tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post113393635852264653..comments2023-07-04T10:30:14.276-04:00Comments on Intrepid Liberal Journal: The Iran GambitRobert Ellmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03526287813354418269noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1134870796589571612005-12-17T20:53:00.000-05:002005-12-17T20:53:00.000-05:00Ghost -I'll take that bet because this Iranian Pre...Ghost -<BR/><BR/>I'll take that bet because this Iranian President doesn't only have to worry about moderates but the hardliners too. It's not just clerics but tough minded technocrats and experienced old hands who want to preserve the regime's power. They see him as a danger to their authority because among other things he's incompetent as well as a blowhard. Also, domestic politics does matter in Iran. This guy will be dealt with. Meanwhile, Iran's hegemony will have to be addressed and we can't do it militarily. Iran needs to talk for reasons I outlined and Bush will have to as well. The current Iranian President is a blip. This will happen. Three years is a long, long time.<BR/><BR/>If it doesn't happen that I very much fear a confrontation may be imposed on us that thanks to the past three years of Bush policies we'll be too overextended to prosecute effecitively or obtain much needed international support. <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobRobert Ellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03526287813354418269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1134864373206718962005-12-17T19:06:00.000-05:002005-12-17T19:06:00.000-05:00Rob:I wish you were right about the President of I...Rob:<BR/><BR/>I wish you were right about the President of Iran having a short stay in power. However, you totally ignore the most important reason he is in power - he is supported by the radical clergy which in reality runs the country. If the Grand Ayatollah continues to support him, all those more moderate foreign service types you are pinning your hopes on will just continue to lose their jobs as many have already.<BR/><BR/>As for the US invading Iran, it is much more likely that Israel will feel obligated to bomb Iran given the lack of any progress in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and the comments of the Iranian President. You do realize that Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel and that in military parades those missiles often say something like "wipe Israel off the map" in Persian. The only question is what the extent of Israel's capabilities are, and whether anyone in the region will provide any refueling facilities.<BR/><BR/>I'll take the bet and state that Bush will not visit Iran during his term and that the President of Iran will serve out the remainder of his term unless he is killed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1134750511392383222005-12-16T11:28:00.000-05:002005-12-16T11:28:00.000-05:00Ghost -I think you're being a little short sighted...Ghost -<BR/><BR/>I think you're being a little short sighted. You're assuming this bombastic President will be still be in power all remaining years of Bush's term. I do not. In fact, I think every bombastic utterance from his lips only serves to facilitate his eventual political demise and three years is a VERY LONG TIME. <BR/><BR/>Behind the scenes the technocrats of the Iranian bureaucracy are quite disenchanted with this new President's leadership and rhetoric. They see him as an anathema to their international prestige and interests (much the way many Americans view Bush!). They also think he's nuts - all kinds of leaks can be found in foreign policy journals from sources inside the Iranian government. He was elected largely through a combination of apathetic protest and economic discontent. <BR/><BR/>On the American side there is simple reality which is ignored by people on the Left and Right. Friends of mine who are liberals are convinced Bush will invade Iran. I consider this nonsense and have told them so. I don't doubt that the neo-cons would LIKE very much to invade Iran. But even the deluded minds of conservatives and neo-cons are forced to acquiesce to the "reality based community" on this one. Our forces have been too depreciated and mismanaged to mount a military initiative in Iran - even with the construction of military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time Iran does have to be engaged because of their increasing hegemony in the Gulf and the overall projection of their power. As I wrote, Iran is going to need to talk to us and I cited some of the reasons. We're going to need an accommodation with them for stability. <BR/><BR/>I stand by my prediction: Bush will be visiting Iran and talking to some future head of state - especially if Cheney and Rumsfeld are replaced. I hope it goes well and he doesn't give too much. I fear he will be playing a weak hand due to his administration's egregious policies. I don't trust his competence or judgment to do it right. Hopefully it works out for the best.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobRobert Ellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03526287813354418269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1134712639334117062005-12-16T00:57:00.000-05:002005-12-16T00:57:00.000-05:00Rob:Fortunately, I did not think this prediction i...Rob:<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, I did not think this prediction is going to come to pass anytime soon. Recent comments by the President of Iran have made certain of that!<BR/><BR/>If you want to talk about someone who is truly dangerous and deluded, how about him.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>GHOSTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1133991305822744842005-12-07T16:35:00.000-05:002005-12-07T16:35:00.000-05:00VT Poet -I don't disagree with any of your points....VT Poet -<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree with any of your points. Hopefully the scenario will be analagous to this: a man irresponsibly gambles his family's life savings in Las Vegas. An incredibly stupid thing to do. But he gets lucky and wins a forturne. Bush has put us in a position where he needs to draw an inside straight with Iran. The odds are against him doing so. But for all our sakes, I hope he does.<BR/><BR/>Iran I think will be an interesting country to watch over the next few years. We've seen the Chinese come to an understanding with their people that as long as the people accept Communist Party rule, the people will be granted more econmic freedom and opportunity.<BR/><BR/>In Iran's case that is much harder to do because of the religion factor. At the same time the youthful and restive population will be pushing for more. Those internal intensions will play a factor in any diplomatic initiative with Iran. Hopefully it works to our advantage. I have little faith that the Bush Administration can properly finesse it. <BR/><BR/>I hope that years from now it will be said, "only Bush could go to Iran." We'll see.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RobRobert Ellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03526287813354418269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1133966855705471182005-12-07T09:47:00.000-05:002005-12-07T09:47:00.000-05:00//The Bush Administration realizes this and during...//The Bush Administration realizes this and during the past week the<BR/>two governments engaged in the highest level of negotiations since the<BR/>1979 revolution.//<BR/><BR/>This, more than anything, symbolizes Bush and Cheney's abject failure<BR/>in the sphere of foreign policy. And it signifies the abject failure<BR/>of the neocons. Who would have thought the United States government<BR/>would ever find itself in a position of weakness when negotiating with<BR/>Iran.<BR/><BR/>One can only wonder at the course of events that has forced Bush, tail<BR/>tucked between his legs, to go shuffling off to the Iranians. And what<BR/>Bush wants from them is obvious. It's what Bush might be willing to<BR/>give the Iranians that is frightening. This isn't the right way to go<BR/>about it. It never was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com