HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

InBrief Archives

Iran Sees 'Positive Signs' as Military Option is Ceded

Iran has good reason to see “positive signs” in the atomic proposal delivered by the EU’s Javier Solana. Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said, “The proposals had some positive steps in them and some ambiguities which should be removed.”

The outright removal of military strikes as a potential consequence for Iran’s continued belligerence is without doubt chief among the ‘positive steps’ from the Iranian perspective. Reportedly, the deal not only rules out military action, but also seeks to terminate some existing sanctions - including the resumption of pare parts supplies for Iran’s military air fleet - in place for sponsoring global terrorism, not nuclear belligerence. Coupled with Russian and Chinese continued opposition to any new UN sanctions as a potential penalty for Iran, there is not much leverage left for the West to negotiate with. The West has negotiated itself into a state of unthinkably inert weakness with regard to applying pressure on the regime to cease their nuclear weapons program.

Larijani added that, after reviewing the documents in detail, Iran hopes to “have another round of talks and negotiations to achieve a balanced and logical conclusion.” There is already an imbalance from a Western perspective, as any teeth in the proposal have been effectively and voluntarily removed. Even still, the Iranians look for little more than a new round of talks, which translate into more time. Time is Iran’s most precious commodity, and they have managed it well.

Even though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have ‘demanded’ that Iran respond to the deal in “weeks, not months”, that too will readily fall by the wayside under international pressure if Iran gives the outward appearance of talking, discussing and ‘working’ toward an agreement.

Meanwhile, true to form, the price of oil dropped by a third of a dollar immediately on Larijani’s favorable response to the surreal package offered Iran, just as it spikes immediately on belligerent threats from the mullah regime. Iran uses its Oil Weapon to better fund their nuclear weapons drive. Iran also uses the West’s desire for conflict avoidance to string out talks, ensuring a constant supply of time free of measurable consequence.

The Iranians are certainlynot in a mode of conflict avoidance. Ahmadinejad himself, a messianic president seeking to ‘pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam’, openly acknowledges the conflict as a “historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam,” while the West continues to attempt to impart on the same that it has not declared a ‘war on Islam.’ The two are not mutually exclusive.

In a war that has been declared upon the West by the most violent Islamists – from al-Qaeda to the Iranian regime – the West continually cedes ground to their enemy in efforts to be seen by the rest of the world as reasonable.

In the face of an enemy – again, from Iran to al-Qaeda - that openly declares hatred for and war upon Jews and Crusaders (Christians), the West refuses to reciprocate with an equally racist/religious declaration of war upon all of Islam. This is the difference between the West and Islamists. Maintaining the possible consequence of military action is decidedly not a declaration of war upon Islam. However, ceding ground to the Iranian terror masters through the removal of the military option is clear appeasement in a war we did not declare.

Feedback

It's sad to see so many inaccurracies spread in one story, from someone obviously seeking war and destruction. What exactly is Iran's belligerence, referred to many times? Look up the word, please. Not succumbing to the unlawful demands of another country is not "belligerence", but refusal to negotiate with terrorists (and in this case, the Blog author is one of the terrorists Iran refuses to succumb to - but fortunately they are willing to negotiate).

Second Iran does not sponsor "global terrorism". If you want to define providing Lebanese and Palestinians with means to defend themselves against unlawful (clearly unlawful) imperialism and terrorism, so be it, but it is clearly limited to the Middle East - whereas the terrorism of the US fanatics is truly global (everyone in the world is threatened with war and destruction if they do not do, as they are told).

Third, there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is pursuing a weapons program, yet you continually refer to it. Do try to have some integrity. An allegation is not a fact and, unfortunately, you may not know this judging from your reasoning abilities, it is in fact impossible to prove a negative if someone does not take your word for it.

Fourth, Iran does not hate Jews and Christians. Jews live in Iran and they even have a Jewish legislator; Christians also live there. What they don't like is invaders, whether they are Jewish, Christian OR (in the case of Iraq) Muslim, which they bitterly fought. Try to be a bit more objective, OK?

Sorry that you are so full of hate and anger toward Muslims. Maybe you should look in the mirror rather than accuse others.

I do not hate Muslims. Take care where you tread please, sir.

In the face of an enemy – again, from Iran to al-Qaeda - that openly declares hatred for and war upon Jews and Crusaders (Christians), the West refuses to reciprocate with an equally racist/religious declaration of war upon all of Islam. This is the difference between the West and Islamists.

There is a profound difference between hating Muslims and recognizing when an Islamist group has openly declared war upon you.

With all due respect, please read this carefully regarding Iranian support for Hizballah which "is clearly limited to the Middle East."

Sorry but you come across as hating Muslims. First of all, the "West", as you call it (let's be honest here: Israel , Great Britain and the US) have declared war on Islam. Look at all the troops the US has in the Middle East - none of them belongs there. How many troops do Muslim countries have in the US?

You have not substantiated your claim that Iran has "openly declare[d] hatred for and war upon Jews and ... Christians". That is just false!

al Qaeda, if it truly exists as an international conspiracy (wow, an international conspiracy of Muslims to take over the world, how original!), has nothing to do with Islam - what one has is a group of people who are upset with their part of the world being invaded by another part of the world.

As to your link, to an Israeli site opining about Hizbollah, it contins scurrilous accusations. Hizbollah was formed to defend Lebanese from an unlawful Israeli endless occupation. What should they do if a country invades? Just accept it? Would you? Just to take one quote from that article: "Iran views Lebanon as its front line against Israel, and Hezbollah as a key entity in leading the offensive." What offensive? If anyone is offensive it's Israel constantly invading Lebanese airspace and taking other provacative actions.

Sage or Andreas? Pick a name please.

"You have not substantiated your claim that Iran has "openly declare[d] hatred for and war upon Jews and ... Christians". That is just false!"

Try a theocracy labeling the United States as "The Great Satan"...a theocracy. Perhaps Ahmadinejad's desire to "wipe Israel off the map" qualifies? Perhaps its open support for Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel?

You see, in your original comment, you ceded the fact that Iran sponsors terrorism. Yet you defend them because, in your uninformed state of denial, you believe they are limited to the Middle East. Even if it were so, this is OK with you? The point of the link provided was that it was the Argentinian government - not Israel or America - who concluded that Iran ordered the bombing of the Jewish Community Center (Jewish) and the Israeli Embassy there in the '90s. Argentina. South America. Western Hemisphere. Southern Hemisphere. Extra-Middle-East Operation.

Then there's this:

al Qaeda, if it truly exists as an international conspiracy (wow, an international conspiracy of Muslims to take over the world, how original!)

That bit reveals more than all other words you have written combined.

We're done here, Andreas, or Sage, or Heinz, or whatever.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, meet Chairman Kim Jong-Il. (UN functionary walks away)

Call me Jong-Il. I hear you got some good swag from Condi.

Yes, and the Americans will eventually leave Iraq, too. I won't have to do much of anything. Call me Mahmoud. BTW, Jong-Il, thanks for the missiles, and please thank your connection in China for shipping them overland so the US Navy couldn't interdict them.

Your welcome, Mahmoud, but what I want to know is when you will complete the countertrade by shipping us oil. We can use our tankers or Chinese tankers to pick up.

Use the Chinese tankers, Jong-Il because the Americans certainly won't mess with them. Better would be Indonesian tankers, because they control a strait that the US Navy must use. Now, let me introduce you to my friend, Hugo.

Thank you, Mahmoud. I want to meet him and perhaps do some business.

chsw

It's both - Andreas is my name, Sage is my nick.

Labeling the US the "Great Satan" is not declaring war on anybody, lease of all Christians (if anything it is criticizing anti-Christians - the US is not a Christian country, did you realize you are forbidden by law to pray in school?). In fact Iran is close allies with Russia, a Christian country, and has close ties (or had, before the latest round of US-Israeli bullying) with Europe, largely Christian.

So your claim is patently false.

Moreover Iran has not declared war against Jews, many of whom live in Iran.

Ahmadi-Nejad never said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". Even the (wrong) New York Times translation - wrong because he said "remove", not "wipe off the map" - refers to the *occupation regime*. What Ahmadi-Nejad asked for, essentially, is regime change - the very same thing the US and Israel are demanding in Iran, Iraq (or demanded, they already did a war for that), Afghanistan (ditto), Syria, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela (I guess Israel less than the Bushites), etc., etc.

I don't cede that Iran sponsors terrorism - I said if you think them supporting freedom fighters is terrorism, you can. I think Israel is a fascist terrorist state.

Argentina did not "conclude" that Iran was behind the attack - Argentina suspected that Hizbollah was behind the attack, and therefor, by some rule of association, Iran (which would mean, I suppose, that since the CIA supported "al Qaeda", back when they were fighting the US, that the CIA was behind 9/11, right?).

"We-re done here" - right, you can't handle to be proven wrong. Go ahead, censor this post - you're the only one who would read it anyway :-/.

Oh, I get it. Ahmadinejad does not want to really "wipe Israel off the map", he is actually quite reasonable and wishes to initiate negotiations to "remove" the "occupation regime". Now we're getting somewhere.

How might he negotiate such?

Do you think Iran may have to resort to force if/when negotiations fail?

What sort of force might they be able to muster in order to "remove" the "occupation regime", defended with a military that (figuratively) the whole of the region has been unable to combine forces to defeat? Iran in its present military state is no match. So what can they do? How can they possibly even the scales?

What, precisely, is the 'fascist terrorist' "occupation regime" occupying? How many of their own journalists and demonstrating university students are imprisoned and tortured? Where is the Israeli Basij in order to get all of this necessary fascist dirty work done?

Perhaps this a good opportunity to explain the word "taqqiyah" as that would be very relevant to the above discussion!

But as far as options go, anything taken off the table can always be put back on the table. That doesn't worry me too much.

I'm still going with the viewpoint of "giving enough rope".

I don't have much time but as to your question what Ahmadi-Nejad has proposed (in several places): to have a referendum of all Palestinians (whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim) to determine the future of that land. Essentially, a referendum in a 1-state solution.

He has never threatened to attack Israel to achieve this objective. In fact Iran has on numerous occassions, including recently, stated that they would not start a war. Unfortunately, the US and Israel have been constantly saber-rattling and threatening war and destruction. People like you included.

Since you seems o filled with irrational hatred, distrust and disdain toward Iran and Muslims generally I realize this debate is pointless. The amount of anti-Muslim phobia and hatred is profoundly worrying - far greater than any anti-Semitism or anti-black racism I have seen in my lifetime. It is very sad to see.

At least I hope some of your readers can get a different perspective. One that tries to be objective instead of latching onto every bad story about "them" and disbelieving every bad story about "us" - the classic war / hatred / evil mentality.

Again, you insist on painting me as anti-Muslim, which I profoundly resent and reject. How, then, can you characterize my support for Mahmoud Abbas' efforts and my sincere affection and respect for King Abdullah of Jordan?

I am anti-Islamist. Openly and clearly. It is not irrational, though you may disagree with it.

Irrational would be "a referendum of all Palestinians (whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim)" within the context framed above, as your definition of Palestinians does one of two things.

It either includes Israelis (who are not Palestinians, and are a separate sovereign, functioning, democratic nation)...

Or, it excludes them in a referendum to consume them.

That, Andreas, is irrational.

As to your asserion that I am anti-Iranian, again you could not be farther from the truth. I am against the theocratic regime, yes. But my interest in Iran is not because of the regime. I have commented here and elsewhere that my fascinatin with Iran - the country not the government - stems in large part from my interaction with Iranians. I have found that literally every Iranian woman I have met to be among the most polite, thoughtful, creative, industrious, intelligent and family-centric people I have known in my lifetime. The same can be said for the men, though they tend to be a little more openly superstitious and distrusting (in my experience). All have displayed an admirable work ethic, regardless of profession. All, for whatever it may be worth to you, have been Shi'ite Muslims as well. There is something about the people of Iran I find fascinating and wholly mis-represented by the words and deeds of the Islamist regime gripping their country.

If your goal is to convince me that I am a racist anti-Muslim and/or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a principled, thoughtful benevolent leader seeking peace, then yes, your debate is pointless. About as pointless of my convincing you otherwise.

This is, therefor, my final comment in this thread.

How, then, can you characterize my support for Mahmoud Abbas' efforts and my sincere affection and respect for King Abdullah of Jordan?

I don't know that you support them and why, but even slave owners fell in love with their slaves. I suppose you like them because they are like the Vichy regime.

Israel is *not* democratic - a good half of the popluation is unable to vote, or for that matter, return to their homes. The Arabs that live in Israel have severely restricted personal (such as travel), political and economic (such as the right to purchase land) rights. I suppose in your view Apartheid Africa was democractic b/c the whites got to vote.

The referendum proposal is hardly irrational, no matter how you try to massage it. I can quote Ahmadi-Nejad's exact words, though they are a translation:

For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders.

He wrote the same thing in his recent letter to Bush:

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

Whether you think his proposal is rational or not, it is a far cry from wanting to kill all Jews and Christians, as you so falsely claim.

While the current regime is not ideal, it is also not terrible. It has improved vastly from the Khomeini days and is better than many in the Middle East and around the world. The Iranians can solve their own problems - they don't need you to foment war against them, or their leaders.