Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: May 2003 Iranian Offer

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member cmetcalf82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Ken,

    Well I agree with you that Iran has been messing with us since 1979 I would argue that their direct involvement in Iraq and likely Afghanistan is quite a bit more aggressive than in the past since US soldiers are dying in the dozens each month based on their support to militias.

    This does not preclude us from talking to them but must be kept in mind as we enter those discussions. Based on the recent details as reported in the major newspapers here in the US I am not sure how directly we are addressing their continued support for those organizations fighting in Iraq. Maybe it will require more than just arresting a couple of "alleged" Al Quods members to truly get the Iranians attention.

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I don't think it's really any more aggressive;

    we are just nearby now and thus are an easier target. Their influence in the area of Afghanistan where we are operating is insignificant. That of course is not the case in Iraq but the various factions who take potshots and pop IEDs at us would do so in the absence of any Iranian help.

    As for a couple of Al Quds folks; there's quite a bit more to it than that.

    We have been playing games with North Korea since 1953; both Kims played us like a fiddle. We've been doing the same thing with Iran since '79 and both Khomeini and Khameini have done almost as good a job as the Kims. Only in the last year have both nations come to realize that we are not playing that way any more. They won't quit, dreams of the Persian Empire and the greatness of Darius and Cyrus still occupy their imagination. They are great hagglers and will keep trying but they're a long way from being a major problem. In the ME, what is public makes little real difference -- it's the behind the scenes stuff that counts.

    The salient thing being that one of the greatest insults one can give an Iranian is to call him and Arab -- the fact that the Arabs know this does not endear the Iraniha to them. The fact that, like the special hatred reserved for the Israelis due to their winning of all the previous wars, a special dislike is reserved for the Persians who in the long ago, tended to do the same thing. Only in the Gulf War did they not prevail, Saddam, badly outnumbered almost whipped 'em -- and that lack of competence hasn't been fixed.

    The Iraqis (Shia AND Sunni) will cooperate with Iran to an extent, and vice versa, my cousin against my friend and such but they aren't going to get in bed together.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default Iran and "Irans"

    The difficult thing in dealing with Iran is the complex, divided, and often opaque nature of the decision-making process, especially on national security issues. During the Khatemi period it wasn't unusual to see the IRGC (Revolutionary Goards) and MOIS (Ministry of Intelligence and Security) running off and doing things that both the President and Ministry of Foreign Affairs people had no idea of. Even now (with a hardliner as President) the MFA and the IRGC/MOIS seem to running entirely different policies in Afghanistan.

    Ahh, the foreign policy challenges caused by an ideological leadership, large national security establishment, bureaucratic politics, and a government system based on a complex system of constitutional checks and balances

    Back in the Khatemi days, and through 2001-04, I think it probably was possible to do a deal with Iran on shared strategic interests. Now I doubt it (although its still worth engaging in dialogue).

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Look at the bright side...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    ...
    Ahh, the foreign policy challenges caused by an ideological leadership, large national security establishment, bureaucratic politics, and a government system based on a complex system of constitutional checks and balances
    . . .
    If MacKay and Hillier have their way, you, too can have a large national security establishment. Then we'll all three have all those things.

  5. #5
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    If MacKay and Hillier have their way, you, too can have a large national security establishment. Then we'll all three have all those things.
    Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about that happening here Ken - after all, remember the real definition of "Official Bilingualism" - illiterate in both official languages. We'll end up spending all of the new money translating meeting notes .
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No fair. That gives you a legitimate reason and

    we can only plead stupidity. Or is it cupidity? I forget. We forget. They forgot?

    Hmm, that may be part of the problem...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •