 |
February 05, 2006Bush to Iran: Win Your Own FreedomFrom Bush's SOTU: The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. ..."and win your own freedom". I'm guessing some of those advocating a U.S. led regime change in Iran will be let down by this SOTU line, no? Especially as there doesn't appear to be a mighty Iranian Ahmad Chalabi to airdrop into Nasariya or some such, alas...Note also that Bush specifically stated that the world "must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons". Bush is traipsing carefully here, as he realizes that the huge majority of Iranians--including of the reformist variety--wish to have nuclear weapons just as regional actors like the Pakistanis, Indians and Israelis already do. And is it just me, or is there a slight rhetorical shift here? Before, if memory serves, Bush would typically say, more generally, that Iran writ large couldn't be allowed to achieve nuclear capability. In the SOTU, he very purposefully specified the "regime" (or is that a permanent fixture whomever leads the government)? itself couldn't achieve nuclear capability. Reader input on this point would be appreciated, as I haven't researched it in detail. Is there a real shift here, or is Bush just somewhat randomly swapping phraseology so that there is no real discernible pattern on this point? Frankly I'd be surprised if anyone in the Beltway would be excited about a nuclear Iran whether run by Ahmadi-Nejad, Rafsanjani or, even, a Khatami type...but hey, there's bad, and there's really bad.... UPDATE: Via David Sanger, this Administration quote, bolstering my case case there may be a real rhetorical shift at play here: "Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said one senior official who is instrumental in putting together the American strategy. "Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later." By that time, he said, the hope is that a changed or different government is in power in Tehran." Interestingly, perhaps, note John McCain has now staked out more hawkish terrain on this issue than the Bush Administration, at least per the Administrations's relatively recent Iran policy pronouncements. Posted by Gregory at February 5, 2006 02:19 AM | TrackBack (0)Comments
Greg, the SotU language itself has no significance apart from its example of the use of language to avoid making news. The important question is what American policy is actually being pursued toward Iran. The public policy toward Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons is clear enough. The non-public policy, including military options, isn't, which is fine at this point. What isn't fine is that most thoughtful people agree that the Iranian problem isn't just the possibility of an Iranian bomb but the chance that nuclear weapons could be acquired by the current regime, the heirs of the homicidal Khomeini government of the 1980s. What is being done to address that problem. Well, we know that the regime is plagued by corruption, that it is spending billions on arms and enduring international trade sanctions while thousands of victims of the Bam earthquake two years ago are still living in tents, and that another major earthquake in Iran will kill thousands more people now living and working in buildings incapable of standing up to one. We know also that to some of the most enthusiastic Muslim terrorists in the world Shiite Muslims are as deserving of death as any Westerners, yet the Tehran government reserves most of its efforts to posing as an opponent of the West. Could something useful be done with facts like these? It seems to me it could. You wouldn't even need much in the way of covert operations; most of the work could be done with public diplomacy. It isn't as if Iranians are completely unaware of what is happening in their own country, after all. They just aren't used to the idea that it is their government's responsibility to look after threats to their lives and property before gratifying its own vanity. If we have an interest in undermining the clerical regime in Tehran, it seems clear enough where its weak point ought to be. I don't know if the Bush administration is thinking along these lines. I don't know either if they it is doing anything along these lines either. It just doesn't look that way. Posted by: Zathras at February 5, 2006 02:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
I admired the President's SOTU phrasing on this issue. Although I am willing to be corrected (as always), as far as I know almost nobody advocates a U.S.-led regime change in Iran by military action. For example, Amir Taheri, a pro-American Iranian expatriate who strongly supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, has never supported a U.S.-led invasion of Iran. In an interview with al-Iraqiya in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, President Bush stressed that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not the first of many invasions to come. Rather, he stressed that the Saddam Hussein regime had failed to respond to diplomatic entreaties, or to comply with repeated U.N. resolutions, over a period of 12 years. Military action is not a wise approach to the current situation vis-a-vis Iran, for several reasons. A Desert Fox type campaign of bombing suspected nuclear sites would kill many innocent Iranian civilians (but remember, "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died") and thereby enrage ordinary Iranians as well as much of the Muslim world, without necessarily delaying the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program. Muqtada al-Sadr, who is part of the soon-to-be-ruling coalition in Iraq (although he doesn't deserve to be) has announced that his "Mahdi Army" will defend Iran from the U.S. (How patriotic of him.) Also, the U.S. Army is already overstretched, with more than enough work to do in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since military action is highly undesirable, a diplomatic approach is needed, and I think Secretary Rice and the Bush administration are doing a very good job with this. For diplomacy to succeed, it is important to avoid alienating U.S. allies or the Iranian people, and I think the President's careful phrasing in the 2006 SOTU accomplishes this goal. Posted by: Arjun at February 5, 2006 03:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
Actually, Bush has been rhetorically separating the Iranian people and the Iranian regime for some time now. The MSM, every year, is surprised that he is capable of this nuance. Posted by: Bruce Chang at February 7, 2006 06:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
I don't see why they'd be surprised. Before the attack on iraq Bush made a big deal separating the iraqi people versus Saddam. He said he was going to kill (or possibly capture and put on trial and then kill) Saddam. And he was going to free the iraqi people. He hasn't killed Saddam but he did get both of Saddam's legitimate sons killed. And only about 120,000 iraqis other than Saddam have been killed, maybe. The estimates are pretty unreliable, it could easily be twice that number or perhaps as low as half that number.
Yo have nice site, admin! keep up good work man! Posted by: Arnie at March 1, 2006 05:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work. Posted by: Junior at March 1, 2006 11:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hello all! Very nice site and very informativity! Posted by: Hero at March 3, 2006 01:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
À good site, good short contents of the good work. I have loved your site :D Posted by: Sasha at March 4, 2006 09:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
Your site is very very cool !! I love it :) Respect ! Posted by: WebMan at March 5, 2006 06:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hello all! Very nice site and very informativity! Posted by: Kir at March 7, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
It is healthy, I shall come on your site more often, thank. Posted by: Aaron at March 8, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you. Posted by: Dominic at March 17, 2006 01:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you. Posted by: Dominic at March 17, 2006 01:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you. Posted by: Sasha at March 17, 2006 01:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work. Posted by: Arnie at March 17, 2006 01:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !! Posted by: Haree at March 17, 2006 01:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Very good site, greate content !! Posted by: Junior at March 17, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !! Posted by: Dominic at March 17, 2006 01:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you. Posted by: Hero at March 17, 2006 01:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
I love you so much! Great place to visit! Posted by: Nelly at March 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hi You have cool site!aciphexVisit my :) Posted by: Hakee at March 21, 2006 11:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
gambling addiction Probaly you should read this. gambling addiction Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy gambling addiction now Posted by: gambling addiction at March 27, 2006 04:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
new balance shoes Probaly you should read this. new balance shoes Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy new balance shoes now Posted by: new balance shoes at March 28, 2006 07:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
For you mobile phone free ringtones here. Posted by: Kir at March 30, 2006 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bld dgqw as buy hydrocodone online here. Posted by: Junior at April 3, 2006 08:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
crocs shoes Probaly you should read this. crocs shoes Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy crocs shoes now! God bless you. Posted by: crocs shoes at April 5, 2006 01:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
diamond engagement rings Probaly you should read this. diamond engagement rings Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy diamond engagement rings now! God bless you. Posted by: diamond engagement rings at April 5, 2006 10:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
diamond engagement rings Probaly you should read this. diamond engagement rings Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy diamond engagement rings now! God bless you. Posted by: diamond engagement rings at April 5, 2006 10:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
diamond engagement rings Probaly you should read this. diamond engagement rings Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy diamond engagement rings now! God bless you. Posted by: diamond engagement rings at April 5, 2006 10:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
neil diamond Probaly you should read this. neil diamond Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy neil diamond now! God bless you. Posted by: neil diamond at April 5, 2006 01:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
here oxycodone online there. Posted by: Dominic at April 12, 2006 03:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
Hope you come back soon!! Posted by: kristina at April 26, 2006 10:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
prozac and weight loss surviving prozac withdrawal http://www.debiandominicana.org/prozac/prozac_statistics.html best time to take prozac prozac patent owner legal claim http://www.debiandominicana.org/prozac/prozac_for_parrots.html and .... clonazapam prozac withdrawal buy generic prozac online http://www.debiandominicana.org/prozac/prozac_increased_appitite.html side effects prozac no prescription prozac http://www.debiandominicana.org/prozac/discount_prozac.html housewives on prozac prozac nation soundtrack http://www.debiandominicana.org/prozac/get_free_prozac_samples.html .Thanks. Posted by: order prozac at April 28, 2006 07:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
