6 Comments

  1. Iran Coverage Lost Over Iran: How the press let the White House craft the narrative about nukes | July 18, 2008 @ 9:59 am

    […] example, as John Bolton now attempts to revise his statements on Iran, it is worth considering that the neocons sabotaged […]

  2. kenny November 29, 2014 @ 6:51 am

    < a href = “http://monacle.albumgraph.ru/?p=36&lol= jacchia@replenishment.musculature“>.< / a >…

    ñïàñèáî!…

  3. Ricardo December 15, 2014 @ 1:00 am

    < a href = “http://wp.artistpride.ru/?p=9&lol= drummers@torrent.vanishing“>.< / a >…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

  4. Sidney December 20, 2014 @ 6:25 am

    < a href = “http://fr.chitarealty.ru/?p=36&lol= fosters@tommys.formulas“>.< / a >…

    ñïñ!…

  5. alejandro December 20, 2014 @ 10:08 am

    < a href = “http://eu.songnik.ru/?p=6&lol= rodney@blanchard.totally“>.< / a >…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

  6. luis February 10, 2015 @ 4:13 am

    < a href = “http://eu.songfox.ru/?p=39&lol= vessel@terrace.schwarzen“>.< / a >…

    ñïñ!!…

Gary Sick on Iran Policy

Uncategorized Comments (6)

Iran expert Gary Sick responds to an op-ed by John Bolton that appears in the war mongering WSJ. Bolton has been aggressively promoting some combination of regime change, sanctions or attack against Iran for a very long time. Read Jim Lobe’s comments here.

Guest Column: Dr. Gary Sick of Columbia, a preeminent U.S. scholar on Iran, is a must-read analyst given his wide experience engaging with the leadership in Tehran and in U.S. government service (he honed his expertise on the National Security Council). Having spent quite some time on these pages offering analysis on why, despite the rhetoric, the Bush Administration is unlikely to attack Iran, I was delighted to receive in email form the attached analysis, reproduced with Gary’s approval. It’s a great read:

As usual, John Bolton is absolutely right. His policy prescriptions may be reckless to the point of foolishness (”When in doubt, bomb!”), but his understanding of what is happening in Washington policy (as outlined in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday) is unerringly accurate.

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 that originally opposed 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.

Bolton no doubt noticed that Rumsfeld is gone and replaced with Robert Gates, a very different sort of secretary of Defense. He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheer-leading for more war by writing op-eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.

He will have seen the gradual shift of the policy center of gravity from Dick Cheney to Rice and Gates. He will have been listening when the Chairman of the JCS and others have said as clearly as they realistically can that the military option, though never renounced as a theoretical possibility, is the least attractive option available to us and in fact is close to impossible given our over-stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words, Bolton, as someone whose policies (in my view) are certifiably insane, recognizes real pragmatism and moderation in Washington when he sees it. And he does not like what he sees in this lame duck administration.

Over the past two or three years, we have been treated to one sensational threat after another about the likelihood of imminent war with Iran. All of these alarms and predictions have one thing in common: they never happened. Perhaps it is time for us to join Bolton in looking at the real indicators. When Bolton quits writing his jeremiads or when he begins to express satisfaction with the direction of US policy, that is when we should start to get worried.

Irancove @ July 17, 2008

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.