Posted on 02/26/2007 2:19:08 PM PST by ShelbytheIntern
Edited on 02/26/2007 3:22:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The messages we send as the world's sole superpower matter.
Iran's leaders are testing us. They are testing us in Iraq, where Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) networks continue to fund both Sunni and Shiite insurgents.
They are testing us at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and at the United Nations, where they continue to defy demands by the international community to verifiably suspend their nuclear programs, which constitute a clear violation of Iran's commitments as a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
How we respond to these tests is not an academic question. Understanding the intentions and the modus operandi of this regime are matters of life and death.
Voices are being raised from all sides of the U.S. political spectrum that we should swallow our pride and negotiate with Tehran's leaders if we want to avoid war.
They call it, "a grand bargain." Whether it's proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Baker-Hamilton commission, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., or various Iranian-American quislings, the outlines are virtually identical. The United States should accept Iranian offers to negotiate "all outstanding issues" generated by the regime's bad behavior. In exchange, we should provide "security guarantees" that include a steadfast promise to abandon all efforts to help the people of Iran to achieve their freedom.
The very terms of the bargain should be a tip-off. The one thing the Iranian regime really wants from us is a guarantee that we won't support pro-democracy forces inside Iran.
Proponents of negotiations with Tehran argue that we negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War while never compromising on our principled rejection of Soviet communism and its brutal suppression of freedoms at home and in occupied Eastern Europe.
But the Islamic Republic of Iran is fundamentally unlike the Soviet Union during the cold War for a host of reasons.
First and foremost, they do not have an arsenal of 10,000+ nuclear weapons. Soviet dissidents and refusniks understood that the U.S. would engage in arms control talks with the Soviet leadership as a matter of self-preservation, and that such talks in no way implied our acceptance (with the exception of Jimmy Carter) of Soviet dictatorship.
Soviet dissidents understood the weaknesses of the Soviet state, but they also understood the dangers that a nuclear exchange with the United States presented.
Iranian dissidents, however, view the Islamic Republic as weak. They see the incompetence of its leaders, the fragility of its economy, its isolation on the world stage, and its military vulnerabilities. Why should a superpower bow down before the mullahs, and dignify such a weak adversary with full-fledged negotiations?
Opening negotiations with the United States may be THE key strategic goal today of the government in Tehran. The ruling clerics are confident that they can humiliate any American president who agrees to talk with them. They will drag out such talks endlessly, to demonstrate to the pro-freedom movement that "America can do nothing" and more importantly, that America will do nothing to help them.
Beyond this, we simply don't need to open negotiations with the regime over its nuclear program. Through U.N. Security Council resolutions, we have set out the parameters of what the Iranian regime must do to avert steadily increasing international sanctions. They can accept those conditions, shut down their programs in a verifiable manner, or suffer the consequences. The U.S. should not settle for anything less than full, unconditional compliance from Tehran. There is nothing there to negotiate.
The same goes for Iran's involvement in Iraq, its support for international terrorist groups, its refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and its wretched disregard for the political and human rights of its own citizens. Why should we negotiate down the standards of internationally-acceptable behavior?
On the contrary, we should hold accountable Iran's leadership for their behavior by rolling up their networks in Iraq and striking the IRGC support structures across the border. We should insist that Iran comply with its own signature on the International Covenant of Political and Human rights. We should enforce the huge number of judgments against top regime leaders in courts around the world for their terrorist attacks.
And for starters, we should insist that Iran comply with the U.N. Security Council demands on its nuclear programs by ratcheting up mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. Anything less is just not serious.
Kenneth R. Timmerman is president of the Middle East Data Project, author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and a contributing editor to NewsMax.com.
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/26/152144.shtml?s=bl&promo_code=2E46-1
Your point?
Pathetic. Paying tribute is one way to avoid war.
I say we give them you...
Tell ya what.
Maybe we should send Jimma Carter there to negotiate with them.
After all, that's HIS mess and he should be made to clean it up.
Matter of fact, he could use the same negotiating tactics he did back in 1979.
You know, the one that got our troups killed in a failed rescue attempt.
Only this time, he can be the one they hold.
And we'll let them.
Good old 'Shell' is pushing his luck me thinks.
"Time to Hold Iran Accountable"
nah, won't happen, the UN has to much paper yet
"Not one cent for tribute."
Me thinks that the dems got a good price on white flags from France...
A Zot, in the making.....
Nah.
They're just using France's leftovers from WWII.
I'm sure that had plenty to spare.
I'm just waiting for Shell's comments on the article.
hmmmmmmmmm..........
Nothing yet.
I'm a little puzzled how one negotiates with folks who insist that negotiations will have 0.00% effect in their nuclear ambitions.
. . . and who have demonstrated persistently attitudes and actions to back up that perspective, position.
Welllllllll, if we could turn Jimmuh's EGO
into SOMETHING the Iranians would want . . .
we might have a chance.
Hey Shelb, are you going to wipe the slate clean in a bit and start all over again in a few days?
A coin naturally has another side.
WHAT if WE told the Iranians US was well prepared to stick ICBM sideways?
From perhaps 30-minutes or less distance from minutes anywher?
One way or 'tother, get it over and DID...
That little wind breaker wearing guy is getting worse than Fidelito wearing UT's past retirement.
Yeah, Me thinks I probably should.
Give Jimmuh some time.
I'm sure he will author a book about Iran and how the Jooooos are really to blame for their attitudes.
Then he'll be ripe for a visit to see Almenutjob.
That is if he isn't planning one already.
You mean, your buttons?
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.