The prospect of war with Iran is frightening. So is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. That’s why I was so encouraged that the United States was among the world powers taking part in diplomatic talks with Iran on April 13 and 14. Diplomacy is the single most effective way to avert those two bad outcomes.
With continued talks scheduled in May, I encourage our members of Congress to support diplomacy with Iran, not pass new legislation that could sabotage it. I hope my representative, David Schweikert, will cosponsor H.R. 4173, which calls for robust, sustained and comprehensive diplomacy with Iran. And I hope my senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, will oppose S.Res. 380, which pressures the administration to abandon diplomacy and push toward war.
Diplomacy is the best way forward. Let’s give it a chance.
Michael Shores
Tempe
Dale Whiting posted at 2:28 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Mike,
Me, too. But today's conservatives, Neoconservatives in my book, are war hawks. Some might point to Barry Goldwater's advocating we use nucs in Vietnam. Barry was only pointing out that when we go to war, if we are not willing to go all out, we ought not start. So I'm with Barry, Mr. Conservative. We either use diplomacy, or we bomb the heck out of our world's oil reserves. Which makes the most sense?
Abstract01 posted at 11:13 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Diplomacy only works if you have something the other country wants, while your country tries to get something that will be to your advantage.
What does Iran want that we have to give?
Wealth? Nope, they have their own sources of petroleum?
Social culture? No, the decadence of the western culture is offensive to the Muslim.
Technology? If they can build their own factories . . .
Food, clothing, equipment, machinery? Well, that's getting close, but most of it has been given to them, rather than sold on the open market. That's it! they want welfare!
I'll let you consider what we want from them.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:59 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Abstract01,
You ask, and rightly so, what does Iran want from us? Have you not been listening?
Perhaps you need to make the acquaintance of an Iranian or two? Sure they have money - at least the potential for money. They are the world's number 3 producer of crude oil. And that is what the US and the rest of the world wants from them. But did you know that some of that crude oil exported gets refined outside Iran and then shipped back in? Their refining capacity is sorely lacking.
And what issue is at the center of all of our current fuss? The development of a nuclear power generating infrastructure! Don't they have a right to such facilities? Iran has a cultural legacy dating back 3,000 years. They are proud of that legacy. Perhaps they want respect? What has the US done to that legacy? We have sought to have our own way with that country. Just ask that Iranian friend of yours who you have yet to develope!
VofReason posted at 12:05 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
How has that "diplomacy" with Iran worked say for the last 40 years? For rosey glasses Dale. You have the opportunity to have Iranian friends here, because they were smart enough to get the heck out of Iran. Iran is run by Militant Muslims who would like to destroy our legitamate ally -Isreal. You know, God's chosen people. Iran is also the ones who like to fund and arm our worst enemies in the middle east. Finally, you may have answered your own question. The 3,000 year cultural legacy has amounted to not being able to refine their own oil. Maybe you should ask why they aren't spending their time working that out, rather then building nuclear weapons (i mean power).
Dale Whiting posted at 6:18 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
VoAnything but Reason,
Glad you asked. Now, if you can, begin by citing to some of our diplomatic efforts over the past 60 years. It was our total lack of diplomacy in the late 40's and early 50's that got us into trouble in Iran and surrounding regions in the first place. We were "hell bent" on containing the Soviet Union. Those nations surrounding it either threw in with us or we threw them in with the Soviets. There was not neutrality, no opportunity to play both sides for their own best interests. So for the last 40 years, our diplomatic efforts in Iran were comparable with our diplomatic efforts in South and Centeral American. We were the "Ugly Americans" and had next to no influence outside of the influence we could exercise financially. Even before the 40's we allowed a people largely strangers to the Middle East to immigrate in mass to Palestine, then recognized them as a nation in 1948. That made us so unpopular with the majority inhabitants in the Middle East that our paultry efforts at diplomacy were doomed to fail.
For the first time in 60 years we have an opportunity to turn over a new leaf, to start treating Iran and the Persian people like fellow human beings. But if we fail to do so, we will remain doomed to failure. Like Rome, we will have failed to establish our empire on grounds that can withstand the test of time.
So before you accuse me of being rosey glassed, you had better study history.
VofReason posted at 3:56 pm on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
Why would you think you can have diplomacy with a country with a leader who threatens devastation on one of our long and closest allies? What don't you get about the Iranian people wanting to overthrough it's own Government? The best thing we could do is to back the Iranian people and let them do it.
wdgnas posted at 6:21 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
vofreason: like when we told the kurds we would back them in their venture against saddam?
Dale Whiting posted at 7:21 am on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
VoR,
I am not surprised that you have asked these two questions. "Why [do I] think [we can practice] diplomacy with a country [whose leader] threatens devastation [of] one of our long and closest allies?" And "What don't [I] get about the Iranian people wanting to over through its own Government?" I answer both in some detail below and ask two questions of you. So you had better answer both or I'll haunt you until you do!
Let's take these on one at a time.
Undoubtedly you refer to Ahmadinejad's statements about denying the Holocaust and advocating the end to Israel as a state separate and apart from Palestine, the country dominated by Brittan from the end of WW2 until 1948 and before that by the Turks.
Did you know that Ahmadinejad was never the "leader" but as President was more like a spokesman for the leader. I take Ahmadinejad's recent loss of power and pending questionable prospects for re-election as a sign that the "Supreme Leader" has decided to dump him. This taken together with statements from the State Department about the opening and initial progress of negotiations seem to indicate that the Supreme Leader wants to talk.
So now I ask you a question. "Don't you keep up on news from the Middle East or are you too busy reading Neocon blogs? Perhaps you should try watching the international and Middle East news on CurrenTV. They host a mix of current news from IBN [Israel] BBC [Brittan] and Iran, Lebanon, Doha, and so forth. Watching these might help you become reasonably well informed. For clearly you are not!
Now on to the second question, "What don't [I] get about the Iranian people wanting to over through [Israel's] Government?" Neither the Iranian people nor their Supreme Leader appears to want to overthrow Israel's government. Sure, they are angry at the West in general and at us in particular over our one sided, even blind support for Israel. They deny the holocaust as a means to point out to us that our standing by while Germany slaughtered millions of Jews does not justify the creation of a state for Jews, a state that was not favored by the Palestinians who occupied that land before 1948. But then, why should Palestinians believe in Western style democracy? Do you get my point? Iran is pointing a finger and wagging it as US!
You make too much out of their generally pervasive support of anti-Israeli groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. First, such groups are angry with Israel. If you were forced to vacate you house and pitch a tent in you neighbor's back yard by some distantly related cousins who hadn't lived in your neighborhood for upward of 2,000 years, wouldn't you be angry, too? [This is my second questions asked of you.] Second, there has been, is not now, and never likely will be anything remotely resembling Arab Unity. Just ask Mohamed. He spent a lifetime trying to unify that region and he failed. Why there are two forms of Islam and each form has individual sects. Arab Unity is as strong as is Christian Unity. The Saudis cautioned us not to invade Iraq in 1993, knowing that Saddam was needed to keep Sunni and Shia Muslim sects under one roof, not to mention keeping those "radical" Kurds from unifying themselves across Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish borders.
If you began to understand something substantial about Middle Eastern history, politics, religion and ethnic groups, all at war with each other even before Mohamed, you would start down a path I stared down in 1976 when I lived in Turkey.
What started me down this path? Just after I left Turkey, five of my fellow US soldiers [we being a part of US Nato forces] were machine gunned to death by Kurdish separatists. The Kurds perceived that Nato was supporting the Turkish Military regime which regime was crushing Kurdish separatist efforts to break free and have a country of their own. Or don't you understand Revolutionary Spirit?
Fortunately for me, my unit commander, a Major, had just finished a three year stint at the Eastern Mediterranean desk in the Pentagon, that after having obtained his PhD in Eastern Mediterranean History. When he left country he went back to that desk in the Pentagon. Distraught at the news of these deaths, I went to DC from just north of Baltimore to ask him to explain what had happened and why. We had had long talks about these subjects in his BOQ room, I being the only one of his subordinates who showed interest in this subject. He explained to me the history of Kurdistan. I was surprised to learn that the guards surrounding our post west of Istanbul were Kurdish. That may have caused separatists to focus on us.
Issues in the Middle East are far more complicated and complex, far more nuanced than the casual American ever will come to understand. And you are included in this group. Want to break out into the open and begin to see the light?
But where you will not spend the time to learn, you will never see the light and you will continue making your ill-informed comments.
P.S. VoR,
I perceive that we share in common our religious faith. Would you like a web cite to The Department of Religious Studies and its seminar on Islam and Mormonism? It was conducted about 9 months after 9-11! And can you explain the press release from SLC condemning the burning of the Koran, the release which classified the Koran as scripture? You have one heck of a lot to learn about your our faith!
sockratties posted at 12:59 pm on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
Discussions of Middle Eastern history are fruitless and silly except in context of assessing the current situation. Who cares who can spout more history or who actually knows someone of Iranian ancestry. That's all posturing and fluff. Western powers and Middle Eastern leaders have been exploiting the entire region since demand for kerosene exceeded domestic supply at the end of the 19th century. Read “British Petroleum and the Red Line Agreement” by Edwin Black for an insight.
Michael is correct in calling for our leaders to expend all efforts of diplomacy before resorting to WWIII. All Middle Eastern countries have as much at stake as Israel. Success of a peaceful settlement includes all of the Middle East. If someone pulls the trigger there is no way to predict who or what will be left standing, if anything.
Oil hungry powers have been using Middle Eastern countries as proxy chess pieces far too long and Middle Eastern leaders, including those in Israel have been jockeying for favorable position and gain with every move. It's time for the U.S. to cut the ties, see what the reality is now and act accordingly. Israel has had more than sixty years to become a good neighbor and they are still using the U.S. as their bodyguard. If they can't stand on their own by now it's doubtful they ever will. As Americans we need to wean ourselves off of our oil addictions, stop pandering to the Israeli lobby and get our troops out of the area.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:25 pm on Sat, Apr 28, 2012.
sockrattes,
O contrar! History is best learned so that past mistakes are not repeated. And since WW2, the US has been engaged repeatedly is mistaken diplomacy, one after another. We decry Nevil Chamberland when John Foster Dullus was worse! And it was a sad day in deed when Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech in Columbia Missouri, a sad day in deed. Not until Reagan did we begin to correct those mistakes. And our total lack of wise diplomacy in the Middle East was a direct spin off of our Cold War mistakes, mistakes we are sill making in Cuba!
However, I heartily agree that a study of history is best used to assess the current situation. And Michael, you and I all are correct that we need to not jump into war like we have done in the past, expending all efforts to settle differences diplomatically first. Clausowitz famously characterized war as an extension of dipolmacy through other means. And it is wisdom you speak when you say cutting ties with Israel is overdue. I'd keep the ties but let them know privately that we are tired of carrying our Holocaust crosses!
VoR,
We all are still waiting to hear back from you. I demand answers to my two questions. I've answered yours!
Looks like Mike, sockratties and I are all lined up against your positions, rosey glasses and all! And apparently Abstract01 has been silenced!
Will someone out there explain to me why they think Iran, a country desiring to develop the use of nuclear energy, is not allowed to enrich uranium? [And don't think I don't know my nucs! I was doing nuclear weapons maintenance in Turkey. And while learning EOD I became well acquainted with Nuclear Weapons Design. It would have been my job to pick up the pieces from any Special Weapons accident, foreign or domestic.]
Especially now when it would appear that the Supreme Leader is bent on putting Ahmadenijad out to pasture, now is the time to use both carrot [willingness to cooperate with a good faith effort in that development] and stick [economic sanctions to be lifted once a verifiable program has been negociated and inspectors but in place]. Isn't this all really about mutuality of respect?
Neither side wins from war. Both sides loose. Can the US afford more such heavy losses? Hell no! The current state of our economy ought to be proof enough of that!
Remember, Iran is #3 in crude oil production. Saudi Arabia is #1 and Russia is #2. We really aren't in the same league with these big guys. They got the marbles. We got a nearly empty plate! That's why we despirately need to focus on the development and production of renewable energy sources. Global warming is an important side benefit. But our nearly empty plate ought to be reason enough, don't you think?
Any of you found a local Iranian out there to speak with? I'll gladly share with you mine! He's been in the US since 1979 and much of what I say was also heard from his lips.
sockratties posted at 9:43 am on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Dale -- AU CONTRAIRE! (You can only be clever if you are clever correctly. Were you home schooled?)
There is little evidence that knowing history keeps us from repeating it. You seem to disagree with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies (which proved to be disastrous) but advocate appeasement regarding Cuba. You also make comparisons of Chamberlain to Dulles who was pretty much the hawkish opposite. There are many historical examples that should have predicted these “one size fits all” policies would fail. The problem is that the policy makers satisfy their own needs and egos then justify with made up logic. Reagan was the right man at the right time but the USSR failed from inside much as did Rome. This should be a lesson for the U.S. but we will not learn from it. Rome didn’t learn from the Pharaohs and the USSR didn’t learn from Rome. There is no reason to expect the egos and psychoses of our leaders to be steered by the winds of history. The second attack on Iraq is a good example of a president trying to save the family legacy.
You will have to line up by yourself as I don’t want to be “against” someone’s position. Next step would be polarization, then them and us, followed by labeling and name calling. Perspective and consideration are much more productive and I might learn something if I don’t deflect the conversation simply because I disagree. Why do you boast about silencing Abstract01? Is your snorting and profiling all about winning or losing and are your “demands” simply a form of aggression?
Your reference to sharing your token Iranian is belittling and bigoted. Reminds me of racial tokenism from the ‘60s. I was hoping we could get past that, but we seldom learn from history.
VofReason posted at 12:40 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Dale, the whole Palistinians have any more right to the land that is Isreal then the Jewish people is mularcy. As you probably know, Jews were in the land now Isreal during Biblical times. Remember the story of Moses. The Palestinians were the Phillistines in the time of the Bible. So they were there too, but I you going to try to rehash who deserves what peice of land over centuries of squabble? Doesn't make sense. Dale, please don't ask me to read 55 lines of you blither. I will read your blither if you can do it with less words.
VofReason posted at 12:42 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
One more question, why do so many Iranians come here and stay? I mean, Iran is such a free and fun loving place to be- no?
Dale Whiting posted at 11:09 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
VoR
So it's a childish "we were here first" argument! Sounds like the Hatfields and McCoys! Just recall, the Phillistines were there first, too. Abraham came from what is now southern Iraq. Though not all Jews left after 70 AD, for most of the last 1200 years most Palestinians were Muslims. The Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians were in the minority, yet well treated by their majority Muslim brothers. [Incidentally, Muslims trace their ancestry to Abraham, too.] Most Jews in today's Israel immigrated from elsewhere in Europe. Ever heard of "adverse possession?" Look it up before you try the "here first" argument again!
Now since you asked, here's my response. The Iranians I know came here and stayed for several reasons, but none you'd want to hear. The first one I met [1956] came here because the Shaw would have killed him if he had stayed behind. The last one I met [ 2012] came here because he did not support Komeni. They stayed because most generally [until 9-11 anyway] the US was tollerant of Muslims. Did you know that Ford Motor Company encouraged Muslims to come to Deerborn? Many neighborhoods in Deerborn are predominantly Muslim. The Iranian I met about 2 years ago was trained by GM as an industrial engineer to meet GM plans to open up automobile production in Iran. He came here about 3 years ago looking or work. His wife and children remain in Iran. And guess what? I met all three while engaged in church activities. Some of us Mormons are not biggoted. And my friends at the Chandler Mosque treasure their Mormon friends at work.
Now tell me about your Iranian friends! What, you don't have any? Why not? Are you too openly biggotted to make any?
k33j88 posted at 6:10 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Dale, you would make friends with the devil if given the opportunity. Hell, you've even admitted to me that you would sit next to bin laden, forgive his sins, roast marshmallows, hold hands, and sing by the campfire. All of your rhetoric is nonsense when you cannot distinguish the difference between good and evil. You empower hate and confusion with your ever-loving, forgiving stance.My Lord punishes those that oppress and conquer with an overpowering ideology. The Mormons I know believe in a fair, but just GOD, not a mamby-pamby push-over.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:08 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
k33j88,
I seek to do what Jesus would have me do. Why don't you? Or isn't your Lord Jesus? My Lord Jesus tells me that I am to forgive not just 7 times, but 7 times 70. And He tells me that he is the judge and dispenser of justice, not me. I am required to love not just my neighbor, but all whom I contact. And like the other Mormons you know, I too believe in a fair God. But we Mormons are commanded to forgive all, not just some, but all, no exceptions whatsoever. The language is as follows.
"Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."
So kj, by your refusal to forgive, you possess the greater sin, greater that the sins of those whom you will not forgive! Both you and I are required to forgive all men. There are no exceptions!
I know what Jesus would have me to. Do you?