{"id":7689,"date":"2010-08-12T10:35:50","date_gmt":"2010-08-12T18:35:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=7689"},"modified":"2010-08-12T10:35:50","modified_gmt":"2010-08-12T18:35:50","slug":"thursday-iran-talking-points","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/08\/12\/thursday-iran-talking-points\/","title":{"rendered":"Thursday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 12th, 2010:<\/em><\/p>\n

Foreign Policy<\/a><\/em>: Michael Eisenstadt and David Crist, both fellows at the AIPAC-formed and often hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy<\/a>, write that President Obama must \u00e2\u20ac\u0153convince Tehran that his outstretched hand can be formed into a fist.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Eisenstadt and Crist argue that some \u00e2\u20ac\u0153key\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Iranian leaders are likely to instigate a confrontation with the U.S., \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unless Washington, acting with both caution and firmness, moves to avert such an eventuality.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d They call for a warning that the U.S. will \u00e2\u20ac\u0153not necessarily respond in a symmetrical or proportionate manner to Iranian provocations,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d citing the example of the failed containment effort against Iraq in the 1990s.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/a><\/em>: While not specifically addressing and Israeli strike against Iran, Columnist George Will feeds the talking point of a weak Obama and a determined Netanyahu, with his \u00e2\u20ac\u0153focus firmly on Iran.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Will, writing from Jerusalem, draws a caricatured contrast between the two: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Will ends with an anecdotal boast about Netanyahu\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s unwillingness to bend to Washington: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcYou live in Chevy Chase. Don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t play with our future.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Atlantic<\/a><\/em>: Robert D. Kaplan makes the case that containment might be the best strategy to deal with a nuclear Iran. Basing his argument on Henry Kissinger\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s writings on limited nuclear war, Kaplan concludes that the costs of stopping Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s alleged nuclear weapons program is dangerously high while the real risks posed by a nuclear weapons possessing Iran is lower than many would acknowledge. The numerous shared interests between Shiites and the U.S. and the demographic and likely positive ideological and philosophical shifts underway in Iran lead Kaplan to conclude that, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Given this prognosis, and the high cost and poor chances for success of any military effort to eliminate Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear program, I believe that containment of a nuclear Iran is the most sensible policy for the United States.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Reuters<\/a><\/em>: Russia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s LUKOIL together with China\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong are resuming gasoline sales with Iran. Chinese companies have provided half of Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s gasoline imports in recent months.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 12th, 2010: Foreign Policy: Michael Eisenstadt and David Crist, both fellows at the AIPAC-formed and often hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy, write that President Obama must \u00e2\u20ac\u0153convince Tehran that his outstretched hand can be formed into a fist.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Eisenstadt and Crist argue […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7689"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7689\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7690,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7689\/revisions\/7690"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7689"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}