U.S. Refuses Any Contact With Iran at International Aid Talks
Thoreau's landlord at Walden Pond would be appalled at the Bush administration in general, but the "foolish consistency" of the U.S. policy of refusing all diplomatic contacts with Iran is in the news today.
The United States on Friday ruled out any contact with Iranian delegates to an international aid conference that comes just before next week's showdown vote on whether to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leads a U.S. delegation to the two-day conference in London on international aid for rebuilding Afghanistan.
Is the administration afraid that someone will go off the reservation and negotiate a breakthrough with the freedom-hatin' Iranians?
This would be detrimental to the march to an 2006 election-time war with Iran.
"I do not anticipate, and I'm 100 percent sure about this, any contact between whichever official is sent by the Iranian government and our delegation, including Secretary Rice," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.
The no-contact policy holds even if Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program, Burns said. The United States has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
At least he is not aping the propaganda points we have become familiar with recently.
"In an environment where the new Iranian president has called for the destruction of Israel, has denied that the Holocaust happened as a historical fact, has put Iran on a more radical course on its nuclear policy, has continued Iranian support for terrorism, there's not a lot to talk about," Burns said.
Looks like I spoke too soon.
Burns is the department's No. 3 official and has led U.S. efforts to head off Iran's nuclear development or persuade other nations that the Tehran regime must be hauled before the Security Council for possible punishment.
Since when has our print media used Koran-like language? The emphasis upon a people being hauled off for a woeful punishment is a prime example of the lingo used by The Prophet (pbuh).
It is clear that by adhering to the stupid no-contact policy, Washington has pre-ordained the outcome of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and later U.N. Security Council debates on the future of Iran's nuclear program.
An overlooked aspect of the firm "no diplomatic contact" with Iran policy is that the Bush administration has expressly waived the rule in one important case.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has quietly been given authorization to negotiate with Iran to limit any mischief-making in Iraq on their part.
posted by Effwit at 2:40 PM
5 Comments:
It won't get better than this...Iran can't possibly do anything of real substantive value to threaten the West in the next few years.
And there's no guarantee that in the near future Iran will helpfully raise the stakes with even more leased KKK talking points to serve our vilification needs.
So now is the time to lock in the going rate of 'Iranian Danger' using a moratorium on further contacts. It's like using derivatives such as options and futures to lock in a guaranteed price one can live with in the future.
Our deterministic plans for Persia won't fare well if Iran suddenly pulls off a PR coup...or if the banal facts that Iran is actually allowed! to break its seals...or that it's many! years! away from possessing any semblance of being a nuclear threat become known to the average ass-scratching Joe.
No, Iran is now evil-enuff to justify whacking them. Let's not be greedy and end up losing the whole pie. Lock 'n load, cuz as they say:
A bird in the hand is worth an ass in our Bush. No, that's not what anyone but a confused Meatball says...
Meatball One:
I'm figuring that the air campaign (since that's all we can do) will have to coincide with the weeks leading up to the fall elections of this year.
You have a point about now perhaps being the high water mark for lining up all the ducks that may need to be shot.
The Iranians could on their own initiative overthrow their Bogeyman
president.
Then what would we do.
Especially if they replaced him with someone who looks good on TV.
We'd be screwed.
On the other hand, there is the danger of loading up on derivitives too soon.
A trip to the poorhouse.
So you've been retained as an advisor by the frontman honchos in Iran.
The mission statement is simple: EFFWIT, get us out of this mess.
We don't wanna be attacked but we fear the Americans wanna hit us no matter what so why not say crazy shit - it makes no diff.
But now we're scared. Do you think they just wanna zap our nuclear facilities or is that just the pretext for inflicting greater damage to our country? Do they wanna knock out ALL our civilian infrastructure like they did in Iraq? EFFWIT, we can't have that, we love our children too...what shall we do?
We will do anything you say as long as we don't forfeit our sovereignty in the process of warding off this American juggernaut. But then again, what is sovereignty without electricity?
We will pay you handsomely in 24K gold meatballs and beluga.
SMC:
I'd tell Mahmoud to start prayin' to Allah, The Merciful.
Beyond that, I think it's out of their (the Iranians) hands.
If this works out for them, I will forward my Swiss bank acct details.
Do I have to register with Justice as a foreign agent now?
Smartass
Post a Comment
<< Home