Posted on 09/04/2006 8:52:25 AM PDT by aculeus
PERSIAN PROVERBS have a particularly poetic quality to them. Among my personal favourites are: “The wise man sits on the hole in his carpet”; “You can’t pick up two melons with one hand”; and “When fortune turns against you, even jelly breaks your teeth.” Profound.
Another local maxim appears to capture the outside world’s response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is akin to an ancient remark: “A gentle hand may lead an elephant by a hair.” For that is clearly the approach that Kofi Annan, on behalf of the United Nations, and Javier Solana, for the European Union, are adopting. Mr Annan was in Tehran this weekend to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the firebrand Iranian President, and ask him politely if he would mind suspending the enrichment of uranium as the UN Security Council has demanded. Señor Solana is due to see Ali Larijana, nominally Iran’s chief negotiator on these issues, this week to explore once again whether formal negotiations can start on a new package of “economic and other incentives” that might allow Iran to do what UN Resolution 1696 has sought under the threat of sanctions.
Not that this measure was especially intimidating. The most that the permanent members of the Security Council were poised to agree on at this stage was a travel ban on senior Iranian leaders and a partial freeze on selected assets held abroad. Unless Mr Ahmadinejad ached to visit Disneyland Paris, he was hardly likely to be troubled by this possibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
“A gentle hand may lead an elephant by a hair.”
Only so long as the Elephant doesn't mind being led. If the Elephant decides he's had enough, look out.
"Every man goes down to his death bearing in his hands only that which he has given away."
"The best mode of instruction is to practice what we preach."
"Use your enemy's hand to catch a snake." (Saddam was caught all right)
"Do not choose for anyone what you do not choose for yourself."
"Don't be afraid of s/he who's loud and noisy, be afraid of s/he who's head is down."
Money talks - The subtext of Don Kofi's visit is "Bribe us, please. In return, the UN will respond with drawn out talks during which you can complete your nukes. If we work it right, we can get you under toothless sanctions and return to the Oil for Food days! Everbody wins!"
The loss of the Oil for Food program really hurt, UN staff can no longer afford fuel for their yachts.
US out of UN, UN out of US!
They are doing exactly as they intend - delaying any meaningful action against Iran until Iran has what it wants, the Bomb.
That is exactly what the left is doing, using the Islamos as proxies to destroy us. They are also using illegal immigrants for the same purpose, to destroy our culture and then our government.
To all interested in Iran, the UN, kofi Annan and the nuclear weapon issue: my team and I made the essay below to evaluate/explain Kofi Annan's trip to the Middle East. If you are only interested in the bottom line; skip to the end. But if you want to sort of get the feel for the Secretary General's week: please read the entire thing.
All the best,
John
Kofi Annan’s Whirlwind Tour Of Obfuscation, Enabling, and Anti-Israeli Pronouncements
By John E. Carey
September 3, 2006
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has been traveling through the Middle East since he first set foot in Lebanon on August 28, 2006. News outlets and the United Nations’ official website have been filled with delightful discussion of the Secretary General’s peace mission, which, we are told, is meant to be even handed for all sides and to fully implement the terms of UN Resolution 1701 under which the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah took effect on the ground on August 14.
The facts might diverge from this “happy public face,” as is often true of Kofi Annan and the UN.
A review of over 500 news stories from various sources (AP, AFP, UPI, plus others including the Arab media) reveals the word “demand” used over 160 times. The predominant use of the word “demand” is in the context: “Annan demands Israel end Blockade of Lebanon.”
We could not find not one use of the word “demand” in the context of Annan making a demand on any nation except Israel.
One has to conclude that Annan made no “demands” of anyone else besides Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, even though the Secretary General also visited Jordan, Syria, Iran, Qatar, and other places.
In Lebanon
Upon arrival at Beirut airport August 28, Annan held his first press conference and explained that he thought it was “important that I come here myself to discuss with the Lebanese authorities the aftermath of the war and the measures being taken to implement UN resolutions, and also, to underscore international solidarity.”
After meeting with Lebanese leaders including Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who serves as Hezbollah’s de facto negotiator, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said the Lebanese government had assured him it would “faithfully” implement the UN ceasefire resolution.
There was no mention of any demands from the Secretary General upon Lebanon.Annan also said he saw an opportunity for long-term peace in the “war-ravaged” Lebanon.
The United Nations Secretary General was heckled and booed by Hezbollah supporters when he toured Beirut’s heavily bombed southern suburbs as part of a regional mission to bolster a UN-brokered ceasefire between Israel and the militant group.
During that outing, Mr. Annan stressed that it was not the role of UN troops to disarm Hezbollah by force: that was an internal Lebanese issue that would have to be tackled through dialogue. Said Mr. Annan, “[UN troops] are not going to go out searching for weapons; this is not their responsibility.”
Lebanon had already stated that it would not disarm Hezbollah.
But Annan fully believed that Lebanon would enforce other provision of Resolution 1701.
“We need to make sure arms don’t come in through the air or sea borders,'’ Annan said. “The Lebanese authorities are taking this issue seriously and taking measures to deal with it.”
Then, referring to Israel even while still in Lebanon, Annan said, “In the meantime the blockade should be lifted.”
On Tuesday, August 29, Kofi Annan visited U.N. peacekeepers in Naqoura, south Lebanon, a day after Italy and Turkey moved to join the international force there. Annan was briefed by French Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini, the UNIFIL commander, and other top officials. Reviews of CNN tapes of this days event reveal that UN peacekeeping forces saluted Annan. The even looked like nothing more than a photo opportunity for the Secretary General.
Upon leaving Lebanon, Annan flew to Ramallah where he met with the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. They discussed the political and economic situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. At a press conference after the meeting, the Secretary General said that he and President Abbas had agreed that an end to the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian State is key to resolving the problems in the troubled region.
In Syria
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had promised to enforce an arms embargo on Hezbollah under a U.N. resolution that halted Israel’s war with the Lebanese Shiite militia.
“The president informed me that Syria supports Security Council Resolution 1701 and will help in its implementation,” Annan told reporters after talks with Assad.
“While stating Syrian objections to the presence of foreign forces along the Syrian-Lebanese border, the president committed to me that Syria will take all necessary measures to implement in full Paragraph 15 of the resolution,” Annan added, referring to a provision that bans illegal arms shipments to Lebanon….meaning that Syria will patrol its own border and enforce the UN resolution. But isn’t the UN resolution needed because Syria was supply arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon?
In Israel
“It is important not only because of the economic effect it is having on the country,” Annan said during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
“But it is important to strengthen the democratic government of Lebanon with which Israel has repeatedly said it had no problems.”
Olmert told Annan he would not lift the blockade until the UN deployed in accordance with its own resolution.
There was also an interesting public reference to the fact that Annan views the UN Resolution as a rigid, binding agreement upon Israel. Referring to Annan’s previous comments that the resolution was a “fixed menu” and not a buffet, Olmert said: “As far as we are concerned we entirely accept that it is a fixed menu and that everything will be implemented including the lifting of the blockade as part of the entire implementation.”
According to several news sources, the bottom line of Mr. Annan’s trip to Israel was this: “U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called Israel’s air and sea blockade of Lebanon a ‘humiliation’ and ‘demanded’ it be lifted.”In our experience, the repeated use of the word “demand” is not accidental and probably is a word encouraged by the UN handlers accompanying Mr. Annan.
In Jordan
Mr. Annan said, “I expect — and I did make this clear to the Israeli authorities — that when the international forces have reached 5,000 and are deployed to the south with the Lebanese (army), it is time for them to withdraw and withdraw completely,” Annan told a news conference after talks with Jordan’s King Abdullah.
Mr. Annan also seemed to imply during a news conference that the total of 5,000 UNIFIL troops was the “magic number” required for Israel to lift the blockade.
In Jordan Mr. Annan also “denounced” Israel for its use of cluster bombs.
In Iran
Before arriving in Iran, and speaking of Iran’s nuclear program and the idea that the UN might impose sanctions upon Iran, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he hoped sanctions could be avoided so as to keep from adding to tensions in “a region already subjected to a great stress.”
Most who have work in the world of diplomacy think in terms of carrots and sticks: that is positive reward or inducements combined with the threat of punishment or negative repercussions.
Based on the Secretary Generals’s own statements, one might conclude that for Iran, Kofi Annan just doesn’t believe in enforcing the UN Resolution.
One would think that a diplomat would keep all his options open before speaking to all the antagonists in a situation like this.
In Iran, Mr. Annan met with primarily with Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
Annan accepted the Iranian negotiator’s word that “both sides agreed that problems should be solved through negotiations.”
The Associated Press added in their report of the meeting that, “Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the Tehran regime supported the U.N.-mandated truce that ended the fighting in Lebanon, although he didn’t directly address the resolution’s call for halting shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, which is allied with Iran.”
The EC chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran to start negotiation is a cruel and illogical condition adding, “Iran is always ready to negotiate, but the condition is not acceptable by any free nation and the UN Security Council cannot deprive Iran of its right, too.”
Mr. Annan also met briefing with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; but the length of the meeting seemed to indicate a less substantive form of greeting.
On the second day of the Secretary General’s stay in Iran, Mr. Annan met briefly with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Annan emerged to waiting newsmen alone. This is not customary and a breach of protocol. The host, President Ahmadinejad, should normally have accompanied the guest, Mr. Annan.
Reprorters would soon know why.
Mr. Annan commented after the meeting with President Ahmadinejad that, “I think the tragedy of the Holocaust is an undeniable historical fact and we should really accept that fact and teach people what happened in World War II and ensure it is never repeated.”
Reporters soon realized that, in a provocative move on the final day of Kofi Annan’s two-day visit, Iran announced it would host a conference to examine what it called “exaggerations about the Holocaust,” during which more than 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis.
This is a direct affront to Mr. Annan from Iran. Annan had specifically asked Ahmadinejad not to conduct such an event, especially now diring deliberations that could include sanctions against Iran.
Conclusion
As Secretary General Kofi Annan’s mission to these many nations in the Middle east draws to an end, one might make the following conclusions about the Secretary General’s trip:
–Hezbollah will not be disarmed.
–Syria, and not independent UN observers, will predominantly monitor the border between Syria and Lebanon.
–The UN is insisting upon (in fact, “demanding”) that Israel lift the blockade of Lebanon.
–The UN condemns the use of Israeli cluster bombs.
–The Secretary General of the UN has no wish to impose sanctions upon Iran; even though Iran is openly violating the UN Resolution on its nuclear program.
–Iran, already provoking everyone else, chose to provoke Kofi Annan while he was a guest within their country.
This was a miserable display of “diplomacy” by any standard.
***
Mr. Carey has been a military analyst for thirty years. He is the former president of International Defense Consultants, Inc. with diplomatic experience.
guess all that matters is that Bush admin. says it ain't gonna let iran get bomb....
The Alliance of Life vs. The Axis of Death
How mankind’s latest challenge is going to turn out we don't know yet, that it is going to be a long war is already clear. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". Which of us thought it would be us living those interesting times. It was only recently that some bozo was declaring the end of history, yea right! And let’s get rid of the patent office as well.
What follows is an idea that I have been posting everywhere. I believe this is the campaign the Allies of Life should chose to fight next, in what many are now calling World War IV.
It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.
Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.
I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.
We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.
The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.
I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. We have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil trapped in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). A technique now exists to turn any organic matter into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks we would be now). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them. By going medieval on Iran, we would serve notice on every Authoritarian regime whose only support is oil, that their days are numbered.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.
The following further expands on the idea.
Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).
"Will the U.S. be willing to take unilateral action of this magnitude? At this stage, I don’t believe that the EU will be supporting it. Nor will China or Russia."
You are right of course; the US will have to do this alone. We are the only ones with the Air Forces necessary to accomplish it. All it will take is the President ordering it done, the bombing will take less than 30 days and cost far less than the $50 billion it is going to cost the Iranians in direct loss of export dollars.
"The U.S. would need to ensure that there are contingency plans, prior to any action, in terms of the impact that such action would have on the price of oil and public opinion in the U.S., etc. Also, how long would it take to devise and implement such contingency plans?"
The US has a strategic petroleum reserve that is full (700 million barrels) and while we are using that we can do a crash program of developing oil shale, alcohol, and domestic drilling off shore and in Alaska where politics has prevented development before. As far as public opinion goes, much of Bush's loss of political support is due to his failure to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost. Americans believe that if you have to go to war you must fight with everything you've got and get it over as soon as possible. Bush has not been doing this, he knows Iran, and Syria are both supporting terrorists and has done nothing. So if Bush just went to war with Iran and Syria his support will most likely rebound back up above 50%.
"I think the U.S. is and will be very capable of destroying major oil fields, pipelines, tankers, etc. as required. But I also think the U.S. will need to have a next step(s) after air strikes. These next steps include, for example, ensuring damage control within Iran, law and order issues within Iran, minimizing potential terrorist attacks that these air strikes will potentially lead to, and ensuring that there will be an interim government to take over from the mullahs immediately after they are toppled and so on… IMO, these must be planned out in detail before any military action. Bearing in mind that what happens in Iran will most definitely have a significant impact on the region and the world."
I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are, just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker.
"Lastly, will the current U.S. Administration be willing to embark on such major initiative as per your proposal before November or even whilst the current administration is in office?"
This I don't know, but I think it is at least possible. Bush has stepped so far away from the Bush Doctrine, by that I mean he still talks the talk, but no longer walks the walk. Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves, if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping. We will see in the days ahead.
Your plan sounds great to me. But who in the government has the intestinal fortitude to implement it? Nobody I can think of.
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.