Gary Sick: John Bolton is Right about Iran

[BurtWorm]

There's lot of evidence that events have overtaken Bushism and are forcing it back into its bottle.

Laura Rozen of War and Piece quotes a colleague's e-mail to the effect that the main culprit is the price of oil, which is suddenly of greater import to Washington than the threat of nukes. Meanwhile, Informed Comment is wondering if "Bush's Engagement with Iran <is> Hurting McCain, Helping Obama?."

Gary Sick's weathervain is neo-nut John Bolton:


http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/4092

Gary Sick: Bolton is Right
...

While much of the world was hyper-ventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing the US was preparing to do a deal with Iran. He had noticed that over the past two years the US had completely reversed its position opposing European talks with Iran.

First, the US indicated that it would participate if the negotiations showed progress. Then, when they didn't, we went further and actively participated in negotiating a new and more attractive offer of incentives to Iran. Bolton noticed that when that package was delivered to Tehran by Xavier Solana, the signature of one Condoleeza Rice was there, along with representatives of the other five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

He had probably also noticed Secretary Rice's suggestion of possibly opening a US interests section in Tehran -- the first step toward reestablishing diplomatic relations. And he didn't overlook the softening of rhetoric in Under Secretary Wm Burn's recent testimony to the Congress about Iran.

Now, just one day after Bolton's cry of alarm that the US is going soft on Iran, we learn that the same Bill Burns will participate directly in the talks that are going to be held on Saturday in Geneva with the chief Iranian negotiator on the nuclear file. Bolton's worst suspicions seem to be confirmed.

Unlike many observers and commentators, Bolton has been looking, not at what the US administration says, but what it does. Ever since the congressional elections of 2006, the US has been in the process of a fundamental change in its policy on a number of key issues: the Arab-Israel dispute, the North Korean nuclear issue, and Iran. Since the administration proclaims loudly that its policies have not changed, and since the tough rhetoric of the past dominates the discussion, it is easy to overlook what is actually going on.


...

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[BurtWorm]

2. kick

[slipslidingaway]

3. kick for later and I hope that the latest moves are more than a

pretense.

[Selatius]

4. Saner heads realize a war with Iran would likely bankrupt the US and cripple its economy.

What would be the point even if military victory is achieved if there is no money left to support a foreign military presence at all? It would be like when the Soviet economy finally collapsed, and Russia was forced to withdraw all its forces back onto Russian soil.

[MinM]

5. Kick for Sick

I didn't know that Gary Sick, chronicler of Iran-Contra :patriot: , was still around...:kick:'n R

[BurtWorm]

6. kick

[gratuitous]

7. I'm perhaps missing the point here

And it surely wouldn't be the first time. Is Sick saying that Bolton is right in noticing that Bush has completely weather-vaned on Iran? That is, despite Dana Peroxide's denials this last week, the Bush administration is indeed negotiating with Iran? File this under the heading of "so what, big deal." And here's why:

If there is some kind of "negotiating" going on, it's most likely a sham. After making two or three completely unreasonable demands that the Iranians will surely reject, Burns can come back and report to his capo that the Iranians refused our most generous offer. Bush will then work up an offer that the Iranians can't refuse involving lots of jets, airplanes and ordinance from above used without notice on civilian populations that can't fight back and can't get away. Yet another crime against humanity will lay the foundation for another edifice of war crimes, with the American people cheering lustily in the background (or at least the people who will be allowed on broadcast and cable shows).

Or is Sick saying that Bolton is right in that the only way to deal with Iran is through our vastly superior arms and armaments? Certainly Bolton's imagination is limited to the fact that our nation, bristling with military hardware, should never be trifled with because we're liable to shoot off the biggest and the baddest arms in our arsenal and we have little compunction about using even nuclear weapons against civilian population centers. That's the kind of foreign policy that Bolton understands best, and the rest of the world can just be damned if it doesn't kowtow to our innate American exceptionalism and superiority.

But, as I said, I'm probably missing something here.

[BurtWorm]

8. He's saying that there is negotiating going on and it's bad news for jerks like Bolton

but good news for the rest of us. There's negotiating going on because the alternative to negotiating is prohibitively expensive. It serves the Bushists' purposes to have us think the negotiating is a sham, because then we can continue to fail to see that the Bushists are ultimately full of shit.