{"id":8451,"date":"2010-11-01T12:03:40","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T20:03:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=8451"},"modified":"2010-11-01T12:03:40","modified_gmt":"2010-11-01T20:03:40","slug":"monday-iran-talking-points-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/11\/01\/monday-iran-talking-points-11\/","title":{"rendered":"Monday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 1st, 2010:<\/em><\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/a><\/em>: David Broder suggests since Obama can not control the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153tidal force\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the marketplace, one other option for getting the United States out of its economic slump is by setting the stage for war with Iran. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d writes Broder. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Despite winning support<\/a> from neoconservatives like Cliff May<\/a>, Broder\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s logic has been ripped to shreds by the commentariat, who say the idea emanates from an economic \u00e2\u20ac\u0153loon tune land<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a unique blend of moral depravity and intellectual laziness<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ridiculous idea\u00e2\u20ac\u009d put forward by a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153moral degenerate<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ill-informed and morally bankrupt<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153intellectually lazy to the point of near-dishonesty, as well as mind-bogglingly belligerent<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the most insane op-ed I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve ever come across<\/a>,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153stupid enough when Elliot Abrams wrote it in August<\/a>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Pajamas Media<\/a><\/em>: Arch neocon Michael Ledeen<\/a> parses comments <\/a>made to an AIPAC <\/a>crowd by Obama foreign policy official Dennis Ross<\/a>. After lavishing Ross with praise as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153one of the best practitioners of the diplomatic arts,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Ledeen goes on to criticize the Obama administration\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s policy because of what he sees as a mix of falsehoods and understatements in Ross\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s talk. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The central issue is NOT Iranian diplomatic recalcitrance; it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the murder of American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d writes Ledeen. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153And that is the issue that nobody \u00e2\u20ac\u201d not national security officials, not members of Congress, not pundits \u00e2\u20ac\u201d wants to talk about. They avoid it with a remarkable single-mindedness, because to acknowledge it means having to respond forcefully, and no president for more than 30 years has been willing to do that.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Weekly Standard<\/a><\/em>: The American Enterprise Institute<\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Michael Rubin<\/a> writes Iran may be the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153most sanctioned planet on earth,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d with unilateral sanctions more effective than the UN\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s multilateral ones, which require international consensus. Sanctions are slowly having an effect. Rubin argues the upcoming talks between the P5+1 are a move in the wrong direction. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Certainly, a diplomatic solution to Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear ambitions is ideal, but under the wrong circumstances engagement could hasten conflict,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he writes. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Against the backdrop of the Islamic Republic\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s faltering economy, the worst move for the Obama administration to make is to offer incentives that mitigate pressure on Tehran.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Rubin concludes the Obama administration should impose more sanctions \u00e2\u20ac\u201d rather than more diplomatic initiatives \u00e2\u20ac\u201d to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153delegitimize the Iranian regime in the eyes of the Iranian people.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Weekly Standard<\/a><\/em>: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies<\/a> Reuel Marc Gerecht<\/a> asserts that the latest dump of WikiLeaks documents show that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Iranians have been wicked in Mesopotamia.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d From this, argues Gerecht, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Democratic foreign policy establishment\u00e2\u20ac\u009d should start taking the words of Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s supreme leader Ali Khamenei seriously when he describes the United States as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Satan incarnate\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the enemy of Islam.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Gerecht summarizes the Obama administration\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s policy towards Iran as: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Obama presumably extended his hand to Khamenei not because the president is slow to anger when aggrieved Third Worlders kill Americans, but because he saw Iranian activity in Iraq, deplorable as it was, as somehow extricable from Iranian foreign policy toward the United States.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d For Gerecht, the problem is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ali Khamenei and his inner circle really like to kill Americans.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Gerecht concludes if reports that Iran is supplying anti-aircraft missiles to the Taliban are true, then the United States is only digging its own grave \u00e2\u20ac\u0153if we don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t respond militarily to their provocation.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 1st, 2010: The Washington Post: David Broder suggests since Obama can not control the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153tidal force\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the marketplace, one other option for getting the United States out of its economic slump is by setting the stage for war with Iran. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153With strong Republican […]<\/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-8451","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\/8451","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=8451"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8453,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8451\/revisions\/8453"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8451"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}