iran build and use nukes against another country.


Why not take a course in English 101? You're a bigger hick than I thought.
0 Replies
 
mrcool011
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 02:35 pm
mysteryman wrote:
mrcool011 wrote:
paull wrote:
works for me. Iran OUGHT to be able to do whatever they want, unless they lose a war, and sign away their rights as Saddam did. Until then, let that Mutually Assured Destruction thing play out. AND, since it seems that every Muslim in the world thinks this Jihad thing makes sense, they are all targets.


UNTIL some of them actually distance themselves from Islamofascism. I am waiting...................................


Yeah Iran should be allowed to get nukes and use them if they want too Rolling Eyes


Yes,they should.
As one of the more liberal posters put it in another thread..
since there is no law that says they cant,they can.
Since its not illegal,it must be legal.

So,let Iran build and use nukes against another country.


Wow, that is just stupid. Yes lets let them get nukes that they plan to use. Hell why cant we let every nation get a nuke then we can all have a huge nuclear war! sounds like fun!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The U.S. Bows Down to Iran
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 11:06:12