A conservative who gets it on Iran

nuu faaola · 07-01-2007, 07:24 PM

Can't believe I'm posting something from the National Review -ick- but I read this excerpted in the NYT today and it struck me as pretty smart.

________
[url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNhNGQ4MzBlMzk3ZWMzNzRkZDY2ZjkxNGE3NzI0NGM=[/url]

Theocratic Iran is not exactly as "empowered" as is generally alleged, but in the greatest crisis of its miserable existence. As the mullahs up the ante in the region, they could very soon not only lose Iraq, but also their own dictatorship. Trying to oppose the West in Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank is taking an enormous financial toll, as is the general isolation from the world community.

With oil prices at an all-time high, Iran can't provide gasoline for its own people, who resent the billions spent instead on Arab terrorists abroad. If oil were to dip from near $70 to $50-55 a barrel, the regime would face abject bankruptcy. For all the criticism of the U.S. position, from the left and right, we have now found the right blend of military determination not to let Teheran go nuclear, combined with economic and political efforts at containment. There is an array of future options — stronger embargoes, blockades, and military strikes on infrastructure — still on the table. The social unrest the mullahs desire in Iraq is starting to spill over the border into their own Iran, and its magnitude and final course are still unpredictable.
_______________

IMO: The threat of force --in the form of surgical strikes on infrastructure-- is important in any solution with Iran, but everything we do there must be designed to empower a very disenchanted populace to overcome a government that doe not represent it at all. That place is likely to fall in on itself, unless we do something to unite the public there behind what is currently a very unpopular government.

Winstonbiggs · 07-01-2007, 08:10 PM

Yes he gets it, negotiating and legitimizing the current regime is not the answer.

nuu faaola · 07-01-2007, 09:05 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Yes he gets it, negotiating and legitimizing the current regime is not the answer.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if they get unsettled enough they'll be willing to make some real concessions, a la Khadafi. No one would have thought in the 1980s that he could be negotiated with, either.

I think we need to be firm, but open minded, and obsessive about fostering the dissent within the country.

bitonti · 07-02-2007, 09:30 AM

I find nothing to critique about these statements, I guess he does 'get it'

the art of statemanship has been dead under Bush and co, whoever the next Prez is has to revive it.

Come Back to NY · 07-02-2007, 10:11 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]I find nothing to critique about these statements, I guess he does 'get it'

the art of statemanship has been dead under Bush and co, whoever the next Prez is has to revive it.[/QUOTE]

and as usual your points are well founded....see North Korea.... :zzz:

bitonti · 07-02-2007, 10:14 AM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and as usual your points are well founded....see North Korea.... :zzz:[/QUOTE]

yeah right - diplomacy in action over there

we all know they are going to screw us again.

Kim Jong Il is a scumbag.

as soon as the aid starts up they will continue making their nukes, just be more secret about it.

it's funny Clinton had 8 years of such policies - you derided it as "appeasement"

Come Back to NY · 07-02-2007, 10:19 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]yeah right - diplomacy in action over there

we all know they are going to screw us again.

Kim Jong Il is a scumbag.

as soon as the aid starts up they will continue making their nukes, just be more secret about it.

it's funny Clinton had 8 years of such policies - you derided it as "appeasement"[/QUOTE]

so it's only diplomacy when you say it's diplomacy.....classic elitism from the left...

btw: weren't they offering Iran incentives to disassemble their nukes about a year-and-a-half ago only to have the Iranians continually push back the deadline...and push back the deadline...

more proof bitonti's posts are well reasoned and founded in fact.... :zzz:

bitonti · 07-02-2007, 10:27 AM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]so it's only diplomacy when you say it's diplomacy.....classic elitism from the left...[/QUOTE]

ok since you brought it up let's talk about this so called diplomacy

NK has nukes and far closer on delivery system than Iran or Iraq

They have missles that could theoretically go from NK to California

Yet we decided Iraq was the 'bigger threat'

meanwhile how do we deal with NK?

Ballsless talk and giving a country aid to stop doing what we all know is wrong

that's not diplomacy it's bribery

and by the way i didn't mention diplomacy i mentioned statemanship which is a greater term than just diplomacy. statemanship is all of the options that the state has at it's fingertips, diplomacy is only one option

here's an example, when dubya's father wanted to stop saddam in the 90s he approached the UN and created a real coalition - instead of framing the conflict as Iraq vs US it was Iraq vs the World - that's STATEMANSHIP in action, something this adminstration simply doesn't know how to do.

bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.

sackdance · 07-02-2007, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]
bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.[/QUOTE]
Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.

Come Back to NY · 07-02-2007, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]ok since you brought it up let's talk about this so called diplomacy

NK has nukes and far closer on delivery system than Iran or Iraq

They have missles that could theoretically go from NK to California

Yet we decided Iraq was the 'bigger threat'

meanwhile how do we deal with NK?

Ballsless talk and giving a country aid to stop doing what we all know is wrong

that's not diplomacy it's bribery

and by the way i didn't mention diplomacy i mentioned statemanship which is a greater term than just diplomacy. statemanship is all of the options that the state has at it's fingertips, diplomacy is only one option

here's an example, when dubya's father wanted to stop saddam in the 90s he approached the UN and created a real coalition - instead of framing the conflict as Iraq vs US it was Iraq vs the World - that's STATEMANSHIP in action, something this adminstration simply doesn't know how to do.

bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.[/QUOTE]

of course another well founded statement when comparing the number of terrorist incidents promoted/funded/endorsed by NK versus those by Iraq/Iran..

then again leftist ilk like yourself are the first to scream when GWB emphatically states he will not have one-on-one discussions with NK rather wants the whole region involved (aka statemenship)....

you're doing well.... :yes:

PlumberKhan · 07-02-2007, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance]Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E3KMWW5VVIXZNQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/27/wiran27.xml[/url]
[QUOTE]the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, [B]Jundullah[/B], which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah[/url]

bitonti · 07-02-2007, 02:15 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance]Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.[/QUOTE]

you are right, Clinton didn't exactly do a good job either. I never said he did. Bush was elected to be better than Clinton, I don't know that he ever really lived up to that expectation.

quantum · 07-03-2007, 11:00 AM

yay - someone on the Left understands that talking isn't the answer! :cool:

The vise has to be continually tightened, with all the tools at our disposal, until the correct results are achieved. I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.

nuu faaola · 07-03-2007, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE=quantum]yay - someone on the Left understands that talking isn't the answer! :cool:

The vise has to be continually tightened, with all the tools at our disposal, until the correct results are achieved. I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.[/QUOTE]

Talking is part of the answer, but not the entire solution.

It is part of a complex matrix of options that include quietly funding democratic opposition within Iran, propogananda, a credible threat of force, and other means intended to further destabilize a government that looks increasingly wobbly.

This can end in a couple of positive ways:

1) The government simply falls in on itself in some sort of coup, like the 1979 revolution in reverse.

2) The government gets sufficiently worried about its future prospects that --like Khadafi's Libya, after more than a decade of isolation-- it comes to the table willing to make real concessions. (This is where talking comes into play.)

In any event, there is no downside to communicating, even if it is only to communicate our carrots and sticks.

PlumberKhan · 07-03-2007, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=quantum]I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.[/QUOTE]

There isn't enough left. We use it all on ourselves...

nuu faaola · 07-03-2007, 01:56 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]There isn't enough left. We use it all on ourselves...[/QUOTE]

Post of the year.

07-01-2007, 07:24 PM	#1
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	A conservative who gets it on Iran Can't believe I'm posting something from the National Review -ick- but I read this excerpted in the NYT today and it struck me as pretty smart. ________ [url]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNhNGQ4MzBlMzk3ZWMzNzRkZDY2ZjkxNGE3NzI0NGM=[/url] Theocratic Iran is not exactly as "empowered" as is generally alleged, but in the greatest crisis of its miserable existence. As the mullahs up the ante in the region, they could very soon not only lose Iraq, but also their own dictatorship. Trying to oppose the West in Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank is taking an enormous financial toll, as is the general isolation from the world community. With oil prices at an all-time high, Iran can't provide gasoline for its own people, who resent the billions spent instead on Arab terrorists abroad. If oil were to dip from near $70 to $50-55 a barrel, the regime would face abject bankruptcy. For all the criticism of the U.S. position, from the left and right, we have now found the right blend of military determination not to let Teheran go nuclear, combined with economic and political efforts at containment. There is an array of future options — stronger embargoes, blockades, and military strikes on infrastructure — still on the table. The social unrest the mullahs desire in Iraq is starting to spill over the border into their own Iran, and its magnitude and final course are still unpredictable. _______________ IMO: The threat of force --in the form of surgical strikes on infrastructure-- is important in any solution with Iran, but everything we do there must be designed to empower a very disenchanted populace to overcome a government that doe not represent it at all. That place is likely to fall in on itself, unless we do something to unite the public there behind what is currently a very unpopular government.

07-01-2007, 08:10 PM	#2
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,936	Yes he gets it, negotiating and legitimizing the current regime is not the answer.

07-01-2007, 09:05 PM	#3
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Yes he gets it, negotiating and legitimizing the current regime is not the answer.[/QUOTE] Perhaps if they get unsettled enough they'll be willing to make some real concessions, a la Khadafi. No one would have thought in the 1980s that he could be negotiated with, either. I think we need to be firm, but open minded, and obsessive about fostering the dissent within the country.

07-02-2007, 09:30 AM	#4
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	I find nothing to critique about these statements, I guess he does 'get it' the art of statemanship has been dead under Bush and co, whoever the next Prez is has to revive it.

07-02-2007, 10:11 AM	#5
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=bitonti]I find nothing to critique about these statements, I guess he does 'get it' the art of statemanship has been dead under Bush and co, whoever the next Prez is has to revive it.[/QUOTE] and as usual your points are well founded....see North Korea.... :zzz:

07-02-2007, 10:14 AM	#6
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and as usual your points are well founded....see North Korea.... :zzz:[/QUOTE] yeah right - diplomacy in action over there we all know they are going to screw us again. Kim Jong Il is a scumbag. as soon as the aid starts up they will continue making their nukes, just be more secret about it. it's funny Clinton had 8 years of such policies - you derided it as "appeasement"

07-02-2007, 10:19 AM	#7
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=bitonti]yeah right - diplomacy in action over there we all know they are going to screw us again. Kim Jong Il is a scumbag. as soon as the aid starts up they will continue making their nukes, just be more secret about it. it's funny Clinton had 8 years of such policies - you derided it as "appeasement"[/QUOTE] so it's only diplomacy when you say it's diplomacy.....classic elitism from the left... btw: weren't they offering Iran incentives to disassemble their nukes about a year-and-a-half ago only to have the Iranians continually push back the deadline...and push back the deadline... more proof bitonti's posts are well reasoned and founded in fact.... :zzz:

07-02-2007, 10:27 AM	#8
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]so it's only diplomacy when you say it's diplomacy.....classic elitism from the left...[/QUOTE] ok since you brought it up let's talk about this so called diplomacy NK has nukes and far closer on delivery system than Iran or Iraq They have missles that could theoretically go from NK to California Yet we decided Iraq was the 'bigger threat' meanwhile how do we deal with NK? Ballsless talk and giving a country aid to stop doing what we all know is wrong that's not diplomacy it's bribery and by the way i didn't mention diplomacy i mentioned statemanship which is a greater term than just diplomacy. statemanship is all of the options that the state has at it's fingertips, diplomacy is only one option here's an example, when dubya's father wanted to stop saddam in the 90s he approached the UN and created a real coalition - instead of framing the conflict as Iraq vs US it was Iraq vs the World - that's STATEMANSHIP in action, something this adminstration simply doesn't know how to do. bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.

07-02-2007, 10:32 AM	#9
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,886	[QUOTE=bitonti] bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.[/QUOTE] Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.

07-02-2007, 10:57 AM	#10
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=bitonti]ok since you brought it up let's talk about this so called diplomacy NK has nukes and far closer on delivery system than Iran or Iraq They have missles that could theoretically go from NK to California Yet we decided Iraq was the 'bigger threat' meanwhile how do we deal with NK? Ballsless talk and giving a country aid to stop doing what we all know is wrong that's not diplomacy it's bribery and by the way i didn't mention diplomacy i mentioned statemanship which is a greater term than just diplomacy. statemanship is all of the options that the state has at it's fingertips, diplomacy is only one option here's an example, when dubya's father wanted to stop saddam in the 90s he approached the UN and created a real coalition - instead of framing the conflict as Iraq vs US it was Iraq vs the World - that's STATEMANSHIP in action, something this adminstration simply doesn't know how to do. bribing Kim jong Il is not statesmanship.[/QUOTE] of course another well founded statement when comparing the number of terrorist incidents promoted/funded/endorsed by NK versus those by Iraq/Iran.. then again leftist ilk like yourself are the first to scream when GWB emphatically states he will not have one-on-one discussions with NK rather wants the whole region involved (aka statemenship).... you're doing well.... :yes:

07-02-2007, 01:18 PM	#11
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,015	[QUOTE=sackdance]Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E3KMWW5VVIXZNQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/27/wiran27.xml[/url] [QUOTE]the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, [B]Jundullah[/B], which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah[/url]

07-02-2007, 02:15 PM	#12
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=sackdance]Too bad Clinton didn't realize this, you know with his nukes-for-NK treaty and all. No wonder he was sooooo popular overseas.[/QUOTE] you are right, Clinton didn't exactly do a good job either. I never said he did. Bush was elected to be better than Clinton, I don't know that he ever really lived up to that expectation.

07-03-2007, 11:00 AM	#13
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,899	yay - someone on the Left understands that talking isn't the answer! :cool: The vise has to be continually tightened, with all the tools at our disposal, until the correct results are achieved. I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.

07-03-2007, 11:37 AM	#14
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=quantum]yay - someone on the Left understands that talking isn't the answer! :cool: The vise has to be continually tightened, with all the tools at our disposal, until the correct results are achieved. I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.[/QUOTE] Talking is part of the answer, but not the entire solution. It is part of a complex matrix of options that include quietly funding democratic opposition within Iran, propogananda, a credible threat of force, and other means intended to further destabilize a government that looks increasingly wobbly. This can end in a couple of positive ways: 1) The government simply falls in on itself in some sort of coup, like the 1979 revolution in reverse. 2) The government gets sufficiently worried about its future prospects that --like Khadafi's Libya, after more than a decade of isolation-- it comes to the table willing to make real concessions. (This is where talking comes into play.) In any event, there is no downside to communicating, even if it is only to communicate our carrots and sticks.

07-03-2007, 01:18 PM	#15
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,015	[QUOTE=quantum]I don't think we use propaganda enough on Iran.[/QUOTE] There isn't enough left. We use it all on ourselves...

07-03-2007, 01:56 PM	#16
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan]There isn't enough left. We use it all on ourselves...[/QUOTE] Post of the year.