I can’t see any possible benefit resulting from legitimizing that regime by engaging in talks.  All Obama will do is give that maniac fodder for his propaganda.

I can’t see any possible benefit resulting from legitimizing that regime by engaging in talks.  All Obama will do is give that maniac fodder for his propaganda.

First, which maniac? The President, who is not in charge of foreign policy?

But second, you raise a good point.  America is so widely loved in the Middle East that having a meeting with US officials is a sure ticket to being more popular.

And there’s nothing that says “propoganda coup” like the US demanding tougher sanctions when faced with an intractable Iranian regime. Oh, yeah… “we met with the US baby, and we got them to turn the screws even tighter! Fear our leet negotiating skillz!”

This is standard Republican negotiating.  You give them everything they want up front, and then you negotiate over whether you get a patronizing pat on the head or just another kick in the nuts as your reward.  How sad is it that Iran can see through this game, but Congressional Deomcrats cannot?

I can’t see any possible benefit resulting from legitimizing that regime by engaging in talks.

Like all the time we spent legitimizing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, man, what a waste of time that was.

“Honey, of course I’ll take you to a movie, but I want you to assure me you’ll do anal first.”

Like all the time we spent legitimizing the Soviet Union during the Cold War

These people didn’t really approve of talking to the Soviets, either, back in the day (although Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, unlike GWB and John McCain, kept their crazies in line and pursued saner policies)

This is also a dead giveaway that McCain and the rest of the wingnuts don’t really consider Iran a serious threat to the US or even Israel. If they were actually worried, they’d find some kind of spin explaining why negotiations would be a brilliant Nixon-goes-to-China PR coup. You only say “bring it on” when you’re not worried about the outcome.

(Hey, I didn’t say McCain had any idea what he was talking about, just what has to be underpinning his supposed position.)

Iran is not China. Iran is not the Soviet Union.

Ahmadinejad is not a global power we have to deal with. He is a tinpot dictator who is attempting to extort a place for himself at the international table by backing terrorism and trying to get an atomic bomb. 

I would absolutely favor a foreign policy of bombing out all the sites that are associated with Iran’s nuclear program before I would favor disarmament talks with this guy.  His kind of behavior should not be rewarded with legitimacy or concessions. 

All you accomplish by sitting down with him is to expand his power in Iran, to reward and reinforce the kinds of behaviors that precede the negotiation and to encourage other penny-ante warlords to mimic his tactics. 

Obama’s plan for Iran is like a plan to housebreak a puppy by giving him treats when he pisses on the floor.

Ahmadinejad is not a global power we have to deal with. He is a tinpot dictator who is attempting to extort a place for himself at the international table by backing terrorism and trying to get an atomic bomb.

I would absolutely favor a foreign policy of bombing out all the sites that are associated with Iran’s nuclear program before I would favor disarmament talks with this guy.  His kind of behavior should not be rewarded with legitimacy or concessions. 

Well, apart from him being elected, not actually running the country, not supporting terrorism other than Palestinian nationalist movements, no actual evidence that Iran is going for an atomic bomb (although you couldn’t *blame* them), not knowing exactly which sites are “associated” with any Iranian nuclear programme, his position being more legitmate than, say, the US Presidents after the 2000 election, and negotiations not being concessions - you’re dead right.

libdevil @ 02:36 for the win!

Well, apart from him being elected, not actually running the country, not supporting terrorism other than Palestinian nationalist movements, no actual evidence that Iran is going for an atomic bomb (although you couldn’t *blame* them), not knowing exactly which sites are “associated” with any Iranian nuclear programme, his position being more legitmate than, say, the US Presidents after the 2000 election, and negotiations not being concessions - you’re dead right.

First, you just made a John McCain gaffe.  You need to get a Joe Lieberman to help you out.

Iran isn’t supporting “Palestinian nationalist movements.” Hamas, the primary Palestinian group engaged in hostilities until a recent cease-fire is a Sunni group. 

Iran is a Shiite state. Iran supports the Shiite Hezbollah group, which is based in Lebanon and is a paramilitary terrorist organization with political aspirations.  It is neither comprised of nor affiliated with Palestinians, though Hezbollah sometimes co-opts Palestinians’ grievances to justify its various atrocities.

Iran is also sheltering radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and is training Shiite terrorist fighters to attack US soldiers, murder Sunni Iraqis, and attack the Iraqi political and security structure.

Second, presidential negotiations are a concession, and they confer legitimacy. Presidents were not meeting with Iran before it started doing horrible things.  If doing horrible things makes the President of the United States stop by for a chat, that is going to encourage people to do more horrible things, rather than fewer.  You don’t send a top-level diplomatic mission to deal with a guy like this. You send a cruise missile.

Yep, because bombing places we believe to be the locations of weapons-of-mass-destruction-associated programs has been such a roaring success in the past.

Another hint about how well this would work: Iran’s GDP is about 6x that of Iraq. Their GDP per capita is 3x that of Iraq.  So unless we happen to have an extra half million troops to spare, all we’re going to do militarily is piss them the hell off.

Yep, because bombing places we believe to be the locations of weapons-of-mass-destruction-associated programs has been such a roaring success in the past.

Another hint about how well this would work: Iran’s GDP is about 6x that of Iraq. Their GDP per capita is 3x that of Iraq.  So unless we happen to have an extra half million troops to spare, all we’re going to do militarily is piss them the hell off.

 

It works fine.  Iraq had a reactor in the 80’s. Israel flew in and blew it up. Iraq never got the Bomb. Lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iran would probably set back its nuclear aspirations by years or decades.

I think it’s a prudent foreign policy. Blow some shit up, give this guy the finger, and go on about our business.  We don’t need to occupy their country.

Iran is a Shiite state. Iran supports the Shiite Hezbollah group, which is based in Lebanon

True enough - they also support Lebanese nationalists then.

and is a paramilitary terrorist organization with political aspirations.

The Hezbollah fight against Israel.  Israel has invaded the Lebanon, said invasions creating the Hezbollah in response. The Arab and Muslim world considers them a legitimate resistance movement - the US labels them terrorists.

Regarding Hamas - the Wikipedia states “According to the US State Department, the group is funded by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in other Arab states.[16]”.

Iran is also sheltering radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and is training Shiite terrorist fighters to attack US soldiers, murder Sunni Iraqis, and attack the Iraqi political and security structure.

Says who, precisely?

I would point out that by definition training any fighter to attack a soldier is not terrorism.  However, if you, as an American, wish to condemn Iran for plotting to murder Sunni Iraqis and attack the Iraqi political and security structure, please, go ahead.  I look forward to your support in bringing George Bush up on war crimes charges.

But mitchforth, what about the yellowcake?

Ownership of a nuclear reactor is neither necessary nor sufficient for construction of a nuclear weapon.

There’s an excuse for McCain to get this wrong. After all, he’s stupid, and his brain’s gone soft from all its bending. I’m sure it resembles nothing so much as a ball of mozzarella. But, there’s no excuse for anyone else repeating the—so far as I understand it—silly urban myth that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to “wipe Israel off the map.” From John Cole:

But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.