| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| The Perils of Engagement |
| 2006-05-10 |
| Calling for talks with Iran is just cheap talk. BY AMIR TAHERI Something interesting is happening with regard to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Slowly the blame is shifting from the mullahs to the Bush administration as the debate is redirected to tackle the hypothetical question of U.S. military action rather than the Islamic Republic's real misdeeds. "No War on Iran" placards are already appearing where "No Nukes for Iran" would make more sense. The attempt at fabricating another "cause" with which to bash America is backed by the claim that the mullahs are behaving badly because Washington refuses to talk to them. Some of this buzz is coming from those who for years told the U.S. to let them persuade Iran to mend its ways. They include German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his British and French colleagues in the European Union trio that negotiated with Iran for years. Preparing to throw in the towel, they now say the U.S. should "directly engage" Iran. That would enable them to hide their failures and find a pretext for blaming future setbacks on the U.S. The "engage Iran" coalition also has advocates in the U.S. Over the past few weeks they have hammered the "engagement" theme with op-eds, TV soundbites and speeches. Some have recommended John Kennedy's "sophisticated leadership" during the Cuban missile crisis as a model for George W. Bush. The incident has entered American folklore as an example of "brilliant diplomacy," but few bother to examine the small print. The crisis, as you might recall, started when the Soviets installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, something they were committed not to do in a number of accords with the U.S. Kennedy reacted by threatening to quarantine Cuba until the missiles were removed. The Soviets ended up "flinching" and agreed to removal. In exchange they got two things. First, the U.S. agreed never to take or assist hostile action against Castro, offering his regime life insurance. The second was to remove the Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey as part of NATO's defenses. Instead of being punished, Castro and his Soviet masters were doubly rewarded for undoing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. And Castro was free to do mischief not only in Latin America but also in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, often on behalf of Moscow, right up to the fall of the U.S.S.R. Applied to Iran, the "Kennedy model" would provide the mullahs, now facing mounting discontent at home, with a guarantee of safety from external pressure, allowing them to suppress their domestic opponents and intensify mischief-making abroad. Rest at link. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #5 All it got the Cuban army was defeat or failure everywhere + AIDS/HIV, while Cuba itself went from being a regional rising star to a perennnial dark hole in US SATWAR photos like North Korea. COMMIE BLOC > "The land area(s) on maps wid few or no lights compared to surrounding countries is them". Besides darkness, food riots, and work riots, now Cuba ala HAM-GATE is slowly but surely going the way of SOLYENT GREEN-happy North Korea -the People + Army can starve but Fidel, D *** YOU, must have his [priority imported] daily or weekly Black Hams!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-10 23:04 |
| #4 Uh, yeah. The "Kennedy Model" damn near made me an orphan! Here's the Parabellum Model. Talk little and use the Big Stick. You won't hear too much complaining afterwards, I promise. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-05-10 19:40 |
| #3 "just not talked about much." You dare besmirch Camelot? LOL, Besoeker, so true. The entire Dummycrap mythology machine works overtime airbrushing away all of the zits, cankers, boils, and tumors. Very convenient selective memories. Ooh! Look over here at this bright shiny thing! LOL. |
| Posted by: Omomoting Shomock9606 2006-05-10 18:59 |
| #2 In fact Mike K. as you well know, it did "blow up in Kennedy's face" at the Bay of Pigs, it's just not talked about much. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-10 18:50 |
| #1 The second was to remove the Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey as part of NATO's defenses. Believe me, we got the better part of the deal. First, the call to let Castro stay was contingent on the Soviets never putting long-range offensive weapons there again - had they done so, we would have sunk his tiny little island. I helped write some of the plans to do so. Second, the Jupiters were fairly short-ranged, inaccurate, and most importantly, vulenrable missiles (they were mounted on aboveground pads - a sniper could have taken one out). Since the first Polaris patrols in the Med were starting at approximately the same time, we lost nothing. And keep this in mind as well - almost without exception, most analysts consider the 'Kennedy Model' a lousy way to solve a nuclear crisis. One analyst whom I have spoken with about the '62 crisis has said the only reason it did not explode in Kennedy's face was that Khruschev was more rattled than the White House was - and more importantly, Khruschev knew how far behind in missiles and bombers the USSR really was. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-05-10 14:10 |