Thursday, September 27, 2007

Comment on Iranian Appearances

Amidst the sticky politics surround Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University and the UN, and the subsequently ridiculous debate over homosexuality in Iran, most media have skipped something else valuable in his speech:

I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.


This disposes of the "madman" theory of foreign dictators that would have us believe the enemy is so unpredictable that we might as well intervene militarily. Saddam Hussein never had the chance to speak to the United Nations before our invasion. The IAEA Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Prize tried to speak on behalf of the Iraqi people. But he was quickly overruled. With this kind of dialogue we see with the Iranian President, despite whether you say it is propagandistic and insincere, makes it seem as though a unilateral invasion into Iran would receive such an overwhelming condemnation toward US foreign policy that I highly doubt even the most hawkish cabinet could go forward with it. I am beginning to feel at ease about its immediacy, despite previous blogs that might have been a bit alarmist. The plans to bomb 2,000 targets in Iran, however, are still very real and the administration is more than willing to find the opportunity.

3 comments:

acumensch said...

Maybe that's the solution. Both presidents should enter into a parliamentary debate round.

Jeff said...

I think we should open extensive dialogue with Iran. We need to avoid armed conflict if possible. However, if Iran does not back down the military solution should be imposed. You cannot threaten to eliminate another nation off the face of the planet and then think we're going to allow you to have nuclear weapons. Iran does not need, and should not have, nuclear weapons. At least both democrates and republicans agree on this. So either way the show down may come. I hope we can find a diplomatic solution first. Barring that, we bomb.

Acumensch said...

Democrats and Republicans... agree.

Secondly, Israel has created an Apartheid situation in Palestine. Why should they have nuclear weapons? Third, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, not even weapons-grade plutonium. Maybe if you stopped watching the Pentagon Channel you'd know that. And so what are you going to bomb, natural resources?