Imagine my happiness when I read Ali Fathollah-Nejad's interview where he analyzed the positions of think tanks with respect to Iran:
The logic here is very simple: By making unrealistic demands, the failure of any negotiations is wilfully anticipated, which then, ... shall open the way for illegal measures such as an economic blockade and a military attack.
It is nice to see an expert confirm my suspicions.
As you all know, I've been saying for a long time now that the current US standoff with Iran is not really about Iran's nuclear program, and that the nuclear issue is merely a pretext for implementing a policy that is ultimately intended to prevent any US-Iran rapprochement, and instead get the US to attack Iran and/or topple the regime there.
And as you know I've noted how foreign policy experts have started to acknowledge that IF the US standoff with Iran was really about the nuclear issue, the US has strangely managed to implement policies that have thus far been singularly ineffective in stopping the program, but I've been frustrated by the fact that these same experts then refuse to take the next step, and really ask themselves WHY has this been the case - instead they've simply attributed this to vague notions of dumb thinking and incompetence etc. in the State Department, thus evading a truth that is in their faces: that despite all the daily speculation and hype about the alleged "threat" of the ever-imminent Iranian nuclear bomb, the conflict was not about the nuclear issue and it never was. Rather, it was about regime change all along - and so no amount Iranian compromises on the nuclear issue will ever suffice, and instead as we have already seen repeatedly, any Iranian compromises will be ignored, ridiculed, dismissed or deliberately torpedoed. After all, the last thing the US wants is for the nuclear issue to be resolved peacefully, leaving the current regime in power in Iran.
But, as the saying goes, none are so blind as those who refuse to see, so I'm sure there will still be other commentators out there who will continue to pointless stoke the nuclear issue, and will falsely try to pin the blame on Iran's supposed "intrasigence" and "failure to compromise" etc.
I should point out that Fathollah-Nejad of course attributes this policy only to "Neoconservatives and liberal hawks," and he goes on to outline the positions of "mainstream élite think-tanks" (who favor realpolitik, based on containing Iran) and "moderate groups" who include seasoned Iran experts and long-time diplomats (who favor engagement and serious dialog).
The problem, of course, is that the two latter groups are nowhere nearly as influential on US foreign policy as the first group, and the first group has thus far managed to push the Obama administration in the same direction they pushed the Bush administration, down the path of eventual and inevitable confrontation even if Iran totally gives up her nuclear program.
Comments