Phony Diplomacy
This last week U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made news by "reversing" the U.S. position on engaging Iran in talks about their nuclear program. The move was hailed as a conquest of diplomacy by many and Rice was praised for her pragmatism and realism.
Why? What has she actually said, and what has the U.S. done that is any different? From The Guardian on June 1st, 2006 Rice was quoted thus: "We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both benefits if Iran makes the right choices and costs if it does not." Further, she was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying : "Iran now faces a clear choice. This is the last excuse"(L.A. Times, 6/1/06). This does not sound like negotiating to me -- it sounds more like slightly veiled threats. The U.S. knows that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian leadership do not want to give up their nuclear program, (see my previous diary, Iran: What's Really Going On?) and it is easy to understand why. By saying that they will talk or negotiate with Iran about their uranium enrichment if and only if they agree to suspend such uranium enrichment, the U.S. is not negotiating and they are not engaging in diplomacy.
In reality the recent agreement by the U.S. to engage Iran at the bargaining table (presumably offering economic incentives) is nothing more than propaganda and posturing, and Tehran has correctly labelled it as such. In the mean time, while Russia and China have refused to support the leveling of sanctions against Iran, the European community continues to push for a compromise and at least ostensibly have taken the U.S. position that Iran should not possess a nuclear weapon. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will arrive in Tehran tonight to present a package of western incentives which reportedly includes aid to build a light-water reactor for nuclear energy in Iran.
The development of events in the Iran/U.S. saga is in some ways strikingly similar to the prelude to war that we witnessed in Iraq. Threats are made, sanctions are threatened and/or levelled and then finally, war is instigated. It seems clear that the U.S. is making token gestures of diplomacy under coercion from the international community. Behind the words lies the unspoken intention; the U.S. desires to control the Middle East and the oil there and this implies controlling Iran; which is perhaps the lynchpin to the whole region. If regime change is necessary, so be it. And if war is necessary to achieve regime change, so be it.
While some experts are stating the U.S. does not want war, I am not convinced. The U.S. , and particularly the Bush administration, has shown itself to be disingenuous in foreign policy as well as domestic affairs. They have their agenda and will be difficult to deter, but their stated agenda is very often not their actual agenda, and that seems to be the case in regards to Iran. It is becoming increasingly clear that nations such as China (especially), North Korea, South American countries such as Venezuela, and now Iran, refuse to be bullied by the United States. Furthermore, the international community, namely Europe and the EU while backing down to America, obviously see through their tactics. The so-called "diplomacy" they claim to want to engage in with Iran is nothing more than propaganda intended to appease the international community and give the impression at home that they have exhausted all options other than war. In short, it is transparent as phony diplomacy and nothing more than a farce.
Hmm I love the idea behind this website, very unique.
»
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:43 PM
Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
»
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:07 AM