Article

2005-11-29 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.S. Realists Tighten Grip as Talks Open with Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Hupaish Unoth4604 2005-11-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "...sign of desperation..." - yeah right, more like Dubya giving Iran a last chance or chances becore invading. The Moslem nations of central Asia, like Iraq and more moderate, pro-Western Govts., are far more interested in LR economic and democratic development than Iranian-style armed violent revol jihad - taking the wealth, lands, women, homes and pet dogs of the Infidel(s) by force is at best a [very] short-term profit measure, and does little to nothing to resolve Islam's triple challenges of LR Relevancy, Modernization, and closure of the ever-widening wealth/econ gap between Ruling Elites vs Camel & Mud House Masses vs Everyone else in World.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-11-29 00:20|| 2005-11-29 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 University of Michigan Middle East historian Juan Cole

Somehow he always shows up in these things, like a bad smell after a fish-kill.

Posted by Pappy 2005-11-29 00:45|| 2005-11-29 00:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Interpress Service, which published this opinion piece, is a Marxist organization - it finds whatever it wants to find. First off, its characterization of the realist position is nuts. Scowcroft isn't a realist - he's perhaps an idealist who doesn't believe in the power of deterrence. Realists believe in thumping the enemy - his reaction to our invasion of Iraq should be - "There but for the grace of Uncle Sam go I".

I am a realist. I don't believe in democracy abroad or any of that stuff. However, if we have to establish a democracy in the Mid East to justify thumping the living shit of an important part of the Arab world (as a warning to the others), so be it. I don't think Scowcroft is even an idealist - he just thinks we have to get along with his friends in the Arab world who just happen to help pay his bills.

Second, Khalilzad, unlike me, is a neo-conservative, not a realist. When he served as the ambassador to Afghanistan, he ruled Afghanistan like the viceroys of old (what he said went), but established a democracy. He is now doing the same in Iraq. A realist would simply establish a Shiite dictatorship to replace the Sunni one, or simply partition the country. Note that Khalilzad is doing neither.

What I find amusing is that Marxists used to think "realists" were the devil incarnate. Now that they've redefined what realism means into appeasement-oriented and corrupt foreign-lobby-funded functionaries of past administrations, they now like "realists".

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-29 00:54|| 2005-11-29 00:54|| Front Page Top

#4 The other thing that the writer of this essay has ignored is that Khalilzad took down Ismail Khan, Warlord of Herat, aka Iran's man in Afghanistan (There's another article about Khan's defenestration in today's Rantburg). What does this say about Khalilzad making any deals with Iran? If deals were made, they are transparently not in Iran's favor. But that's the thing with Interpress - facts and logic are all foreign to their opinion writers.

Posted by Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-29 01:46|| 2005-11-29 01:46|| Front Page Top

#5 I was always taught to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Seems it has always worked out for me. Maybe then it is kinda like an old Eagles song....... You can't hide your lying eyes.

Posted by mag44_vaquero 2005-11-29 01:58|| 2005-11-29 01:58|| Front Page Top

#6 ES: Your first post is an outstanding piece of analyisis. Can I buy you a drink?

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2005-11-29 02:41|| 2005-11-29 02:41|| Front Page Top

#7 This is a fucking fish wrap story. If not, someone better give Bush a shot of manhood.

Juan Cole is a fucking nut job professor of Creme de Pantz

Posted by Captain America 2005-11-29 02:56|| 2005-11-29 02:56|| Front Page Top

#8 CA - you give him too much credit - he's also an anti-american POS

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-11-29 09:56|| 2005-11-29 09:56|| Front Page Top

#9 You want realism? Take a baseball bat with you, and be prepared to do some swatting. Explain to the Mullahs just exactly how fragile and land-locked their economy is, should some nasty superpower take it into their heads to shut down all access routes to your Islamic shithole.

No planes in or out, no trains or ships. Nada.

Now THAT'S reality.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-11-29 10:57|| 2005-11-29 10:57|| Front Page Top

#10 i tend to agree that this story is not trustworthy - in particular it mixes up some very different positions. It states that some neocons want nothing to do with Iran, while some (Ledeen?) want to open an interests section in Teheran to contact the opposition. It then brings in Juan Cole, as if he were a neocon!!!!!!!! It conflates Coles desire for a grand bargain with Iran, with Scowcroft and Bidens general desire to approach Iraqs neighbors. And of course Biden and Scowcroft part ways on many other issues.

The point made about Khalilzad in elementers second comment is right on. He was talked to Iran on narrow short term issues, while working against Irans long term interests. I would expect something similar here.

Much confusion comes from the conflation of very different points of view under the simplifying rubric "neocon".

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-11-29 15:39|| 2005-11-29 15:39|| Front Page Top

16:35 ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding
16:35 .com
16:34 Edward Yee
16:34 Barbara Skolaut
16:29 Darrell
16:28 Steve
16:26 Barbara Skolaut
16:25 Darrell
16:22 BH
16:19 Ol Dirty American
16:17 liberalhawk
16:13 .com
16:11 Zenster
16:10 .com
16:10 2b
16:09 Shipman
16:06 Shipman
16:06 Dawg
16:01 Covert Floridian
15:59 Alaska Paul
15:57 Frank G
15:54 Alaska Paul
15:54 Aris Katsaris
15:54 2b