  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Bush Breaks Neocon TabooPosted on May 30, 2007By Joe Conason For most Americans, who now wish we had never invaded Iraq, the notion of expanding that extraordinarily lethal mistake into neighboring Iran and Syria must seem insane. Yet those same brilliant neoconservative strategists who brought us the war in Iraq and constantly urge its escalation exist in their own special reality. They speak of military hostilities against Iran and Syria with anticipation rather than apprehension. As we should have learned over the past four years, their dreams often turn out to be our nightmares. For four brief hours on Memorial Day, however, the neoconservative drive toward a wider conflagration in the Middle East stalled, when ambassadors from the United States and Iran met in Baghdad. That meeting’s historic significance should not be underestimated, even though U.S. officials emphasized that no further meetings would necessarily occur. Convened under the auspices of the Iraqi government, the Monday encounter represented the first substantive bilateral discussion between American and Iranian officials in three decades. Relations with Iran have been poor ever since the mullahs seized power from the U.S.-sponsored shah in 1979, but in recent months the increasing strains between us and them have brought armed conflict closer. Longstanding grievances against Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism in the region have been exacerbated by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear arsenal and allegations about Iranian agents supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. As these problems worsened, American policy toward Iraq has vacillated between “containment” and “regime change,” with applications of economic sanctions and threatening rhetoric—and not much success. Iran has become more aggressive and more influential in the region as a direct consequence of the violent regime change that we inflicted on Iraq. Over the same period, Iran has elevated leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who are more religiously conservative and more hostile to the United States and its allies, especially Israel. What we have not tried, until now, was talking with the Iranian leaders. By breaking that taboo, the Memorial Day meeting pointed toward a saner policy—just as the Iraq Study Group urged six months ago, when its report highlighted the need for regional talks including Iran and Syria. Naturally, such signs of sanity were immediately met with furious denunciations that echoed the shrill attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who dared to visit the Syrian leadership in Damascus. When the Pelosi trip was followed by overtures from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to both the Syrians and the Iranians, it signaled that U.S. policy-makers were considering a sensible shift. Rice’s exploratory gestures provoked angry editorials in The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, which accused the State Department of undermining the White House “strategy for victory” in the Middle East. The real danger is that whenever we start talking with our enemies, we may discover potential areas of compromise or even agreement. Progress would undermine the arguments of politicians and pundits who prefer permanent war. But we already know that both Syria and Iran have cooperated with us in the past when they believed that their interests coincided with ours. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Syrians were obliging enough to accept a Canadian citizen whom we deported, and to torture and interrogate him on our behalf. (Unfortunately, he was innocent.) Meanwhile, the Iranians helped in western Afghanistan when the U.S. and its allies overthrew the Taliban. There is no reason to exaggerate those exceptions—or to pretend that the Iranian and Syrian regimes are anything but deplorable. Yet it is also true that those governments and the societies they control are more complex than our warmongers would tell us. Close observers of Iran, for instance, believe that our threatening attitude actually weakens the democratic forces in their struggle with the mullahs—and that improved relations would strengthen reformers. Would negotiations with the Iranians or the Syrians today lead to any worthwhile result? Our friends and allies in the Iraqi government—whose survival we have ensured with American lives and dollars—certainly think so. The Iraqi diplomats talk with their counterparts in Damascus and Tehran every day. Those facts won’t dissuade the neoconservatives from maligning any gestures toward realism. They continuously seek to stir hysteria about Iran and to discredit any diplomatic and political alternatives to military action. We are still living with the terrible consequences of the last great neoconservative triumph—namely the war in Iraq—and the enhanced power that their errors have bestowed so ironically on Iran. In coping with that reality, it is long since time that we learned to ignore their bad advice. Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. © 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Gore and Sheehan Join Forces Next item: Repudiation, Not Impeachment Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Tom Doff, June 1, 2007 at 2:11 pm # Speaking of ‘Breaking Neocon Taboos’, B*sh’s on-mike, sotto-voice remark at the Houston Country Club about Wolfowitz and Perle being ‘JewBoys’, was not exactly kosher.
By THOMAS BILLIS, June 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm # The moron finally made the step he should have made all along.he should feel at home talking to Iran one religious fanatic to another.When the moron forgets all that good and evil Dick and Jane stuff maybe he will be able to enter on the world stage as an actually leader until then as a previous commenter noted this is just windowdressing.The amazing thing is that the neo cons who have been absolutely wrong about everything keep offering advice on world affairs.Is anybody listening?
By Skruff, June 1, 2007 at 9:55 am # 74171 by Douglas Chalmers on 5/31 at 5:29 am “Choose oil at $40 per barrel” There is no more $40 a barrel oil. If the U.S. cut the import of off-shore oil in half, PERHAPS we could keep the price in the $50 to $60 range, but unless China, India, and other emerging economies stopp bidding up the price, we’ll never see gas below $2.25 again. China is just begining to use private automobiles, but they use an enormous amount of petro-chem to produce all the plastic garbage they sell in Walmarts. India fuels it’s emerging indrustrial base with #5 bunker fuel (they make a shit-load of Fords over there) I suggest buying energy stock as the production of energy seems to be a, even larger, growth indrustry.
By Freedem, June 1, 2007 at 7:52 am # Expat-
Given the Chimp rant- “I am going to make is so that no matter who is president after me, he will not be able to ignore America’s Destiny” Your observations are quite chilling. His megalomaniacal hallucinations that a future that some sort of win could be defined, or worse some sort of Armageddon could not be avoided by a future person in ways he can only force, perhaps the old Pope was right and he really sees himself as the Antichrist.
By DennisD, May 31, 2007 at 7:20 pm # Bu$h couldn’t break a Neocon taboo if he tried. He’s only bending it slightly in a truly desperate act to save a few Republican jobs in the 08 election. Problem is - he has zero credibility left with anyone for anything.
By GDAEman, May 31, 2007 at 6:56 pm # It seems a lot of people are calling Dick Cheney “delusional.” Go ahead. Google it. A quick assessment of the situation indicates that those promoting military action against Iran are also delusional.
By Martha, May 31, 2007 at 5:49 pm # Excellent column from one of our best columnists AND authors.
By libby, May 31, 2007 at 2:56 pm # Perhaps if the United States had less selfish intentions, relations with Iran would not be so rocky. According to the Borgen Project, it would cost $19 billion to end world hunger, and $12 bilion to provide universal education. Meanwhile, the U.S. defense budget for this year is $522 billion. We worry about Iran making nuclear weapons, but perhaps if our country wasn’t so war-oriented, Ahmadinejad would not be so paranoid.
By Dale Headley, May 31, 2007 at 10:32 am # When will people realize that “neocons” is a euphemism for fascists? Their aims are not a bit different from those of the Nazis: “Today, Iraq, tomorrow the world!”
By FrostedFlakes, May 31, 2007 at 8:44 am # Peace as an option: What an obscure concept. As long as America is controlled by corporations run by neo-conic ideologues, and represented by unduly elected buffoons, we as a populace are subjugated to the whims of the intolerant. Iraq is still a mistake, and Iran wil be an even bigger one. But those making life decisions for our Armed Services are the same cowards who fled from their duty when needed.America needs a facelift, and real soon. However, it’s going to take the upheavel of elected, or appointed, politicians to get the ball rolling. Why wait? Let’s start impeachments now,beginning with Dick Cheney!! Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article