Posted on 11/29/2006 8:11:27 AM PST by nuconvert
Should U.S. Hold Direct Talks With Iran?
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Nov. 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The talk of the town in Washington these days is all about getting "real."
Less than two full weeks after Democrats won control of Congress by opposing the war in Iraq, Iraqi leaders bowed their heads in submission and agreed to hold direct talks with Iran and Syria.
President Jalal Talabani was initially supposed to go to Tehran over Thanksgiving weekend, but a curfew in Baghdad (put in place because of Iranian-backed violence) prevented him from traveling. He finally made the trip on Monday.
Iran has real "influence" with bad actors in Iraq, so Talabani needed to slouch to Tehran, hat in hand.
The Iraq Study Group, led by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, is widely expected to recommend that the United States negotiate directly with Syria and Iran, to convince them to reduce their assistance to the terrorists in Iraq.
What 'Getting Real' Really Entails
Talking to the funders and the strategists and the weapons-suppliers of the terrorists who are trying to kill us is called getting "real." And yet, a lot of very influential people, including two former National Security advisors, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and virtually the entire Council on Foreign Relations, believe that is what we should do.
To these so-called realists, we never should have ventured into Iraq to depose the regime of Saddam Hussein in the first place. As Scowcroft hectored U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a semi-public forum three years ago, "at least with Saddam in power, we've had 50 years of peace."
Besides the arithmetic exaggeration (Saddam only assumed full power in Iraq in 1979), Scowcroft's argument is not unlike what we are hearing today from the Baker-Hamilton commission.
Let's negotiate with Syria and Iran.
After all, these regimes respect power. They know we can do them tremendous harm. So we have leverage that we can and should use to achieve our goals. We don't need to overreach by seeking to overthrow them.
America's goal, in the eyes of the realists, is to get Syria and Iran to moderate their support for the insurgents, so we can prevent a few attacks today and tomorrow. Let's decrease the level of violence, so the U.S. can withdraw troops from Iraq without destabilizing the country.
'Help' Smacks of Aid to Terror
In exchange for their help in achieving a very temporary goal (which is certainly in their power, since they are backing the insurgents), the United States must abandon all support to pro-democracy forces in Syria and Iran and provide security guarantees to both regimes. That's the deal that is currently on the table.
We get political cover for a troop withdrawal, and they tell their terrorist proxies to lay low for a time and half a time (if we're lucky). All we really get is a fig leaf. But smiling as we put it on is called realism.
On the contrary, I believe talking to Tehran and Damascus would not just be a mistake. It would be a mistake of monumental and historic proportions:
It would reward the world's two major state sponsors of terrorism for their success in murdering Americans.
It would demoralize our friends in Iraq who want to see their country win its freedom and achieve stability and prosperity.
It would encourage Iran to pursue its nuclear weapons program, and embolden Iran to continue using terrorism to achieve its goals.
It would terrify our allies in the region, who would understand immediately that the United States will not be there to protect them when Iran asserts its hegemony over the entire region.
The Path Toward Destruction
The realists are leading us into very dangerous territory.
For 27 years, the United States has imposed various forms of punishment on the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in a vain hope that pain would induce them to change their behavior.
Clearly, it hasn't worked, because the pain has been too slight.
So now the Realists are telling us that we should abandon those tools and simply ask politely, and hope for better results.
This is not "realism," but pure folly.
Ultimately, U.S. talks with Iran could set the stage for a disastrous war that would sweep across the entire region.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not been shy about informing us that his goals are to "wipe Israel off the map" and to "destroy America." Each day we allow his power to go unchecked, he gets a little bit closer to acquiring the capabilities to achieve those goals.
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.
Absolutely not and not on any single issue. Right now the negotiation with Iran should be two to three weeks of intensive Air Campaign to destroy their nuclear facilities, military infrastructures, command and control centers, and their leadership.
Yup, we *should* hold direct talks with Iran and Syria.
Just like we held direct talks with Tojo and HItler.
I suggest something like tennis. We'll launch the first volley... Anyone willing to bet against an ace? ;-P
We could let the missles do the talking.
Sure direct talks, Just send in Nevel.
Sure ... right after we bomb their nuke site into oblivion
Our only hope now would be to use the Holy Hand-Grenade of Antioch.
I know it wont work but it a better idea than anyone else has offered.
"On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters. The truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. The Marine sentries at the gate were forbidden from using live ammunition, for fear that a discharge might kill a civilian, so they were powerless to stop him. According to one Marine survivor, the driver was smiling as he sped past him.
The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside."
"The death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. [1] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed.[2]"
"In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 U.S. Marines who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983 and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation."
http://www.answers.com/topic/1983-beirut-barracks-bombing
You tell me if we should talk with the government that kills US Marines, sailors, and soldiers.
We do not negotiate with terrorist regimes. Period.
Iran WANTS a destabilized Iraq. It fits into their plans to create chaos in order to usher in the 13th prophet or some such. How could they EVER be convinced to reduce assistance to terrorists in Iraq?
If this truly is Baker's plan, it is the most ignorantly short-sighted plan imaginable.
I don't know what the Ezekiel option is, but in my opinion, Puting figures very big in the reasons that we should not bother to try to negotiate with Iran.
It's too late, Putin already has finished negotiations with Iran, and the Cold war has been raging without us, just like the Islamic war against the US under Clinton.
Might just get him to shut up and do something productive, for all we know.
Sure. Let's hold direct talks with Iran. Let's send John Bolton over there to explain to them that any continued assistance provided to the insurgency in Iraq will be considered an act of war and will be dealt with accordingly.
I think that the murder of Gemayel in Lebanon complicated the original planned proposal of the Iraq Study Group.
"Okay, mister Middle-East Diplomacy, what would you do in Iraq?"
Annex it
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.