August 13, 2006
Mike Wallace/Mahmoud Admadinejad tickle fight
As I watched Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it struck me that Wallace came damn close to sticking his tongue down Mahmoud's throat as they exchanged pleasantries. It's bad enough that Wallace provided this kind of forum for Iran to propagandize; it's worse yet that Wallace went so utterly soft. Can't wait for the reax tomorrow.
UPDATE:
Posted by bill at 07:31 PM | Comments (0)
July 17, 2006
"It all boils down to Iran"
Jeff Jacoby makes the case.
Posted by bill at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
July 13, 2006
What he said, what I said, we all said what we said
Robert Kagan's column at the Washington Post suggests President Bush's approach to Iran, and his willingness to endure the plain futility of pursuing diplomatic resolution, may be part of a larger strategy to let Iran turn the world against it. Where have I heard this before?
Posted by bill at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
June 29, 2006
President Bush's successes - Part Deux
While we're praising the President...my article on the US' diplomatic progress in talks on Iran has been published at the American Thinker.
Posted by bill at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
May 31, 2006
"Peace in our time"
The Bush administration is wearing out its Bad Idea Jeans, with reports circulating the White House is prepared to negotiate with the (former?) member of the Axis of Evil. Allah at Hot Air:
Condi Rice has scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. Supposedly, one of our conditions is that Iran give up uranium enrichment. I'll be surprised if that demand lasts the week.
Read this and this while we're waiting for Rice. Tough luck for Saddam that he didn't push his nuke program harder, huh? He might have earned himself some restored diplomatic relations or, if he played his cards right, maybe even a peace treaty.
The Times will no doubt be thrilled by the news. Charles Krauthammer warned against bilateral talks with Iran on Friday, but these negotiations will be multilateral - which, he argues, could work, but only if the Europeans agree to support military strikes if the talks fail. Which, of course, they won't. His next column should be interesting. Meanwhile, the world's non-aligned states cover their eyes.
"The Times will no doubt be thrilled" makes me shudder; again, here's the rule: if the NY Times and/or Ted Kennedy agrees with the Bush administration, we know the Bush administration is screwing up. Royally. (Bad Idea: "Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, "When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?" )
Some context: Past negotiations with the Irans of the world -
- Half of Czechosolvakia went to Hitler, and then he took Poland.
- The Clinton Administration (courtesy Jimmy Cahtah) gave millions to North Korea, plus a nuclear reactor; North Korea used the money to build uranium bombs and starved millions.
Hey, Mr. President! Doesn't the notion of "negotiation" imply some minimal measure of good faith on the part of those involved?
I take it all the liberals who've been saying the US is took weak to confront Iran have been right all along?
Posted by bill at 11:04 AM | Comments (1)
January 18, 2006
A primer on Iran and the UN
Let's review: The mission of the UN Security Council is to do a lot of things - maintain peace and security around the globe, investigate stuff, recommend stuff, make determinations, recommend some more stuff, etc. etc. (It doesn't have to do these things, because it's not as if the UN's circa 1945 power structure is about to change, but the Security Council promises to try really hard. Picture a multicultural version of a soccer mom book club - sure, it's a book club and Carson Kressley is a helluva writer but let's get down to business: pass the Merlot!)
Russia's trying to dodge a confrontation with Iran, mainly because of oil. China is, too, for reasons stated here.
Reviewing: The UN, and the Security Council, are frauds. Which means what will transpire over the next months regarding Iran will be twofold: first, the "international community" -- hogtied by China and Russia -- will wring their hands over Iran, "give the sanctions time to work," downplay the risk, and pooh-pooh the idea of any preemptive war-mongering. Second, Iran will watch all of this and laugh as they take one step after another toward a nuclear strike. Eventually, it will be because of the US that the world is saved, if it is, from Iran's nuclear weapons. The rest is all noise, and the negotiations and compromises farces of the highest order.
Posted by bill at 08:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 15, 2006
Brinkmanship, reborn
Niall Ferguson asks, "Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East." Warning: this is not a happy read. Michelle Malkin has a roundup of Iran commentary, noting that "We are on the brink."
One thing is certain: the still-dominant MSM limits the feasibility of any Bush-led proaction. Constitutional protections for Al Quaeda and a surrender in Iraq are all Bush could do to quiet the "imperial presidency" nonsense - how's the White House to give Iran any reason to change course? The UN will wag its finger at Iran and pass resolutions backed only with US "resolve," and Iran will laugh at the fecklessness of it all. And someday the world will look to the US, and pray for its strength. Until then the question is how to limit the scope of the mess the Americans will be asked to clean up. Judging by the left's current thinking on Iran, things ain't looking bright.
Posted by bill at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
Internationalism
Europe to Iran: Stop or we'll say 'stop' again:
the [EU3 foreign ministers] decided to call for an emergency session of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
The decision by the EU3 marks the end of more than two years of diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
Posted by bill at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)
December 08, 2005
Iran's Mad Ahmadenijad A Magnet Of Antagonism
Having spurned Russia's nuclear charity, Ahmedenijad is not content with accumulating reactors, either: he proceeds to accumulate reactions. Taking the pariah nation to a new level, Iran's Rreactionary-in-Chief is now chief of Holocaust deniers as well. Or, sorry, "doubter".... Either way, the international embarrassment that Tehran has become and provoked has and is inexorably intensified. Watch world reaction stammer in on the Ha'aretz news ticker.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 02:07 PM | Comments (0)
December 05, 2005
Heading nowhere
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's allusions to nuclear-style devastation of Israel might have been hinting that we should take the Iran nuclear threat seriously. Still the feckless IAEA warns against doing anything other than negotiating, or appeasing, or capitulating, or burying our heads in the sand, however Muhammad ElBaradei might describe it. Meantime, Benjamin Netanyahu has been leaving clues, too, as to whether he'd consider the Osirak option. The IAEA seems determined to leave him with little choice. The clock is ticking.
Posted by bill at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)
